Datasets:

dgonier

/

Yusuf-OpenCaselist-finetuning

like 0

This leads to a flawed pedagogical model for debate -- reject the 1AC on face

text retrieval services include some refereed published materials, they also incorporate transcripts and wire releases that are less vigilantly checked for accuracy. Searches on text retrieval services such as Lexis-Nexis Universe® and Congressional Universe® locate words and word strings within n words of each other. Search results are collated and loomed into an extended argument. Often, evidence collected in this manner is linked together to reach a conclusion of nearly infinite impact, such as the ever-present specter of global thermonuclear war Since anyone can post a web page and since transcripts and releases are seldom checked as factual, pseudo-experts abound and are at the core of the most egregious claims in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning Statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts are two telltales tricks of the fear mongers' trade. . . : the use of poignant anecdotes in place of scientific evidence, the christening of isolated incidents as trends, depictions of entire categories of people as innately dangerous. . . . Often the link and internal link story is the machination of the debater making the claim rather than the sources cited in the linkage All these engines use Boolean connectors (and, or, and not) and Boolean connectors are dubious by nature. Boolean logic uses terms only to show relationships - of inclusion or exclusion -among the terms. It shows whether or not one drawer fits into another and ignores the question whether there is anything in the drawers. Keeping an abstract, cybernetic distance from the source of knowledge, we set up tiny funnels. . . . But even if we build our tunnels carefully, we still remain essentially tunnel dwellers. . . . Thinking itself happens only when we suspend the inner musings of the mind long enough to favor a momentary precision, and even then thinking belongs to musing as a subset of our creative mind. . . . The Boolean reader, on the contrary, knows in advance where the exits are, the on-ramps, and the well-marked rest stops. . . . The pathways of thought, not to mention the logic of thoughts, disappear under a Boolean arrangement of freeways researchers select word strings without reading its full context, a nearly universal practice among contest debaters. Using these computerized research services, debaters are easily able to build extended mini-max arguments ending in Armageddon. Policies driven by the consideration of low risk probabilities will, on the whole, lead to low investment strategies to prevent a hazard from being realized or to mitigate the hazard's consequences. By comparison, policies driven by the consideration of high consequences, despite low probabilities, will lead to high levels of public investment mini-max claims are not useful in resolving complex issues For example, in his assessment of low-probability, potentially high-consequence events such as terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, Bashor found simple estimates of potential losses added little to contingency planning. While adding little to policy analysis, extended arguments using mini-max reasoning remain powerful determinants of resource allocation Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics or other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power When probability assessments are eliminated from risk calculi, as is the case in mini-max risk arguments, it is a political act, and all political acts need to be scrutinized with a critical lens

Searches locate word strings results are loomed into an argument to reach a conclusion of infinite impact, such as thermonuclear war fear mongers' use anecdotes of isolated incidents depictions of categories of people as dangerous the internal link story is the machination of the debater rather than the sources The pathways of thought disappear under a Boolean arrangement Using these services debaters build mini arguments ending in Armageddon policies driven by high consequences, despite low probabilities, will lead to high levels of investment mini-max claims are not useful in resolving complex issues such as terrorist use of w m d Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the solution to the problem When probability assessments are eliminated from risk calculi it is a political act

The dead ends checked the authenticity of the extended claims by debunking especially fanciful hypotheses. Text retrieval services may have changed that. While text retrieval services include some refereed published materials, they also incorporate transcripts and wire releases that are less vigilantly checked for accuracy. The World Wide Web allows virtually anyone to set up a site and post anything at that site regardless of its veracity. Sophisticated super search engines, such as Savvy Search® help contest debaters track down particular words and phrases. Searches on text retrieval services such as Lexis-Nexis Universe® and Congressional Universe® locate words and word strings within n words of each other. Search results are collated and loomed into an extended argument. Often, evidence collected in this manner is linked together to reach a conclusion of nearly infinite impact, such as the ever-present specter of global thermonuclear war. Furthermore, too much evidence from online text retrieval services is unqualified or under-qualified. Since anyone can post a web page and since transcripts and releases are seldom checked as factual, pseudo-experts abound and are at the core of the most egregious claims in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning. In nearly every episode of fear mongering . . . people with fancy titles appeared. . . . [F]or some species of scares . . . secondary scholars are standard fixtures. . . . Statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts are two telltales tricks of the fear mongers' trade. . . : the use of poignant anecdotes in place of scientific evidence, the christening of isolated incidents as trends, depictions of entire categories of people as innately dangerous. . . . (Glassner 206, 208) Hence, any warrant by authority of this ilk further complicates probability estimates in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning. Often the link and internal link story is the machination of the debater making the claim rather than the sources cited in the linkage. The links in the chain may be claims with different, if not inconsistent, warrants. As a result, contextual considerations can be mostly moot. Not only the information but also the way it is collated is suspect. All these engines use Boolean connectors (and, or, and not) and Boolean connectors are dubious by nature. Boolean logic uses terms only to show relationships - of inclusion or exclusion -among the terms. It shows whether or not one drawer fits into another and ignores the question whether there is anything in the drawers. . . . The Boolean search shows the characteristic way that we put questions to the world of information. When we pose a question to the Boolean world, we use keywords, buzzwords, and thought bits to scan the vast store of knowledge. Keeping an abstract, cybernetic distance from the source of knowledge, we set up tiny funnels. . . . But even if we build our tunnels carefully, we still remain essentially tunnel dwellers. . . . Thinking itself happens only when we suspend the inner musings of the mind long enough to favor a momentary precision, and even then thinking belongs to musing as a subset of our creative mind. . . . The Boolean reader, on the contrary, knows in advance where the exits are, the on-ramps, and the well-marked rest stops. . . . The pathways of thought, not to mention the logic of thoughts, disappear under a Boolean arrangement of freeways." (Heim 18,22-25) Heim worries that the Boolean search may encourage readers to link together nearly empty drawers of information, stifling imaginative, creative thinking and substituting empty ideas for good reasons. The problems worsen when researchers select word strings without reading its full context, a nearly universal practice among contest debaters. Using these computerized research services, debaters are easily able to build extended mini-max arguments ending in Armageddon. Outsiders to contest debating have remarked simply that too many policy debate arguments end in all-out nuclear war. consequently, they categorize the activity as foolish. How many times have educators had contest debaters in a classroom discussion who strung out an extended mini-max argument to the jeers and guffaws of their classmates? They cannot all be wrong. Frighteningly enough, most of us agree. We should not ignore Charles Richet's adage: "The stupid man is not the one who does not understand something - but the man who understands it well enough yet acts as if he didn't" (Tabori 6). Regrettably, mini-max arguments are not the exclusive domain of contest debating. "Policies driven by the consideration of low risk probabilities will, on the whole, lead to low investment strategies to prevent a hazard from being realized or to mitigate the hazard's consequences. By comparison, policies driven by the consideration of high consequences, despite low probabilities, will lead to high levels of public investment" (Nehnevajsa 521). Regardless of their persuasiveness, Bashor and others have discovered that mini-max claims are not useful in resolving complex issues. For example, in his assessment of low-probability, potentially high-consequence events such as terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, Bashor found simple estimates of potential losses added little to contingency planning. While adding little to policy analysis, extended arguments using mini-max reasoning remain powerful determinants of resource allocation. As such, they need to be debunked. Experts agree. For example, Slovic advocates a better understanding of all risk analysis since it drives much of our public policy. "Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics or other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power" (699). When probability assessments are eliminated from risk calculi, as is the case in mini-max risk arguments, it is a political act, and all political acts need to be scrutinized with a critical lens.

<h4>This leads to a flawed pedagogical model for debate -- reject the 1AC on face </h4><p><strong><mark>Berube</mark> <mark>2k</strong></mark> (David M, Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Director of Debate at the University of South Carolina. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 21: 53-73 http://www.cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/248/232)</p><p>The dead ends checked the authenticity of the extended claims by debunking especially fanciful hypotheses. Text retrieval services may have changed that. While <u>text retrieval services include some refereed published materials, they also incorporate transcripts and wire releases that are less vigilantly checked for accuracy.</u> The World Wide Web allows virtually anyone to set up a site and post anything at that site regardless of its veracity. Sophisticated super search engines, such as Savvy Search® help contest debaters track down particular words and phrases. <u><mark>Searches</mark> on text retrieval services such as Lexis-Nexis Universe® and Congressional Universe® <mark>locate</mark> words and <mark>word strings </mark>within n words of each other. Search <mark>results are</mark> collated and <mark>loomed into an </mark>extended <mark>argument</mark>. Often, evidence collected in this manner is linked together<mark> to reach a conclusion of </mark>nearly <mark>infinite impact, such as</mark> the ever-present specter of global <strong><mark>thermonuclear war</u></strong></mark>. Furthermore, too much evidence from online text retrieval services is unqualified or under-qualified. <u>Since anyone can post a web page and since transcripts and releases are seldom checked as factual, pseudo-experts abound and are at the core of the most egregious claims in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning</u>. In nearly every episode of fear mongering . . . people with fancy titles appeared. . . . [F]or some species of scares . . . secondary scholars are standard fixtures. . . . <u>Statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts are two telltales tricks of the <mark>fear mongers'</mark> trade. . . : the <mark>use</mark> of poignant <mark>anecdotes</mark> in place of scientific evidence, the christening <mark>of</mark> <mark>isolated incidents </mark>as trends, <mark>depictions of</mark> entire <mark>categories of people as </mark>innately <mark>dangerous</mark>. . . . </u>(Glassner 206, 208) Hence, any warrant by authority of this ilk further complicates probability estimates in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning. <u>Often <mark>the </mark>link and <mark>internal link story is the <strong>machination of the debater</strong></mark> making the claim <strong><mark>rather than the sources</strong> </mark>cited in the linkage</u>. The links in the chain may be claims with different, if not inconsistent, warrants. As a result, contextual considerations can be mostly moot. Not only the information but also the way it is collated is suspect. <u>All these engines use Boolean connectors (and, or, and not) and Boolean connectors are dubious by nature. Boolean logic uses terms only to show relationships - of inclusion or exclusion -among the terms. It shows whether or not one drawer fits into another and ignores the question whether there is anything in the drawers.</u> . . . The Boolean search shows the characteristic way that we put questions to the world of information. When we pose a question to the Boolean world, we use keywords, buzzwords, and thought bits to scan the vast store of knowledge. <u>Keeping an abstract, cybernetic distance from the source of knowledge, we set up tiny funnels. . . . But even if we build our tunnels carefully, we still remain essentially tunnel dwellers. . . . Thinking itself happens only when we suspend the inner musings of the mind long enough to favor a momentary precision, and even then thinking belongs to musing as a subset of our creative mind. . . . The Boolean reader, on the contrary, knows in advance where the exits are, the on-ramps, and the well-marked rest stops. . . . <mark>The pathways of thought</mark>, not to mention the logic of thoughts, <mark>disappear under a Boolean arrangement</mark> of freeways</u>." (Heim 18,22-25) Heim worries that the Boolean search may encourage readers to link together nearly empty drawers of information, stifling imaginative, creative thinking and substituting empty ideas for good reasons. The problems worsen when <u>researchers select word strings without reading its full context, a nearly universal practice among contest debaters. <mark>Using these</mark> computerized research <mark>services</mark>, <mark>debaters</mark> are easily able to <mark>build</mark> extended <mark>mini</mark>-max <mark>arguments</mark> <strong><mark>ending in Armageddon</strong></mark>.</u> Outsiders to contest debating have remarked simply that too many policy debate arguments end in all-out nuclear war. consequently, they categorize the activity as foolish. How many times have educators had contest debaters in a classroom discussion who strung out an extended mini-max argument to the jeers and guffaws of their classmates? They cannot all be wrong. Frighteningly enough, most of us agree. We should not ignore Charles Richet's adage: "The stupid man is not the one who does not understand something - but the man who understands it well enough yet acts as if he didn't" (Tabori 6). Regrettably, mini-max arguments are not the exclusive domain of contest debating. "<u>Policies driven by the consideration of low risk probabilities will, on the whole, lead to low investment strategies to prevent a hazard from being realized or to mitigate the hazard's consequences. By comparison, <strong><mark>policies driven by</strong></mark> the consideration of <strong><mark>high consequences</strong>, <strong>despite low probabilities, will lead to high levels of</strong></mark> public <strong><mark>investment</u></strong></mark>" (Nehnevajsa 521). Regardless of their persuasiveness, Bashor and others have discovered that <u><mark>mini-max claims are not useful in resolving complex issues</u></mark>. <u>For example, in his assessment of low-probability, potentially high-consequence events <mark>such as terrorist use of w</mark>eapons of <mark>m</mark>ass <mark>d</mark>estruction, Bashor found simple estimates of potential losses added little to contingency planning. While adding little to policy analysis, extended arguments using mini-max reasoning remain powerful determinants of resource allocation</u>. As such, they need to be debunked. Experts agree. For example, Slovic advocates a better understanding of all risk analysis since it drives much of our public policy. "<u><mark>Whoever controls the</mark> <mark>definition of risk controls the</mark> rational <mark>solution</mark> <mark>to the problem</mark> at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics or other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power</u>" (699). <u><mark>When probability assessments are eliminated from risk calculi</mark>, as is the case in mini-max risk arguments, <mark>it is a political act</mark>, and all political acts need to be scrutinized with a critical lens</u>.</p>

Berube 2k (David M, Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Director of Debate at the University of South Carolina. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 21: 53-73 http://www.cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/248/232)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Berube 2k (David M, Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Director of Debate at the University of South Carolina. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 21: 53-73 http://www.cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/248/232) fulltext: The dead ends checked the authenticity of the extended claims by debunking especially fanciful hypotheses. Text retrieval services may have changed that. While text retrieval services include some refereed published materials, they also incorporate transcripts and wire releases that are less vigilantly checked for accuracy. The World Wide Web allows virtually anyone to set up a site and post anything at that site regardless of its veracity. Sophisticated super search engines, such as Savvy Search® help contest debaters track down particular words and phrases. Searches on text retrieval services such as Lexis-Nexis Universe® and Congressional Universe® locate words and word strings within n words of each other. Search results are collated and loomed into an extended argument. Often, evidence collected in this manner is linked together to reach a conclusion of nearly infinite impact, such as the ever-present specter of global thermonuclear war. Furthermore, too much evidence from online text retrieval services is unqualified or under-qualified. Since anyone can post a web page and since transcripts and releases are seldom checked as factual, pseudo-experts abound and are at the core of the most egregious claims in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning. In nearly every episode of fear mongering . . . people with fancy titles appeared. . . . [F]or some species of scares . . . secondary scholars are standard fixtures. . . . Statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts are two telltales tricks of the fear mongers' trade. . . : the use of poignant anecdotes in place of scientific evidence, the christening of isolated incidents as trends, depictions of entire categories of people as innately dangerous. . . . (Glassner 206, 208) Hence, any warrant by authority of this ilk further complicates probability estimates in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning. Often the link and internal link story is the machination of the debater making the claim rather than the sources cited in the linkage. The links in the chain may be claims with different, if not inconsistent, warrants. As a result, contextual considerations can be mostly moot. Not only the information but also the way it is collated is suspect. All these engines use Boolean connectors (and, or, and not) and Boolean connectors are dubious by nature. Boolean logic uses terms only to show relationships - of inclusion or exclusion -among the terms. It shows whether or not one drawer fits into another and ignores the question whether there is anything in the drawers. . . . The Boolean search shows the characteristic way that we put questions to the world of information. When we pose a question to the Boolean world, we use keywords, buzzwords, and thought bits to scan the vast store of knowledge. Keeping an abstract, cybernetic distance from the source of knowledge, we set up tiny funnels. . . . But even if we build our tunnels carefully, we still remain essentially tunnel dwellers. . . . Thinking itself happens only when we suspend the inner musings of the mind long enough to favor a momentary precision, and even then thinking belongs to musing as a subset of our creative mind. . . . The Boolean reader, on the contrary, knows in advance where the exits are, the on-ramps, and the well-marked rest stops. . . . The pathways of thought, not to mention the logic of thoughts, disappear under a Boolean arrangement of freeways." (Heim 18,22-25) Heim worries that the Boolean search may encourage readers to link together nearly empty drawers of information, stifling imaginative, creative thinking and substituting empty ideas for good reasons. The problems worsen when researchers select word strings without reading its full context, a nearly universal practice among contest debaters. Using these computerized research services, debaters are easily able to build extended mini-max arguments ending in Armageddon. Outsiders to contest debating have remarked simply that too many policy debate arguments end in all-out nuclear war. consequently, they categorize the activity as foolish. How many times have educators had contest debaters in a classroom discussion who strung out an extended mini-max argument to the jeers and guffaws of their classmates? They cannot all be wrong. Frighteningly enough, most of us agree. We should not ignore Charles Richet's adage: "The stupid man is not the one who does not understand something - but the man who understands it well enough yet acts as if he didn't" (Tabori 6). Regrettably, mini-max arguments are not the exclusive domain of contest debating. "Policies driven by the consideration of low risk probabilities will, on the whole, lead to low investment strategies to prevent a hazard from being realized or to mitigate the hazard's consequences. By comparison, policies driven by the consideration of high consequences, despite low probabilities, will lead to high levels of public investment" (Nehnevajsa 521). Regardless of their persuasiveness, Bashor and others have discovered that mini-max claims are not useful in resolving complex issues. For example, in his assessment of low-probability, potentially high-consequence events such as terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, Bashor found simple estimates of potential losses added little to contingency planning. While adding little to policy analysis, extended arguments using mini-max reasoning remain powerful determinants of resource allocation. As such, they need to be debunked. Experts agree. For example, Slovic advocates a better understanding of all risk analysis since it drives much of our public policy. "Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics or other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power" (699). When probability assessments are eliminated from risk calculi, as is the case in mini-max risk arguments, it is a political act, and all political acts need to be scrutinized with a critical lens. [/INST] <h4>This leads to a flawed pedagogical model for debate -- reject the 1AC on face </h4><p><strong><mark>Berube</mark> <mark>2k</strong></mark> (David M, Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Director of Debate at the University of South Carolina. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 21: 53-73 http://www.cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/248/232)</p><p>The dead ends checked the authenticity of the extended claims by debunking especially fanciful hypotheses. Text retrieval services may have changed that. While <u>text retrieval services include some refereed published materials, they also incorporate transcripts and wire releases that are less vigilantly checked for accuracy.</u> The World Wide Web allows virtually anyone to set up a site and post anything at that site regardless of its veracity. Sophisticated super search engines, such as Savvy Search® help contest debaters track down particular words and phrases. <u><mark>Searches</mark> on text retrieval services such as Lexis-Nexis Universe® and Congressional Universe® <mark>locate</mark> words and <mark>word strings </mark>within n words of each other. Search <mark>results are</mark> collated and <mark>loomed into an </mark>extended <mark>argument</mark>. Often, evidence collected in this manner is linked together<mark> to reach a conclusion of </mark>nearly <mark>infinite impact, such as</mark> the ever-present specter of global <strong><mark>thermonuclear war</u></strong></mark>. Furthermore, too much evidence from online text retrieval services is unqualified or under-qualified. <u>Since anyone can post a web page and since transcripts and releases are seldom checked as factual, pseudo-experts abound and are at the core of the most egregious claims in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning</u>. In nearly every episode of fear mongering . . . people with fancy titles appeared. . . . [F]or some species of scares . . . secondary scholars are standard fixtures. . . . <u>Statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts are two telltales tricks of the <mark>fear mongers'</mark> trade. . . : the <mark>use</mark> of poignant <mark>anecdotes</mark> in place of scientific evidence, the christening <mark>of</mark> <mark>isolated incidents </mark>as trends, <mark>depictions of</mark> entire <mark>categories of people as </mark>innately <mark>dangerous</mark>. . . . </u>(Glassner 206, 208) Hence, any warrant by authority of this ilk further complicates probability estimates in extended arguments using mini-max reasoning. <u>Often <mark>the </mark>link and <mark>internal link story is the <strong>machination of the debater</strong></mark> making the claim <strong><mark>rather than the sources</strong> </mark>cited in the linkage</u>. The links in the chain may be claims with different, if not inconsistent, warrants. As a result, contextual considerations can be mostly moot. Not only the information but also the way it is collated is suspect. <u>All these engines use Boolean connectors (and, or, and not) and Boolean connectors are dubious by nature. Boolean logic uses terms only to show relationships - of inclusion or exclusion -among the terms. It shows whether or not one drawer fits into another and ignores the question whether there is anything in the drawers.</u> . . . The Boolean search shows the characteristic way that we put questions to the world of information. When we pose a question to the Boolean world, we use keywords, buzzwords, and thought bits to scan the vast store of knowledge. <u>Keeping an abstract, cybernetic distance from the source of knowledge, we set up tiny funnels. . . . But even if we build our tunnels carefully, we still remain essentially tunnel dwellers. . . . Thinking itself happens only when we suspend the inner musings of the mind long enough to favor a momentary precision, and even then thinking belongs to musing as a subset of our creative mind. . . . The Boolean reader, on the contrary, knows in advance where the exits are, the on-ramps, and the well-marked rest stops. . . . <mark>The pathways of thought</mark>, not to mention the logic of thoughts, <mark>disappear under a Boolean arrangement</mark> of freeways</u>." (Heim 18,22-25) Heim worries that the Boolean search may encourage readers to link together nearly empty drawers of information, stifling imaginative, creative thinking and substituting empty ideas for good reasons. The problems worsen when <u>researchers select word strings without reading its full context, a nearly universal practice among contest debaters. <mark>Using these</mark> computerized research <mark>services</mark>, <mark>debaters</mark> are easily able to <mark>build</mark> extended <mark>mini</mark>-max <mark>arguments</mark> <strong><mark>ending in Armageddon</strong></mark>.</u> Outsiders to contest debating have remarked simply that too many policy debate arguments end in all-out nuclear war. consequently, they categorize the activity as foolish. How many times have educators had contest debaters in a classroom discussion who strung out an extended mini-max argument to the jeers and guffaws of their classmates? They cannot all be wrong. Frighteningly enough, most of us agree. We should not ignore Charles Richet's adage: "The stupid man is not the one who does not understand something - but the man who understands it well enough yet acts as if he didn't" (Tabori 6). Regrettably, mini-max arguments are not the exclusive domain of contest debating. "<u>Policies driven by the consideration of low risk probabilities will, on the whole, lead to low investment strategies to prevent a hazard from being realized or to mitigate the hazard's consequences. By comparison, <strong><mark>policies driven by</strong></mark> the consideration of <strong><mark>high consequences</strong>, <strong>despite low probabilities, will lead to high levels of</strong></mark> public <strong><mark>investment</u></strong></mark>" (Nehnevajsa 521). Regardless of their persuasiveness, Bashor and others have discovered that <u><mark>mini-max claims are not useful in resolving complex issues</u></mark>. <u>For example, in his assessment of low-probability, potentially high-consequence events <mark>such as terrorist use of w</mark>eapons of <mark>m</mark>ass <mark>d</mark>estruction, Bashor found simple estimates of potential losses added little to contingency planning. While adding little to policy analysis, extended arguments using mini-max reasoning remain powerful determinants of resource allocation</u>. As such, they need to be debunked. Experts agree. For example, Slovic advocates a better understanding of all risk analysis since it drives much of our public policy. "<u><mark>Whoever controls the</mark> <mark>definition of risk controls the</mark> rational <mark>solution</mark> <mark>to the problem</mark> at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics or other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power</u>" (699). <u><mark>When probability assessments are eliminated from risk calculi</mark>, as is the case in mini-max risk arguments, <mark>it is a political act</mark>, and all political acts need to be scrutinized with a critical lens</u>.</p> </s>

Afghan instability causes nuclear war

We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails Most forget that throwing Vietnam to the wolves made the world far more dangerous Soviets saw it as a sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America They went on a nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over terrorism came into fashion he world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India triggering a nuclear war between the two countries Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive selling their nuclear weapons Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold War’s the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States Our allies might rethink things as well NATO might well fall apart

We can expect if Afghan fails a nuclear spending spree to kill the world several times over Al-Qaida would be back in the game triggering a nuclear war , Iran and Korea could shift nuclear programs into overdrive The resulting arms race could be far more dangerous the world would snowball into a big, tragic war Russia, China and Venezuela would challenge the U S NATO might fall apart

James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/ We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails and he opts to cut and run. Most forget that throwing South Vietnam to the wolves made the world a far more dangerous place. The Soviets saw it as an unmistakable sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America. They went on a conventional- and nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over. State-sponsorship of terrorism came into fashion. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are the world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game. Regional terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India—potentially triggering a nuclear war between the two countries. Sensing a Washington in retreat, Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive, hoping to save their failing economies by selling their nuclear weapons and technologies to all comers. Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own. The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold War’s two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus as well. That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States. Our allies might rethink things as well. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. NATO might well fall apart. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.

<h4>Afghan instability causes <u>nuclear war</h4><p></u><strong>Carafano 10</strong> </p><p>James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/</p><p><u><mark>We can expect</mark> similar results <mark>if </mark>Obama’s <mark>Afghan </mark>strategy <mark>fails </u></mark>and he opts to cut and run. <u>Most forget that throwing </u>South <u>Vietnam to the wolves made the world </u>a <u>far more dangerous </u>place. The <u>Soviets saw it as a</u>n unmistakable <u>sign that America was in decline. They abetted</u> <u>military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America</u>. <u>They went on <mark>a</mark> </u>conventional- and <u><strong><mark>nuclear</mark>-arms <mark>spending spree</strong></mark>. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax <mark>to <strong>kill the world several times over</u></strong></mark>. State-sponsorship of <u>terrorism came into fashion</u>. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are t<u>he world will get a lot less safe. <mark>Al-Qaida would be back in the game</u></mark>. Regional <u>terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India</u>—potentially <u><strong><mark>triggering a nuclear war</strong> </mark>between the two countries</u>. Sensing a Washington in retreat<mark>, <u>Iran and </mark>North <mark>Korea could shift </mark>their <mark>nuclear programs into overdrive</u></mark>, hoping to save their failing economies by <u>selling their nuclear weapons</u> and technologies to all comers. <u>Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own</u>. <u><mark>The resulting </mark>nuclear <mark>arms race could be far more dangerous</mark> than the Cold War’s</u> two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, <u><mark>the world would</mark> look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances <strong><mark>snowball</mark>ed <mark>into a </mark>very <mark>big, tragic war</u></strong></mark>. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as <u><mark>Russia, China and Venezuela would</mark> rethink their strategic calculus</u> as well. <u>That could produce all kinds of serious regional <mark>challenge</mark>s for <mark>the</mark> <mark>U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u>. <u>Our allies might rethink things as well</u>. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. <u><mark>NATO might</mark> well <mark>fall apart</u></mark>. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.</p>

Carafano 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Carafano 10 fulltext: James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/ We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails and he opts to cut and run. Most forget that throwing South Vietnam to the wolves made the world a far more dangerous place. The Soviets saw it as an unmistakable sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America. They went on a conventional- and nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over. State-sponsorship of terrorism came into fashion. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are the world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game. Regional terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India—potentially triggering a nuclear war between the two countries. Sensing a Washington in retreat, Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive, hoping to save their failing economies by selling their nuclear weapons and technologies to all comers. Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own. The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold War’s two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus as well. That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States. Our allies might rethink things as well. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. NATO might well fall apart. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations. [/INST] <h4>Afghan instability causes <u>nuclear war</h4><p></u><strong>Carafano 10</strong> </p><p>James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/</p><p><u><mark>We can expect</mark> similar results <mark>if </mark>Obama’s <mark>Afghan </mark>strategy <mark>fails </u></mark>and he opts to cut and run. <u>Most forget that throwing </u>South <u>Vietnam to the wolves made the world </u>a <u>far more dangerous </u>place. The <u>Soviets saw it as a</u>n unmistakable <u>sign that America was in decline. They abetted</u> <u>military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America</u>. <u>They went on <mark>a</mark> </u>conventional- and <u><strong><mark>nuclear</mark>-arms <mark>spending spree</strong></mark>. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax <mark>to <strong>kill the world several times over</u></strong></mark>. State-sponsorship of <u>terrorism came into fashion</u>. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are t<u>he world will get a lot less safe. <mark>Al-Qaida would be back in the game</u></mark>. Regional <u>terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India</u>—potentially <u><strong><mark>triggering a nuclear war</strong> </mark>between the two countries</u>. Sensing a Washington in retreat<mark>, <u>Iran and </mark>North <mark>Korea could shift </mark>their <mark>nuclear programs into overdrive</u></mark>, hoping to save their failing economies by <u>selling their nuclear weapons</u> and technologies to all comers. <u>Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own</u>. <u><mark>The resulting </mark>nuclear <mark>arms race could be far more dangerous</mark> than the Cold War’s</u> two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, <u><mark>the world would</mark> look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances <strong><mark>snowball</mark>ed <mark>into a </mark>very <mark>big, tragic war</u></strong></mark>. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as <u><mark>Russia, China and Venezuela would</mark> rethink their strategic calculus</u> as well. <u>That could produce all kinds of serious regional <mark>challenge</mark>s for <mark>the</mark> <mark>U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u>. <u>Our allies might rethink things as well</u>. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. <u><mark>NATO might</mark> well <mark>fall apart</u></mark>. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.</p> </s>

As well, we need ask why the site of suffering so readily lends itself to inviting identification. Why is pain the conduit of identification? This question may seem to beg the obvious, given the violent domination and dishonor constitutive of enslavement, the acclaimed transformative capacities of pain in sentimental culture, the prevalence of public displays of suffering inclusive of the pageantry of the trade, the spectacle of punishment, circulating reports of slavery’s horrors, the runaway success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and the passage through the “bloodstained gate,” which was a convention of the slave narrative, all of which contributed to the idea that the feelings and consciousness of the enslaved were most available at this site. However, what I am trying to suggest is that if the scene of beating readily lends itself to an identification with the enslaved, it does so at the risk of fixing and naturalizing this condition of pained embodiment and, in complete defiance of Rankin’s good intention, increases the difficulty of beholding black suffering since the endeavor to bring pain close exploits the spectacle of the body in pain and oddly confirms the spectral character of suffering and the inability to witness the captive’s pain. If, on one hand, pain extends humanity to the dispossessed and the ability to sustain suffering leads to transcendence, on the other, the spectral and spectacular character of this suffering, or, in other words, the shocking and ghostly presence of pain, effaces and restricts black sentience. As Rankin himself states, in order for this suffering to induce a reaction and stir feelings, it must be brought close. Yet if sentiment or morality are “inextricably tied to human proximity,” to quote Zygmunt Bauman, the problem is that in the very effort to “bring it near” and “inspect it closely” it is dissipated. According to Bauman, “morality conforms to the law of optical perspective. It looms large and thick close to the eye.” So, then, how does suffering elude or escape us in the very effort to bring it near? It does so precisely because it can only be brought near by way of a proxy and by way of Rankin’s indignation and imagination. If the black body is the vehicle of the other’s power, pleasure, and profit, then it is no less true that it is the white or near-white body that makes the captive’s suffering visible and discernible. Indeed, the elusiveness of black suffering can be attributed to a racist optics in which black flesh is itself identified as the source of opacity, the denial of black humanity, and the effacement of sentience integral to the wanton use of the captive body. And as noted earlier, this is further complicated by the repressive underside of an optics of morality that insists upon the other as a mirror of the self and that in order to recognize suffering must substitute the self for the other. While Rankin attempts to ameliorate the insufficiency of feeling before the spectacle of the other’s suffering, this insufficiency is, in fact, displaced rather than remedied by his standing in. Likewise, this attempt exacerbates the distance between the readers and those suffering by literally removing the slave from view as pain is brought close. Moreover, we need to consider whether the identification forged at the site of suffering confirms black humanity at the peril of reinforcing racist assumptions of limited sentience, in that the humanity of the enslaved and the violence of the institution can only be brought into view by extreme examples of incineration and dismemberment or by placing white bodies at risk. What does it mean that the violence of slavery or pained existence of the enslaved, if discernible, is only so in the most heinous and grotesque examples and not in the quotidian routines of slavery? As well, is not the difficulty of empathy related to both the devaluation and the valuation of black life? Empathic identification is complicated further by the fact that it cannot be extricated from the economy of chattel slavery with which it is at odds, for this projection of one’s feeling upon or into the object of property and the phantasmic slipping into captivity, while it is distinct from the pleasures of self-augmentation yielded by the ownership of the captive body and the expectations fostered therein, is nonetheless entangled with this economy and identification facilitated by a kindred possession or occupation of the captive body, albeit on a different register. In other words, what I am trying to isolate are the kinds of expectations and the qualities of affect distinctive to the economy of slavery. The relation between pleasure and the possession of slave property, in both the figurative and literal senses, can be explained in part by the fungibility of the slave-that is, the augmentation of the master subject through his embodiment in external objects and persons. Put differently, the fungibility of the commodity makes the captive body an abstract and empty vessel vulnerable to the projection of others’ feelings, ideas, desires, and values; and, as property, the dispossessed body of the enslaved is the surrogate for the master’s body since it guarantees his disembodied universality and acts as the sign of his power and dominion. Thus, while the beaten and mutilated body presumably establishes the brute materiality of existence, the materiality of suffering regularly eludes (re)cognition by virtue of the body’s being replaced by other signs of value, as well as other bodies. Thus the desire to don, occupy, or possess blackness or the black body as a sentimental resource and/or locus of excess enjoyment is both founded upon and enabled by the material relations of chattel slavery. In light of this, is it too extreme or too obvious to suggest that Rankin’s flight of imagination and the excitements engendered by suffering might also be pleasurable? Certainly this willing abasement confirms Rankin’s moral authority, but what about the pleasure engendered by this embrace of pain-that is the tumultuous passions of the flightly imagination stirred by this fantasy of being beaten? Rankin’s imagined beating is immune neither to the pleasures to be derived from the masochistic fantasy nor to the sadistic pleasure to be derived from the spectacle of sufferance. Here my intention is not to shock or exploit the perverse but to consider critically the complicated nexus of terror and enjoyment by examining the obviated and debased diversions of the capricious master; the pleasure of indignation yielded before the spectacle of sufferance; the instability of the scene of suffering; and the confusion of song and sorrow typical of the coffle, the auction block, performing before the master, and other popular amusements.

<h4>As well, <u><strong>we need ask why the site of suffering so readily lends itself to inviting identification. Why is pain the conduit of identification? This question may seem to beg the obvious, given the violent domination and dishonor constitutive of enslavement, <mark>the acclaimed transformative capacities of</mark> pain in sentimental culture, the prevalence of <mark>public displays of suffering</mark> inclusive of the pageantry of the trade, <mark>the spectacle of punishment, circulating reports of slavery’s horrors</mark>,</u></strong> the runaway success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and the passage through the “bloodstained gate,” which was a convention of the slave narrative<u><strong>, <mark>all of which contributed to the idea that the feelings</mark> and consciousness <mark>of the enslaved were</mark> most <mark>available at this site.</mark> However, what I am trying to suggest is that <mark>if the scene of beating readily lends itself to an identification with the enslaved, it does so at the risk of fixing and naturalizing this condition of pained embodiment an</mark>d, in complete defiance of Rankin’s good intention, <mark>increases the difficulty of beholding black suffering since the endeavor to bring pain close exploits the spectacle of the body in pain and oddly confirms the spectral character of suffering and the inability to witness the captive’s pain</mark>. If, on one hand, pain extends humanity to the dispossessed and the ability to sustain suffering leads to transcendence, on the other, <mark>the spectral and spectacular character of this suffering</u></strong></mark>, or, in other words, the shocking and ghostly presence of pain, <u><strong><mark>effaces and restricts black sentience.</u></strong></mark> As Rankin himself states, <u><strong><mark>in order for this suffering to induce a reaction and stir feelings, it must be brought close</mark>. Yet if sentiment or morality are “inextricably tied to human proximity,”</u></strong> to quote Zygmunt Bauman, <u><strong>the problem is that <mark>in the very effort to “bring it near” and “inspect it closely” it is dissipated</mark>.</u></strong> According to Bauman, “morality conforms to the law of optical perspective. It looms large and thick close to the eye.” So, then, how does <u><strong>suffering elude or escape us</u></strong> in the very effort to bring it near? It does so <u><strong>precisely because it can only be brought near by way of a proxy</u></strong> and by way of Rankin’s indignation and imagination. <u><strong><mark>If the black body is the vehicle of the other’s power</mark>, pleasure, <mark>and profit, then it is</mark> no less true that it is <mark>the white</mark> or near-white body <mark>that makes the captive’s suffering visible</mark> and discernible. Indeed, the elusiveness of black suffering can be attributed to <mark>a racist optics in which black flesh is itself identified as</mark> the source of opacity, <mark>the denial of black humanity, and the effacement of sentience integral to the wanton use of the captive body</mark>.</u></strong> And as noted earlier, <u><strong>this is further complicated by the repressive underside of an optics of morality that insists upon the other as a mirror of the self and that in order to recognize suffering must substitute the self for the other. </u></strong> While Rankin attempts to ameliorate the insufficiency of feeling before the spectacle of the other’s suffering, this insufficiency is, in fact, displaced rather than remedied by his standing in. Likewise, <u><strong><mark>this</mark> attempt <mark>exacerbates the distance between the readers and those suffering by literally removing the slave from view as pain is brought close.</mark> Moreover, we need to consider whether the identification forged at the site of suffering confirms black humanity at the peril of reinforcing racist assumptions of limited sentience, in that the humanity of the enslaved and the violence of the institution can only be brought into view by extreme examples of incineration and dismemberment or by placing white bodies at risk. </u></strong>What does it mean that the violence of slavery or pained existence of the enslaved, if discernible, is only so in the most heinous and grotesque examples and not in the quotidian routines of slavery? As well, is not the difficulty of empathy related to both the devaluation and the valuation of black life? <u><strong><mark>Empathic identification is complicated</mark> further <mark>by the fact that it</u></strong> <u><strong>cannot be extricated from the economy of</mark> chattel <mark>slavery</mark> with which it is at odds, <mark>for this projection of one’s feeling upon</mark> or into <mark>the object of property</mark> and the phantasmic slipping into captivity, while it is distinct from the pleasures of self-augmentation yielded by the ownership of the captive body and the expectations fostered therein, <mark>is</u></strong></mark> nonetheless <u><strong><mark>entangled with this economy and identification facilitated by a kindred</mark> <mark>possession or occupation of the captive body</u></strong></mark>, albeit on a different register. <u><strong>In other words</u></strong>, what I am trying to isolate are the kinds of expectations and the qualities of affect distinctive to the economy of slavery. <u><strong><mark>The relation between pleasure</mark> <mark>and</mark> the <mark>possession</mark> of slave property, in both the figurative and literal senses, <mark>can be</mark> explained in part <mark>by the fungibility of the slave</u></strong></mark>-that is, the augmentation of the master subject through his embodiment in external objects and persons. Put differently, <u><strong><mark>the fungibility of the commodity makes the captive body an abstract and empty vessel vulnerable to the projection of others’ feelings</mark>, ideas, <mark>desires, and values</mark>; and, as property, the dispossessed body of the enslaved is the surrogate for the master’s body since it guarantees his disembodied universality and acts as the sign of his power and dominion.</u></strong> Thus, while the beaten and mutilated body presumably establishes the brute materiality of existence, the materiality of suffering regularly eludes (re)cognition by virtue of the body’s being replaced by other signs of value, as well as other bodies. <u><strong><mark>Thus the desire to don, occupy, or possess blackness or the black body as a sentimental resource and/or locus of excess enjoyment is both founded upon and enabled by the material relations of chattel slavery</u></strong></mark>. In light of this, is it too extreme or too obvious to suggest that Rankin’s flight of imagination and the excitements engendered by suffering might also be pleasurable? Certainly this willing abasement confirms Rankin’s moral authority, but what about the pleasure engendered by this embrace of pain-that is the tumultuous passions of the flightly imagination stirred by this fantasy of being beaten? Rankin’s imagined beating is immune neither to the pleasures to be derived from the masochistic fantasy nor to the sadistic pleasure to be derived from <u><strong>the spectacle of sufferance</u></strong>. Here my intention<u><strong> is</u></strong> not to shock or exploit the perverse but to consider critically <u><strong>the complicated nexus of terror and enjoyment by examining the obviated and debased diversions of the capricious master;</u></strong> the pleasure of indignation yielded before the spectacle of sufferance; the instability of the scene of suffering; <u><strong>and the confusion of</u></strong> song and sorrow typical of the coffle, the auction block, <u><strong>performing before the master,</u></strong> and other popular amusements.</h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>As well, <u><strong>we need ask why the site of suffering so readily lends itself to inviting identification. Why is pain the conduit of identification? This question may seem to beg the obvious, given the violent domination and dishonor constitutive of enslavement, <mark>the acclaimed transformative capacities of</mark> pain in sentimental culture, the prevalence of <mark>public displays of suffering</mark> inclusive of the pageantry of the trade, <mark>the spectacle of punishment, circulating reports of slavery’s horrors</mark>,</u></strong> the runaway success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and the passage through the “bloodstained gate,” which was a convention of the slave narrative<u><strong>, <mark>all of which contributed to the idea that the feelings</mark> and consciousness <mark>of the enslaved were</mark> most <mark>available at this site.</mark> However, what I am trying to suggest is that <mark>if the scene of beating readily lends itself to an identification with the enslaved, it does so at the risk of fixing and naturalizing this condition of pained embodiment an</mark>d, in complete defiance of Rankin’s good intention, <mark>increases the difficulty of beholding black suffering since the endeavor to bring pain close exploits the spectacle of the body in pain and oddly confirms the spectral character of suffering and the inability to witness the captive’s pain</mark>. If, on one hand, pain extends humanity to the dispossessed and the ability to sustain suffering leads to transcendence, on the other, <mark>the spectral and spectacular character of this suffering</u></strong></mark>, or, in other words, the shocking and ghostly presence of pain, <u><strong><mark>effaces and restricts black sentience.</u></strong></mark> As Rankin himself states, <u><strong><mark>in order for this suffering to induce a reaction and stir feelings, it must be brought close</mark>. Yet if sentiment or morality are “inextricably tied to human proximity,”</u></strong> to quote Zygmunt Bauman, <u><strong>the problem is that <mark>in the very effort to “bring it near” and “inspect it closely” it is dissipated</mark>.</u></strong> According to Bauman, “morality conforms to the law of optical perspective. It looms large and thick close to the eye.” So, then, how does <u><strong>suffering elude or escape us</u></strong> in the very effort to bring it near? It does so <u><strong>precisely because it can only be brought near by way of a proxy</u></strong> and by way of Rankin’s indignation and imagination. <u><strong><mark>If the black body is the vehicle of the other’s power</mark>, pleasure, <mark>and profit, then it is</mark> no less true that it is <mark>the white</mark> or near-white body <mark>that makes the captive’s suffering visible</mark> and discernible. Indeed, the elusiveness of black suffering can be attributed to <mark>a racist optics in which black flesh is itself identified as</mark> the source of opacity, <mark>the denial of black humanity, and the effacement of sentience integral to the wanton use of the captive body</mark>.</u></strong> And as noted earlier, <u><strong>this is further complicated by the repressive underside of an optics of morality that insists upon the other as a mirror of the self and that in order to recognize suffering must substitute the self for the other. </u></strong> While Rankin attempts to ameliorate the insufficiency of feeling before the spectacle of the other’s suffering, this insufficiency is, in fact, displaced rather than remedied by his standing in. Likewise, <u><strong><mark>this</mark> attempt <mark>exacerbates the distance between the readers and those suffering by literally removing the slave from view as pain is brought close.</mark> Moreover, we need to consider whether the identification forged at the site of suffering confirms black humanity at the peril of reinforcing racist assumptions of limited sentience, in that the humanity of the enslaved and the violence of the institution can only be brought into view by extreme examples of incineration and dismemberment or by placing white bodies at risk. </u></strong>What does it mean that the violence of slavery or pained existence of the enslaved, if discernible, is only so in the most heinous and grotesque examples and not in the quotidian routines of slavery? As well, is not the difficulty of empathy related to both the devaluation and the valuation of black life? <u><strong><mark>Empathic identification is complicated</mark> further <mark>by the fact that it</u></strong> <u><strong>cannot be extricated from the economy of</mark> chattel <mark>slavery</mark> with which it is at odds, <mark>for this projection of one’s feeling upon</mark> or into <mark>the object of property</mark> and the phantasmic slipping into captivity, while it is distinct from the pleasures of self-augmentation yielded by the ownership of the captive body and the expectations fostered therein, <mark>is</u></strong></mark> nonetheless <u><strong><mark>entangled with this economy and identification facilitated by a kindred</mark> <mark>possession or occupation of the captive body</u></strong></mark>, albeit on a different register. <u><strong>In other words</u></strong>, what I am trying to isolate are the kinds of expectations and the qualities of affect distinctive to the economy of slavery. <u><strong><mark>The relation between pleasure</mark> <mark>and</mark> the <mark>possession</mark> of slave property, in both the figurative and literal senses, <mark>can be</mark> explained in part <mark>by the fungibility of the slave</u></strong></mark>-that is, the augmentation of the master subject through his embodiment in external objects and persons. Put differently, <u><strong><mark>the fungibility of the commodity makes the captive body an abstract and empty vessel vulnerable to the projection of others’ feelings</mark>, ideas, <mark>desires, and values</mark>; and, as property, the dispossessed body of the enslaved is the surrogate for the master’s body since it guarantees his disembodied universality and acts as the sign of his power and dominion.</u></strong> Thus, while the beaten and mutilated body presumably establishes the brute materiality of existence, the materiality of suffering regularly eludes (re)cognition by virtue of the body’s being replaced by other signs of value, as well as other bodies. <u><strong><mark>Thus the desire to don, occupy, or possess blackness or the black body as a sentimental resource and/or locus of excess enjoyment is both founded upon and enabled by the material relations of chattel slavery</u></strong></mark>. In light of this, is it too extreme or too obvious to suggest that Rankin’s flight of imagination and the excitements engendered by suffering might also be pleasurable? Certainly this willing abasement confirms Rankin’s moral authority, but what about the pleasure engendered by this embrace of pain-that is the tumultuous passions of the flightly imagination stirred by this fantasy of being beaten? Rankin’s imagined beating is immune neither to the pleasures to be derived from the masochistic fantasy nor to the sadistic pleasure to be derived from <u><strong>the spectacle of sufferance</u></strong>. Here my intention<u><strong> is</u></strong> not to shock or exploit the perverse but to consider critically <u><strong>the complicated nexus of terror and enjoyment by examining the obviated and debased diversions of the capricious master;</u></strong> the pleasure of indignation yielded before the spectacle of sufferance; the instability of the scene of suffering; <u><strong>and the confusion of</u></strong> song and sorrow typical of the coffle, the auction block, <u><strong>performing before the master,</u></strong> and other popular amusements.</h4> </s>

The 2016 conference success is key to African and Afghan stability

the political context is more complicated today than it was around the 2012 Summit of the Americas. There is widespread consensus that the 'war on drugs' has failed drugs are a health problem and that use and possession should be decriminalized further. Political leadership towards reform is also more hesitant than it was in 2012. Santos of Colombia has taken a back seat in the international debate to some extent Guatemala remains very proactive However, it is a small country that needs partners and has been more reluctant than its neighbours to engage in a review of its domestic policy In the United States, the referendums in Colorado and Washington, and the OAS report, have put pressure on the Obama administration to discuss domestic and international drug policy reforms more openly. Some notable progress has been made Holder confirmed that the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge the marijuana regulation laws in Colorado and Washington. However, concerns remain on the international stage as to how open the United States will be in discussing and promoting reform given the country's historical reluctance to challenge international drugs conventions. Russia is pushing for harsher counter-narcotics policies in the country Russia's uncompromising prohibitionist stance continues to be popular in numerous countries in Asia and Africa that advocate zero-tolerance. European governments have largely stayed away from the recent international debates. Other regions of the world face increased levels of political uncertainty and insecurity related to drug production and trafficking. West Africa struggles to tackle the multiple challenges linked to the growing trade through the region, including corruption, organized crime, financing of extremist organizations, an increase in addiction and an increased burden on law-enforcement agencies and other already struggling public institutions. In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of ISAF from the country and the transition to an Afghan-led security apparatus shows little promise of mitigating opium production and related corruption. current difficulties and the overall complexity of the problem should not be used as an excuse for policy inaction and inertia. The current situation — characterized by persistent levels of violence, insecurity and corruption, changing trade routes causing instability in new regions, the emergence of new drugs and the negative impact of drug policies — is no longer sustainable. Drug control policies around the world have often proved at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive, unless they strayed away from the strict letter of the UN conventions. However, a tipping point has been reached Current policies are no longer sustainable and therefore momentum is growing towards more responsible and comprehensive responses to the global problem of illicit drugs. The UNGASS in 2016 provides an opportunity for governments to review and reform their policies at the national and regional levels. regional and international discussions will crucial to tackle these truly transnational challenges and opt for more adequate responses that focus on reducing the harms caused by drug consumption, trafficking and production, and drug policies themselves.

There is widespread consensus the 'war on drugs' has failed, and possession should be decriminalized leadership towards reform is hesitant referendums put pressure on Obama to discuss international drug policy concerns remain as to how the United States will reform given historical reluctance to challenge international drugs conventions. West Africa struggles to tackle crime extremist organizations and struggling institutions In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of ISAF and Afghan security shows little promise of mitigating production complexity should not be used as an excuse for inaction The current situation characterized by violence insecurity corruption instability is no longer sustainable Drug control policies proved counter-productive, unless they strayed away from UN conventions a tipping point has been reached momentum is growing towards responsible responses to global drugs. UNGAS 2016 provides an opportunity for governments to reform policies

I the last three years, the drug policy debate has evolved more than in the previous three decades. However, there remain a number of obstacles to making recent developments sustainable ahead of UNGASS 2016. Although Latin American leaders mental in pushing the debate forward, the political context is more complicated today than it was around the 2012 Summit of the Americas. There is widespread consensus in the region that the 'war on drugs' has failed, that drugs are primarily a health problem, and that use and possession should be decriminalized further. However, disagreements remain on how to control supply (in particular on the effectiveness of regulation models), what law enforcement should look like in a regulated market, and what public health strategies mean in practice, especially in countries that have had difficulty in controlling parts of their territory and collecting taxes. Political leadership towards reform is also more hesitant than it was in 2012. In Mexico, President Enriqe Pena Nieto has been willing to discuss alternative policies. He has said he would aim to prioritize social and economic issues, and readjust security policy towards reducing violence while ending widespread US access to Mexican intelligence. However, the Mexican government is undertaking other ambitious reforms, including in the energy and education sectors and in economic and fiscal policy. The country's diplomatic efforts with the United States have also prioritized immigration and gun laws drug policy reform. President Santos of Colombia over has taken a back seat in the international debate to some extent, focusing instead on the peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), and on the forth-coming presidential elections. Guatemala, under the leadership of President Molina and Foreign Minister Fernando Carrera, remains very proactive and continues to punch above its weight in the drug debate. However, it is a small country that needs partners and has been more reluctant than its neighbours to engage in a review of its domestic policy. Two elements further complicate the political context in Latin America. The revelation by Edward Snowden of widespread US intelligence activities that included targeting the emails of former president Felipe Calderön and the text messages of Pena Nieto when he "'as running for president may have an impact on Mexico's collaboration with the United States. Although such intelligence practices were arguably always presumed within the country s political elite, their public revelation means that government leaders need to address the issue." In addition, the populations of Latin American countries are still predominantly against more progressive drugs policies. In Uruguay, 63 per cent of the population were opposed to the marijuana bill in July 2013." Around the same time in Mexico, only 32 per cent of the population supported marijuana legalization." The support has been even lower in Colombia and Peru — respectively 13 per cent and 11 per cent in 2010." In the United States, the referendums in Colorado and Washington, and the OAS report, have put pressure on the Obama administration to discuss domestic and international drug policy reforms more openly. Some notable progress has been made domestically. US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the federal government would order prosecutors to sidestep federal mandatory minimum sentencing in certain low-level cases as a way to reduce the prison population. He also confirmed that the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge the marijuana regulation laws in Colorado and Washington. However, concerns remain on the international stage as to how open the United States will be in discussing and promoting reform given the country's historical reluctance to challenge international drugs conventions. Russia, meanwhile has expressed concerns over flows of drugs from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2014. It is pushing for harsher counter-narcotics policies in the country, as the latest UN report indicates a record annual increase of opium production." Russia has also supported a series of counter-narcotics programmes focused on law enforcement and interdiction training in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, and in Central American countries. Russia's uncompromising prohibitionist stance continues to be popular in numerous countries in Asia and Africa that advocate zero-tolerance. Europe certainly has lessons to offer regarding drug policy but European governments have largely stayed away from the recent international debates. In countries such as Portugal, where progressive policies have been implemented, budgetary pressures and the rise of conservative views are endangering progress domestically." In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee's proposal for a Royal Commission to comprehensively reassess current policies. Home Secretary Theresa May has been reluctant to discuss reform, even disregarding recommendations from the Advisory' Council on the Misuse of Drugs and putting in place a ban on khat. An internal review into drug policy concluded that decreases in use in the country demonstrate that policies are working. This argument, however, ignores the international nature of the challenge and the larger responsibility of West European governments in tackling a truly global and complex problem that fuels high levels of organized and violence. In addition, the United Kingdom faces an increase in the use of other drugs, including new psycho-active substances and over-the-counter or prescription medicine. Other regions of the world face increased levels of political uncertainty and insecurity related to drug production and trafficking. West Africa struggles to tackle the multiple challenges linked to the growing trade through the region, including corruption, organized crime, financing of extremist organizations, an increase in addiction and an increased burden on law-enforcement agencies and other already struggling public institutions. In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of ISAF from the country and the transition to an Afghan-led security apparatus shows little promise of mitigating opium production and related corruption. This international political context makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to substantially reform the UN conventions. However, current difficulties and the overall complexity of the problem should not be used as an excuse for policy inaction and inertia. The current situation — characterized by persistent levels of violence, insecurity and corruption, changing trade routes causing instability in new regions, the emergence of new drugs and the negative impact of drug policies — is no longer sustainable. In 2012, President Santos of Colombia said: 'Sometimes we all feel that we have been pedalling on a stationary bicycle. We look to our right and our left and we still see the same landscape. Little progress has been made in the drug policy field since President Richard Nixon first called drug abuse 'America's public enemy number one in the United States" and policies have caused much damage. Drug control policies around the world have often proved at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive, unless they strayed away from the strict letter of the UN conventions. However, a tipping point has been reached. Current policies are no longer sustainable and therefore momentum is growing towards more responsible and comprehensive responses to the global problem of illicit drugs. The UNGASS in 2016 provides an opportunity for governments to review and reform their policies at the national and regional levels. A number of national governments, including Colombia's, have embarked on much-needed review processes of their domestic drug policies, but regional and international discussions will crucial to tackle these truly transnational challenges and opt for more adequate responses that focus on reducing the harms caused by drug consumption, trafficking and production, and drug policies themselves.

<h4>The 2016 conference success is key to African and Afghan stability</h4><p>Benoit <strong>Gomis 14</strong> is a Visiting Scholar at the University Of British Columbia and the Canadian Network for Research in Terrorism, Security and Society, PhD LSE and UChicago, “Illicit Drugs and International Security: Towards UNGASS 2016,” International Security, February, #SPS</p><p>I the last three years, the drug policy debate has evolved more than in the previous three decades. However, there remain a number of obstacles to making recent developments sustainable ahead of UNGASS 2016. Although Latin American leaders mental in pushing the debate forward, <u><strong>the political context is more complicated today than it was around the 2012 Summit of the Americas.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>There is widespread consensus</u></strong></mark> in the region <u><strong>that <mark>the 'war on drugs' has failed</u></strong>,</mark> that <u><strong>drugs are </u></strong>primarily <u><strong>a health problem</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>and </mark>that use and <mark>possession should be decriminalized</mark> further.</u></strong> However, disagreements remain on how to control supply (in particular on the effectiveness of regulation models), what law enforcement should look like in a regulated market, and what public health strategies mean in practice, especially in countries that have had difficulty in controlling parts of their territory and collecting taxes. <u><strong>Political <mark>leadership towards reform is</mark> also more <mark>hesitant</mark> than it was in 2012.</u></strong> In Mexico, President Enriqe Pena Nieto has been willing to discuss alternative policies. He has said he would aim to prioritize social and economic issues, and readjust security policy towards reducing violence while ending widespread US access to Mexican intelligence. However, the Mexican government is undertaking other ambitious reforms, including in the energy and education sectors and in economic and fiscal policy. The country's diplomatic efforts with the United States have also prioritized immigration and gun laws drug policy reform. President <u><strong>Santos of Colombia</u></strong> over <u><strong>has taken a back seat in the international debate to some extent</u></strong>, focusing instead on the peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), and on the forth-coming presidential elections. <u><strong>Guatemala</u></strong>, under the leadership of President Molina and Foreign Minister Fernando Carrera, <u><strong>remains very proactive</u></strong> and continues to punch above its weight in the drug debate. <u><strong>However, it is a small country that needs partners and has been more reluctant than its neighbours to engage in a review of its domestic policy</u></strong>. Two elements further complicate the political context in Latin America. The revelation by Edward Snowden of widespread US intelligence activities that included targeting the emails of former president Felipe Calderön and the text messages of Pena Nieto when he "'as running for president may have an impact on Mexico's collaboration with the United States. Although such intelligence practices were arguably always presumed within the country s political elite, their public revelation means that government leaders need to address the issue." In addition, the populations of Latin American countries are still predominantly against more progressive drugs policies. In Uruguay, 63 per cent of the population were opposed to the marijuana bill in July 2013." Around the same time in Mexico, only 32 per cent of the population supported marijuana legalization." The support has been even lower in Colombia and Peru — respectively 13 per cent and 11 per cent in 2010." <u><strong>In the United States, the <mark>referendums </mark>in Colorado and Washington, and the OAS report, have <mark>put pressure on </mark>the <mark>Obama </mark>administration <mark>to discuss</mark> domestic and <mark>international drug policy </mark>reforms more openly.</u></strong> <u><strong>Some notable progress has been made</u></strong> domestically. US Attorney General Eric <u><strong>Holder</u></strong> has announced that the federal government would order prosecutors to sidestep federal mandatory minimum sentencing in certain low-level cases as a way to reduce the prison population. He also <u><strong>confirmed that the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge the marijuana regulation laws in Colorado and Washington.</u></strong> <u><strong>However, <mark>concerns remain </mark>on the international stage <mark>as to how</mark> open <mark>the United States will</mark> be in discussing and promoting <mark>reform given</mark> the country's <mark>historical reluctance to challenge international drugs conventions.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Russia</u></strong>, meanwhile has expressed concerns over flows of drugs from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2014. It <u><strong>is pushing for harsher counter-narcotics policies in the country</u></strong>, as the latest UN report indicates a record annual increase of opium production." Russia has also supported a series of counter-narcotics programmes focused on law enforcement and interdiction training in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, and in Central American countries. <u><strong>Russia's uncompromising prohibitionist stance continues to be popular in numerous countries in Asia and Africa that advocate zero-tolerance.</u></strong> Europe certainly has lessons to offer regarding drug policy but <u><strong>European governments have largely stayed away from the recent international debates.</u></strong> In countries such as Portugal, where progressive policies have been implemented, budgetary pressures and the rise of conservative views are endangering progress domestically." In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee's proposal for a Royal Commission to comprehensively reassess current policies. Home Secretary Theresa May has been reluctant to discuss reform, even disregarding recommendations from the Advisory' Council on the Misuse of Drugs and putting in place a ban on khat. An internal review into drug policy concluded that decreases in use in the country demonstrate that policies are working. This argument, however, ignores the international nature of the challenge and the larger responsibility of West European governments in tackling a truly global and complex problem that fuels high levels of organized and violence. In addition, the United Kingdom faces an increase in the use of other drugs, including new psycho-active substances and over-the-counter or prescription medicine. <u><strong>Other regions of the world face increased levels of political uncertainty and insecurity related to drug production and trafficking.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>West Africa struggles to tackle</mark> the multiple challenges linked to the growing trade through the region, including corruption, organized <mark>crime</mark>, financing of <mark>extremist organizations</mark>, an increase in addiction <mark>and</mark> an increased burden on law-enforcement agencies and other already <mark>struggling</mark> public <mark>institutions</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of ISAF </mark>from the country <mark>and </mark>the transition to an <mark>Afghan</mark>-led <mark>security </mark>apparatus <mark>shows little promise of mitigating</mark> opium <mark>production </mark>and related corruption.</u></strong> This international political context makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to substantially reform the UN conventions. However, <u><strong>current difficulties and the overall <mark>complexity</mark> of the problem <mark>should not be used as an excuse for</mark> policy <mark>inaction</mark> and inertia.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The current situation</mark> — <mark>characterized by</mark> persistent levels of <mark>violence</mark>, <mark>insecurity</mark> and <mark>corruption</mark>, changing trade routes causing <mark>instability </mark>in new regions, the emergence of new drugs and the negative impact of drug policies — <mark>is no longer sustainable</mark>.</u></strong> In 2012, President Santos of Colombia said: 'Sometimes we all feel that we have been pedalling on a stationary bicycle. We look to our right and our left and we still see the same landscape. Little progress has been made in the drug policy field since President Richard Nixon first called drug abuse 'America's public enemy number one in the United States" and policies have caused much damage. <u><strong><mark>Drug control policies </mark>around the world have often <mark>proved </mark>at best ineffective and at worst <mark>counter-productive, unless they strayed away from</mark> the strict letter of the <mark>UN conventions</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>However, <mark>a tipping point has been reached</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Current policies are no longer sustainable and therefore <mark>momentum is growing towards</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>more</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>responsible </mark>and comprehensive <mark>responses to</mark> the <mark>global</mark> problem of illicit <mark>drugs. </mark>The <mark>UNGAS</mark>S in <mark>2016 provides an opportunity for governments to</mark> review and <mark>reform</mark> their <mark>policies </mark>at the national and regional levels.</u></strong> A number of national governments, including Colombia's, have embarked on much-needed review processes of their domestic drug policies, but <u><strong>regional and international discussions will crucial to tackle these truly transnational challenges and opt for more adequate responses that focus on reducing the harms caused by drug consumption, trafficking and production, and drug policies themselves.</u></strong> </p>

Benoit Gomis 14 is a Visiting Scholar at the University Of British Columbia and the Canadian Network for Research in Terrorism, Security and Society, PhD LSE and UChicago, “Illicit Drugs and International Security: Towards UNGASS 2016,” International Security, February, #SPS

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Benoit Gomis 14 is a Visiting Scholar at the University Of British Columbia and the Canadian Network for Research in Terrorism, Security and Society, PhD LSE and UChicago, “Illicit Drugs and International Security: Towards UNGASS 2016,” International Security, February, #SPS fulltext: I the last three years, the drug policy debate has evolved more than in the previous three decades. However, there remain a number of obstacles to making recent developments sustainable ahead of UNGASS 2016. Although Latin American leaders mental in pushing the debate forward, the political context is more complicated today than it was around the 2012 Summit of the Americas. There is widespread consensus in the region that the 'war on drugs' has failed, that drugs are primarily a health problem, and that use and possession should be decriminalized further. However, disagreements remain on how to control supply (in particular on the effectiveness of regulation models), what law enforcement should look like in a regulated market, and what public health strategies mean in practice, especially in countries that have had difficulty in controlling parts of their territory and collecting taxes. Political leadership towards reform is also more hesitant than it was in 2012. In Mexico, President Enriqe Pena Nieto has been willing to discuss alternative policies. He has said he would aim to prioritize social and economic issues, and readjust security policy towards reducing violence while ending widespread US access to Mexican intelligence. However, the Mexican government is undertaking other ambitious reforms, including in the energy and education sectors and in economic and fiscal policy. The country's diplomatic efforts with the United States have also prioritized immigration and gun laws drug policy reform. President Santos of Colombia over has taken a back seat in the international debate to some extent, focusing instead on the peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), and on the forth-coming presidential elections. Guatemala, under the leadership of President Molina and Foreign Minister Fernando Carrera, remains very proactive and continues to punch above its weight in the drug debate. However, it is a small country that needs partners and has been more reluctant than its neighbours to engage in a review of its domestic policy. Two elements further complicate the political context in Latin America. The revelation by Edward Snowden of widespread US intelligence activities that included targeting the emails of former president Felipe Calderön and the text messages of Pena Nieto when he "'as running for president may have an impact on Mexico's collaboration with the United States. Although such intelligence practices were arguably always presumed within the country s political elite, their public revelation means that government leaders need to address the issue." In addition, the populations of Latin American countries are still predominantly against more progressive drugs policies. In Uruguay, 63 per cent of the population were opposed to the marijuana bill in July 2013." Around the same time in Mexico, only 32 per cent of the population supported marijuana legalization." The support has been even lower in Colombia and Peru — respectively 13 per cent and 11 per cent in 2010." In the United States, the referendums in Colorado and Washington, and the OAS report, have put pressure on the Obama administration to discuss domestic and international drug policy reforms more openly. Some notable progress has been made domestically. US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the federal government would order prosecutors to sidestep federal mandatory minimum sentencing in certain low-level cases as a way to reduce the prison population. He also confirmed that the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge the marijuana regulation laws in Colorado and Washington. However, concerns remain on the international stage as to how open the United States will be in discussing and promoting reform given the country's historical reluctance to challenge international drugs conventions. Russia, meanwhile has expressed concerns over flows of drugs from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2014. It is pushing for harsher counter-narcotics policies in the country, as the latest UN report indicates a record annual increase of opium production." Russia has also supported a series of counter-narcotics programmes focused on law enforcement and interdiction training in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, and in Central American countries. Russia's uncompromising prohibitionist stance continues to be popular in numerous countries in Asia and Africa that advocate zero-tolerance. Europe certainly has lessons to offer regarding drug policy but European governments have largely stayed away from the recent international debates. In countries such as Portugal, where progressive policies have been implemented, budgetary pressures and the rise of conservative views are endangering progress domestically." In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee's proposal for a Royal Commission to comprehensively reassess current policies. Home Secretary Theresa May has been reluctant to discuss reform, even disregarding recommendations from the Advisory' Council on the Misuse of Drugs and putting in place a ban on khat. An internal review into drug policy concluded that decreases in use in the country demonstrate that policies are working. This argument, however, ignores the international nature of the challenge and the larger responsibility of West European governments in tackling a truly global and complex problem that fuels high levels of organized and violence. In addition, the United Kingdom faces an increase in the use of other drugs, including new psycho-active substances and over-the-counter or prescription medicine. Other regions of the world face increased levels of political uncertainty and insecurity related to drug production and trafficking. West Africa struggles to tackle the multiple challenges linked to the growing trade through the region, including corruption, organized crime, financing of extremist organizations, an increase in addiction and an increased burden on law-enforcement agencies and other already struggling public institutions. In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of ISAF from the country and the transition to an Afghan-led security apparatus shows little promise of mitigating opium production and related corruption. This international political context makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to substantially reform the UN conventions. However, current difficulties and the overall complexity of the problem should not be used as an excuse for policy inaction and inertia. The current situation — characterized by persistent levels of violence, insecurity and corruption, changing trade routes causing instability in new regions, the emergence of new drugs and the negative impact of drug policies — is no longer sustainable. In 2012, President Santos of Colombia said: 'Sometimes we all feel that we have been pedalling on a stationary bicycle. We look to our right and our left and we still see the same landscape. Little progress has been made in the drug policy field since President Richard Nixon first called drug abuse 'America's public enemy number one in the United States" and policies have caused much damage. Drug control policies around the world have often proved at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive, unless they strayed away from the strict letter of the UN conventions. However, a tipping point has been reached. Current policies are no longer sustainable and therefore momentum is growing towards more responsible and comprehensive responses to the global problem of illicit drugs. The UNGASS in 2016 provides an opportunity for governments to review and reform their policies at the national and regional levels. A number of national governments, including Colombia's, have embarked on much-needed review processes of their domestic drug policies, but regional and international discussions will crucial to tackle these truly transnational challenges and opt for more adequate responses that focus on reducing the harms caused by drug consumption, trafficking and production, and drug policies themselves. [/INST] <h4>The 2016 conference success is key to African and Afghan stability</h4><p>Benoit <strong>Gomis 14</strong> is a Visiting Scholar at the University Of British Columbia and the Canadian Network for Research in Terrorism, Security and Society, PhD LSE and UChicago, “Illicit Drugs and International Security: Towards UNGASS 2016,” International Security, February, #SPS</p><p>I the last three years, the drug policy debate has evolved more than in the previous three decades. However, there remain a number of obstacles to making recent developments sustainable ahead of UNGASS 2016. Although Latin American leaders mental in pushing the debate forward, <u><strong>the political context is more complicated today than it was around the 2012 Summit of the Americas.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>There is widespread consensus</u></strong></mark> in the region <u><strong>that <mark>the 'war on drugs' has failed</u></strong>,</mark> that <u><strong>drugs are </u></strong>primarily <u><strong>a health problem</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>and </mark>that use and <mark>possession should be decriminalized</mark> further.</u></strong> However, disagreements remain on how to control supply (in particular on the effectiveness of regulation models), what law enforcement should look like in a regulated market, and what public health strategies mean in practice, especially in countries that have had difficulty in controlling parts of their territory and collecting taxes. <u><strong>Political <mark>leadership towards reform is</mark> also more <mark>hesitant</mark> than it was in 2012.</u></strong> In Mexico, President Enriqe Pena Nieto has been willing to discuss alternative policies. He has said he would aim to prioritize social and economic issues, and readjust security policy towards reducing violence while ending widespread US access to Mexican intelligence. However, the Mexican government is undertaking other ambitious reforms, including in the energy and education sectors and in economic and fiscal policy. The country's diplomatic efforts with the United States have also prioritized immigration and gun laws drug policy reform. President <u><strong>Santos of Colombia</u></strong> over <u><strong>has taken a back seat in the international debate to some extent</u></strong>, focusing instead on the peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), and on the forth-coming presidential elections. <u><strong>Guatemala</u></strong>, under the leadership of President Molina and Foreign Minister Fernando Carrera, <u><strong>remains very proactive</u></strong> and continues to punch above its weight in the drug debate. <u><strong>However, it is a small country that needs partners and has been more reluctant than its neighbours to engage in a review of its domestic policy</u></strong>. Two elements further complicate the political context in Latin America. The revelation by Edward Snowden of widespread US intelligence activities that included targeting the emails of former president Felipe Calderön and the text messages of Pena Nieto when he "'as running for president may have an impact on Mexico's collaboration with the United States. Although such intelligence practices were arguably always presumed within the country s political elite, their public revelation means that government leaders need to address the issue." In addition, the populations of Latin American countries are still predominantly against more progressive drugs policies. In Uruguay, 63 per cent of the population were opposed to the marijuana bill in July 2013." Around the same time in Mexico, only 32 per cent of the population supported marijuana legalization." The support has been even lower in Colombia and Peru — respectively 13 per cent and 11 per cent in 2010." <u><strong>In the United States, the <mark>referendums </mark>in Colorado and Washington, and the OAS report, have <mark>put pressure on </mark>the <mark>Obama </mark>administration <mark>to discuss</mark> domestic and <mark>international drug policy </mark>reforms more openly.</u></strong> <u><strong>Some notable progress has been made</u></strong> domestically. US Attorney General Eric <u><strong>Holder</u></strong> has announced that the federal government would order prosecutors to sidestep federal mandatory minimum sentencing in certain low-level cases as a way to reduce the prison population. He also <u><strong>confirmed that the Department of Justice would not seek to challenge the marijuana regulation laws in Colorado and Washington.</u></strong> <u><strong>However, <mark>concerns remain </mark>on the international stage <mark>as to how</mark> open <mark>the United States will</mark> be in discussing and promoting <mark>reform given</mark> the country's <mark>historical reluctance to challenge international drugs conventions.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Russia</u></strong>, meanwhile has expressed concerns over flows of drugs from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2014. It <u><strong>is pushing for harsher counter-narcotics policies in the country</u></strong>, as the latest UN report indicates a record annual increase of opium production." Russia has also supported a series of counter-narcotics programmes focused on law enforcement and interdiction training in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, and in Central American countries. <u><strong>Russia's uncompromising prohibitionist stance continues to be popular in numerous countries in Asia and Africa that advocate zero-tolerance.</u></strong> Europe certainly has lessons to offer regarding drug policy but <u><strong>European governments have largely stayed away from the recent international debates.</u></strong> In countries such as Portugal, where progressive policies have been implemented, budgetary pressures and the rise of conservative views are endangering progress domestically." In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee's proposal for a Royal Commission to comprehensively reassess current policies. Home Secretary Theresa May has been reluctant to discuss reform, even disregarding recommendations from the Advisory' Council on the Misuse of Drugs and putting in place a ban on khat. An internal review into drug policy concluded that decreases in use in the country demonstrate that policies are working. This argument, however, ignores the international nature of the challenge and the larger responsibility of West European governments in tackling a truly global and complex problem that fuels high levels of organized and violence. In addition, the United Kingdom faces an increase in the use of other drugs, including new psycho-active substances and over-the-counter or prescription medicine. <u><strong>Other regions of the world face increased levels of political uncertainty and insecurity related to drug production and trafficking.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>West Africa struggles to tackle</mark> the multiple challenges linked to the growing trade through the region, including corruption, organized <mark>crime</mark>, financing of <mark>extremist organizations</mark>, an increase in addiction <mark>and</mark> an increased burden on law-enforcement agencies and other already <mark>struggling</mark> public <mark>institutions</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>In Afghanistan, the withdrawal of ISAF </mark>from the country <mark>and </mark>the transition to an <mark>Afghan</mark>-led <mark>security </mark>apparatus <mark>shows little promise of mitigating</mark> opium <mark>production </mark>and related corruption.</u></strong> This international political context makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to substantially reform the UN conventions. However, <u><strong>current difficulties and the overall <mark>complexity</mark> of the problem <mark>should not be used as an excuse for</mark> policy <mark>inaction</mark> and inertia.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The current situation</mark> — <mark>characterized by</mark> persistent levels of <mark>violence</mark>, <mark>insecurity</mark> and <mark>corruption</mark>, changing trade routes causing <mark>instability </mark>in new regions, the emergence of new drugs and the negative impact of drug policies — <mark>is no longer sustainable</mark>.</u></strong> In 2012, President Santos of Colombia said: 'Sometimes we all feel that we have been pedalling on a stationary bicycle. We look to our right and our left and we still see the same landscape. Little progress has been made in the drug policy field since President Richard Nixon first called drug abuse 'America's public enemy number one in the United States" and policies have caused much damage. <u><strong><mark>Drug control policies </mark>around the world have often <mark>proved </mark>at best ineffective and at worst <mark>counter-productive, unless they strayed away from</mark> the strict letter of the <mark>UN conventions</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>However, <mark>a tipping point has been reached</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Current policies are no longer sustainable and therefore <mark>momentum is growing towards</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>more</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>responsible </mark>and comprehensive <mark>responses to</mark> the <mark>global</mark> problem of illicit <mark>drugs. </mark>The <mark>UNGAS</mark>S in <mark>2016 provides an opportunity for governments to</mark> review and <mark>reform</mark> their <mark>policies </mark>at the national and regional levels.</u></strong> A number of national governments, including Colombia's, have embarked on much-needed review processes of their domestic drug policies, but <u><strong>regional and international discussions will crucial to tackle these truly transnational challenges and opt for more adequate responses that focus on reducing the harms caused by drug consumption, trafficking and production, and drug policies themselves.</u></strong> </p> </s>

Marihuana legalization is a wedge issue that empirically brings voters to the polls to vote for democrats

Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorat People turn out for elections when they feel passion about a candidate or a race, but ballot initiatives can also generate interest, passion and turnout. Passion about marijuana legalization can do the same, and we have evidence of this effect. 2012, Colorado and Washington had statewide referenda on the question of marijuana legalization. With those initiatives on the ballot, the composition of each state’s electorate changed in significant way Marijuana legalization supporters, particularly passionate ones, tend to be younger and either more liberal or more libertarian in nature—though recent polls suggest broader support in the electorate The effect was even more pronounced for the 18-24 demographic, where electoral composition increased from 5% to 13%. In addition, in 2008, 27% of the electorate called themselves “liberal.” In 2012, that number increased to 31 But in the states with marijuana legalization initiatives it did, dramatically There is also evidence those electoral shifts helped Democrats , those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama Democrats have missed a real opportunity to make electoral gains—or limit losses—by pushing legalization initiatives Democrats could have received a similar boost by pushing legalization initiatives that would alter the electorate in a year when Democrats need it for structural and political reasons.

Marijuana legalization could dramatically chang the character and nature of the midterm electorat ballot initiatives can also generate interest, passion and turnout marijuana legalization can do the same Marijuana legalization supporters, particularly passionate ones, tend to be younger and either more liberal or more libertarian in nature—though recent polls suggest broader support in the electorate. The effect was more pronounced for the 18-24 demographic, where composition increased from 5% to 13%. those electoral shifts helped Democrats Democrats have missed a real opportunity to make electoral gains—or limit losses—by pushing legalization initiatives Democrats could have received a similar boost by pushing legalization initiatives that would alter the electorate in a year when Democrats need it for structural and political reasons.

Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection.¶ People turn out for elections when they feel passion about a candidate or a race, but ballot initiatives can also generate interest, passion and turnout. Research by Smith, DeSantis & Kassel illustrate that ballot initiatives in 2004 centering on outlawing same sex marriage generated additional turnout (even in a presidential year) among conservatives in key states. Passion about marijuana legalization can do the same, and we have evidence of this effect.¶ In 2012, Colorado and Washington had statewide referenda on the question of marijuana legalization. With those initiatives on the ballot, the composition of each state’s electorate changed in significant ways. Using exit poll data to compare changes in the characteristics of the electorate in each state between 2008 and 2012, we can make inferences about the effects of legalization initiatives. Marijuana legalization supporters, particularly passionate ones, tend to be younger and either more liberal or more libertarian in nature—though recent polls suggest broader support in the electorate. In Washington in 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 10% of the electorate. In 2012, with legalization on the ballot, that number increased to 21% of the electorate—a more than 100% increase. The effect was even more pronounced for the 18-24 demographic, where electoral composition increased from 5% to 13%. In addition, in 2008, 27% of the electorate called themselves “liberal.” In 2012, that number increased to 31%. Similar trends existed in Colorado. In 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 14% of the electorate. In 2012, that group composed 20% of voters. In fact, in Colorado the 18-24 demographic increased from 5% to 12% of the electorate from 2008 to 2012. The ideological composition of turnout changed as well. In 2008, 17% of the electorate called itself liberal. In 2012, that figure skyrocketed to 28%.¶ In Washington and Colorado, the composition of those who turned out to vote changed dramatically between 2008 and 2012—each a presidential year. Nationally, there was little change in the composition of the electorate in terms of youth and liberalism. But in the states with marijuana legalization initiatives it did, dramatically. There is also evidence those electoral shifts helped Democrats. In Colorado, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%).¶ Similarly, in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama. The president won about 56% statewide. Roll Call’s Henry Decker and FireDogLake’s Jon Walker have also offered great insight into how electoral changes coincide with marijuana legalization initiatives.¶ However, there is more to this story than simply turnout. In many ways, Democrats have missed a real opportunity to make electoral gains—or limit losses—by pushing legalization initiatives. Some credit President Bush’s reelection in 2004 to the push for same sex marriage initiatives on statewide ballots by spurring social conservative turnout. Democrats could have received a similar boost by pushing legalization initiatives that would alter the electorate in a year when Democrats need it for structural and political reasons.

<h4><u><strong>Marihuana legalization is a wedge issue that empirically brings voters to the polls to vote for democrats</h4><p></u>Hudak 8/20 <u>(J<mark>ohn Hudak “Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep the Senate Blue” August 20, 2014 ) mt</p><p>Marijuana legalization could </mark>change that by <mark>dramatically chang</mark>ing <mark>the character and nature of the midterm electorat</u></strong></mark>e in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection.¶ <u><strong>People turn out for elections when they feel passion about a candidate or a race, but <mark>ballot initiatives can also generate interest, passion and turnout</mark>. </u></strong>Research by Smith, DeSantis & Kassel illustrate that ballot initiatives in 2004 centering on outlawing same sex marriage generated additional turnout (even in a presidential year) among conservatives in key states. <u><strong>Passion about <mark>marijuana legalization can do the same</mark>, and we have evidence of this effect.</u></strong>¶ In <u><strong>2012, Colorado and Washington had statewide referenda on the question of marijuana legalization. With those initiatives on the ballot, the composition of each state’s electorate changed in significant way</u></strong>s. Using exit poll data to compare changes in the characteristics of the electorate in each state between 2008 and 2012, we can make inferences about the effects of legalization initiatives. <u><strong><mark>Marijuana legalization supporters, particularly passionate ones, tend to be younger and either more liberal or more libertarian in nature—though recent polls suggest broader support in the electorate</u></strong>.</mark> In Washington in 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 10% of the electorate. In 2012, with legalization on the ballot, that number increased to 21% of the electorate—a more than 100% increase. <u><strong><mark>The effect was </mark>even <mark>more pronounced for the 18-24 demographic, where </mark>electoral <mark>composition increased from 5% to 13%. </mark>In addition, in 2008, 27% of the electorate called themselves “liberal.” In 2012, that number increased to 31</u></strong>%. Similar trends existed in Colorado. In 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 14% of the electorate. In 2012, that group composed 20% of voters. In fact, in Colorado the 18-24 demographic increased from 5% to 12% of the electorate from 2008 to 2012. The ideological composition of turnout changed as well. In 2008, 17% of the electorate called itself liberal. In 2012, that figure skyrocketed to 28%.¶ In Washington and Colorado, the composition of those who turned out to vote changed dramatically between 2008 and 2012—each a presidential year. Nationally, there was little change in the composition of the electorate in terms of youth and liberalism. <u><strong>But in the states with marijuana legalization initiatives it did, dramatically</u></strong>. <u><strong>There is also evidence <mark>those electoral shifts helped Democrats</u></strong></mark>. In Colorado<u><strong>, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters </u></strong>(51%).¶ Similarly, in <u><strong>Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama</u></strong>. The president won about 56% statewide. Roll Call’s Henry Decker and FireDogLake’s Jon Walker have also offered great insight into how electoral changes coincide with marijuana legalization initiatives.¶ However, there is more to this story than simply turnout. In many ways, <u><strong><mark>Democrats have missed a real opportunity to make electoral gains—or limit losses—by pushing legalization initiatives</u></strong></mark>. Some credit President Bush’s reelection in 2004 to the push for same sex marriage initiatives on statewide ballots by spurring social conservative turnout. <u><strong><mark>Democrats could have received a similar boost by pushing legalization initiatives that would alter the electorate in a year when Democrats need it for structural and political reasons.</p></u></strong></mark>

Hudak 8/20 (John Hudak “Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep the Senate Blue” August 20, 2014 ) mt

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hudak 8/20 (John Hudak “Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep the Senate Blue” August 20, 2014 ) mt fulltext: Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection.¶ People turn out for elections when they feel passion about a candidate or a race, but ballot initiatives can also generate interest, passion and turnout. Research by Smith, DeSantis & Kassel illustrate that ballot initiatives in 2004 centering on outlawing same sex marriage generated additional turnout (even in a presidential year) among conservatives in key states. Passion about marijuana legalization can do the same, and we have evidence of this effect.¶ In 2012, Colorado and Washington had statewide referenda on the question of marijuana legalization. With those initiatives on the ballot, the composition of each state’s electorate changed in significant ways. Using exit poll data to compare changes in the characteristics of the electorate in each state between 2008 and 2012, we can make inferences about the effects of legalization initiatives. Marijuana legalization supporters, particularly passionate ones, tend to be younger and either more liberal or more libertarian in nature—though recent polls suggest broader support in the electorate. In Washington in 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 10% of the electorate. In 2012, with legalization on the ballot, that number increased to 21% of the electorate—a more than 100% increase. The effect was even more pronounced for the 18-24 demographic, where electoral composition increased from 5% to 13%. In addition, in 2008, 27% of the electorate called themselves “liberal.” In 2012, that number increased to 31%. Similar trends existed in Colorado. In 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 14% of the electorate. In 2012, that group composed 20% of voters. In fact, in Colorado the 18-24 demographic increased from 5% to 12% of the electorate from 2008 to 2012. The ideological composition of turnout changed as well. In 2008, 17% of the electorate called itself liberal. In 2012, that figure skyrocketed to 28%.¶ In Washington and Colorado, the composition of those who turned out to vote changed dramatically between 2008 and 2012—each a presidential year. Nationally, there was little change in the composition of the electorate in terms of youth and liberalism. But in the states with marijuana legalization initiatives it did, dramatically. There is also evidence those electoral shifts helped Democrats. In Colorado, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%).¶ Similarly, in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama. The president won about 56% statewide. Roll Call’s Henry Decker and FireDogLake’s Jon Walker have also offered great insight into how electoral changes coincide with marijuana legalization initiatives.¶ However, there is more to this story than simply turnout. In many ways, Democrats have missed a real opportunity to make electoral gains—or limit losses—by pushing legalization initiatives. Some credit President Bush’s reelection in 2004 to the push for same sex marriage initiatives on statewide ballots by spurring social conservative turnout. Democrats could have received a similar boost by pushing legalization initiatives that would alter the electorate in a year when Democrats need it for structural and political reasons. [/INST] <h4><u><strong>Marihuana legalization is a wedge issue that empirically brings voters to the polls to vote for democrats</h4><p></u>Hudak 8/20 <u>(J<mark>ohn Hudak “Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep the Senate Blue” August 20, 2014 ) mt</p><p>Marijuana legalization could </mark>change that by <mark>dramatically chang</mark>ing <mark>the character and nature of the midterm electorat</u></strong></mark>e in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection.¶ <u><strong>People turn out for elections when they feel passion about a candidate or a race, but <mark>ballot initiatives can also generate interest, passion and turnout</mark>. </u></strong>Research by Smith, DeSantis & Kassel illustrate that ballot initiatives in 2004 centering on outlawing same sex marriage generated additional turnout (even in a presidential year) among conservatives in key states. <u><strong>Passion about <mark>marijuana legalization can do the same</mark>, and we have evidence of this effect.</u></strong>¶ In <u><strong>2012, Colorado and Washington had statewide referenda on the question of marijuana legalization. With those initiatives on the ballot, the composition of each state’s electorate changed in significant way</u></strong>s. Using exit poll data to compare changes in the characteristics of the electorate in each state between 2008 and 2012, we can make inferences about the effects of legalization initiatives. <u><strong><mark>Marijuana legalization supporters, particularly passionate ones, tend to be younger and either more liberal or more libertarian in nature—though recent polls suggest broader support in the electorate</u></strong>.</mark> In Washington in 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 10% of the electorate. In 2012, with legalization on the ballot, that number increased to 21% of the electorate—a more than 100% increase. <u><strong><mark>The effect was </mark>even <mark>more pronounced for the 18-24 demographic, where </mark>electoral <mark>composition increased from 5% to 13%. </mark>In addition, in 2008, 27% of the electorate called themselves “liberal.” In 2012, that number increased to 31</u></strong>%. Similar trends existed in Colorado. In 2008, the 18-29 demographic composed 14% of the electorate. In 2012, that group composed 20% of voters. In fact, in Colorado the 18-24 demographic increased from 5% to 12% of the electorate from 2008 to 2012. The ideological composition of turnout changed as well. In 2008, 17% of the electorate called itself liberal. In 2012, that figure skyrocketed to 28%.¶ In Washington and Colorado, the composition of those who turned out to vote changed dramatically between 2008 and 2012—each a presidential year. Nationally, there was little change in the composition of the electorate in terms of youth and liberalism. <u><strong>But in the states with marijuana legalization initiatives it did, dramatically</u></strong>. <u><strong>There is also evidence <mark>those electoral shifts helped Democrats</u></strong></mark>. In Colorado<u><strong>, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters </u></strong>(51%).¶ Similarly, in <u><strong>Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama</u></strong>. The president won about 56% statewide. Roll Call’s Henry Decker and FireDogLake’s Jon Walker have also offered great insight into how electoral changes coincide with marijuana legalization initiatives.¶ However, there is more to this story than simply turnout. In many ways, <u><strong><mark>Democrats have missed a real opportunity to make electoral gains—or limit losses—by pushing legalization initiatives</u></strong></mark>. Some credit President Bush’s reelection in 2004 to the push for same sex marriage initiatives on statewide ballots by spurring social conservative turnout. <u><strong><mark>Democrats could have received a similar boost by pushing legalization initiatives that would alter the electorate in a year when Democrats need it for structural and political reasons.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

That causes extinction

Human activity is causing the extinction of animal, plant and microbial species at rates that are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally approximating the largest extinctions in geological history this behaviour is upsetting the delicate ecological balance on which all life depends, including our own Global warming, acid rain, the depletion of ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it is habitat destruction by deforestation, that is the greatest destroyer. this destruction is primarily responsible for the mass extinction of the world’s species It is the author’s belief that if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have - in foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases, and ultimately, perhaps, in threatening human survival - then they would recognize that the current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly evolving medical emergency and would

Human activity is causing the extinction of species is upsetting the ecological balance on which all life depends habitat destruction by deforestation, is the greatest destroyer this is primarily responsible for the mass extinction threatening human survival

Human activity is causing the extinction of animal, plant and microbial species at rates that are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally (Wilson l992), approximating the largest extinctions in geological history. When homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago, the number of species that existed was the largest ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the lowest since the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l). In addition to the ethical issues involved - that we have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came into being tens of millions of years prior to our arrival - this behaviour is ultimately self-destructive, upsetting the delicate ecological balance on which all life depends, including our own, and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils fertile, creates the air we breathe and provides food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered. The exponential growth in human population coupled with an even greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the production of wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species. Global warming, acid rain, the depletion of stratospheric ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals into the air, soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it is habitat destruction by human activities, particularly deforestation, that is the greatest destroyer. This is especially the case for tropical rainforests. Less than 50% of the area originally covered by prehistoric tropical rainforests remains, but they are still being cut and burned at a rate of approximately l42,000 square kilometres each year, equal in area to the countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands combined; this is a loss of forest cover each second the size of a football field (Wilson l992). It is this destruction which is primarily responsible for the mass extinction of the world’s species. It has been estimated that there are somewhere between l0 million and l00 million different species on Earth. Even if a conservative estimate of 20 million total world species is used, then l0 million species would be found in tropical rainforests, and at current rates of tropical deforestation, this would mean 27,000 species would be lost in tropical rainforests alone each year, or more than seventy-four per day, three each hour (Wilson l992). This article examines the human health implications resulting from this widespread loss of biological diversity. It is the author’s belief that if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have - in foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases, and ultimately, perhaps, in threatening human survival - then they would recognize that the current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly evolving medical emergency and would demand that efforts to preserve species and ecosystems be given the highest priority.

<h4>That causes extinction</h4><p><strong>Chivian 11</strong>, Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical School and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam. He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Chivian<u><strong><mark> works with the United Nations on how to address the pressing environmental problems the world is facing. (“Species Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health”, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-health-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health, 2011) </p><p>Human activity is causing the extinction of</mark> animal, plant and microbial <mark>species </mark>at rates that are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally</u></strong> (Wilson l992), <u><strong>approximating the largest extinctions in geological history</u></strong>. When homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago, the number of species that existed was the largest ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the lowest since the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l). In addition to the ethical issues involved - that we have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came into being tens of millions of years prior to our arrival - <u><strong>this behaviour <mark>is</u></strong> </mark>ultimately self-destructive, <u><strong><mark>upsetting the </mark>delicate <mark>ecological balance on which all life depends</mark>, including our own</u></strong>, and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils fertile, creates the air we breathe and provides food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered. The exponential growth in human population coupled with an even greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the production of wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species. <u><strong>Global warming, acid rain, the depletion of</u></strong> stratospheric <u><strong>ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals</u></strong> into the air, soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately <u><strong>lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it is <mark>habitat destruction by</u></strong> </mark>human activities, particularly <u><strong><mark>deforestation, </mark>that <mark>is the greatest destroyer</mark>.</u></strong> This is especially the case for tropical rainforests. Less than 50% of the area originally covered by prehistoric tropical rainforests remains, but they are still being cut and burned at a rate of approximately l42,000 square kilometres each year, equal in area to the countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands combined; this is a loss of forest cover each second the size of a football field (Wilson l992). It is <u><strong><mark>this </mark>destruction</u></strong> which <u><strong><mark>is primarily responsible for the mass extinction </mark>of the world’s species</u></strong>. It has been estimated that there are somewhere between l0 million and l00 million different species on Earth. Even if a conservative estimate of 20 million total world species is used, then l0 million species would be found in tropical rainforests, and at current rates of tropical deforestation, this would mean 27,000 species would be lost in tropical rainforests alone each year, or more than seventy-four per day, three each hour (Wilson l992). This article examines the human health implications resulting from this widespread loss of biological diversity. <u><strong>It is the author’s belief that if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have - in foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases, and ultimately, perhaps, in <mark>threatening human survival</mark> - then they would recognize that the current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly evolving medical emergency and would </u></strong>demand that efforts to preserve species and ecosystems be given the highest priority.</p>

Chivian 11, Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical School and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam. He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Chivian works with the United Nations on how to address the pressing environmental problems the world is facing. (“Species Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health”, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-health-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health, 2011)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Chivian 11, Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical School and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam. He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Chivian works with the United Nations on how to address the pressing environmental problems the world is facing. (“Species Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health”, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-health-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health, 2011) fulltext: Human activity is causing the extinction of animal, plant and microbial species at rates that are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally (Wilson l992), approximating the largest extinctions in geological history. When homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago, the number of species that existed was the largest ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the lowest since the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l). In addition to the ethical issues involved - that we have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came into being tens of millions of years prior to our arrival - this behaviour is ultimately self-destructive, upsetting the delicate ecological balance on which all life depends, including our own, and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils fertile, creates the air we breathe and provides food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered. The exponential growth in human population coupled with an even greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the production of wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species. Global warming, acid rain, the depletion of stratospheric ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals into the air, soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it is habitat destruction by human activities, particularly deforestation, that is the greatest destroyer. This is especially the case for tropical rainforests. Less than 50% of the area originally covered by prehistoric tropical rainforests remains, but they are still being cut and burned at a rate of approximately l42,000 square kilometres each year, equal in area to the countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands combined; this is a loss of forest cover each second the size of a football field (Wilson l992). It is this destruction which is primarily responsible for the mass extinction of the world’s species. It has been estimated that there are somewhere between l0 million and l00 million different species on Earth. Even if a conservative estimate of 20 million total world species is used, then l0 million species would be found in tropical rainforests, and at current rates of tropical deforestation, this would mean 27,000 species would be lost in tropical rainforests alone each year, or more than seventy-four per day, three each hour (Wilson l992). This article examines the human health implications resulting from this widespread loss of biological diversity. It is the author’s belief that if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have - in foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases, and ultimately, perhaps, in threatening human survival - then they would recognize that the current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly evolving medical emergency and would demand that efforts to preserve species and ecosystems be given the highest priority. [/INST] <h4>That causes extinction</h4><p><strong>Chivian 11</strong>, Dr. Eric S. Chivian is the founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHGE) at Harvard Medical School and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam. He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Chivian<u><strong><mark> works with the United Nations on how to address the pressing environmental problems the world is facing. (“Species Extinction, Biodiversity Loss and Human Health”, http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-health-hazards/item/505-species-extinction-biodiversity-loss-and-human-health, 2011) </p><p>Human activity is causing the extinction of</mark> animal, plant and microbial <mark>species </mark>at rates that are a thousand times greater than those which would have occurred naturally</u></strong> (Wilson l992), <u><strong>approximating the largest extinctions in geological history</u></strong>. When homo sapiens evolved, some l00 thousand years ago, the number of species that existed was the largest ever to inhabit the Earth (Wilson l989). Current rates of species loss are reducing these levels to the lowest since the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, with estimates that one-fourth of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years (Ehrlich and Wilson l99l). In addition to the ethical issues involved - that we have no right to kill off countless other organisms, many of which came into being tens of millions of years prior to our arrival - <u><strong>this behaviour <mark>is</u></strong> </mark>ultimately self-destructive, <u><strong><mark>upsetting the </mark>delicate <mark>ecological balance on which all life depends</mark>, including our own</u></strong>, and destroying the biological diversity that makes soils fertile, creates the air we breathe and provides food and other life-sustaining natural products, most of which remain to be discovered. The exponential growth in human population coupled with an even greater rise in the consumption of resources and in the production of wastes, are the main factors endangering the survival of other species. <u><strong>Global warming, acid rain, the depletion of</u></strong> stratospheric <u><strong>ozone and the discharge of toxic chemicals</u></strong> into the air, soil and fresh- and salt-water ecosystems - all these ultimately <u><strong>lead to a loss of biodiversity. But it is <mark>habitat destruction by</u></strong> </mark>human activities, particularly <u><strong><mark>deforestation, </mark>that <mark>is the greatest destroyer</mark>.</u></strong> This is especially the case for tropical rainforests. Less than 50% of the area originally covered by prehistoric tropical rainforests remains, but they are still being cut and burned at a rate of approximately l42,000 square kilometres each year, equal in area to the countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands combined; this is a loss of forest cover each second the size of a football field (Wilson l992). It is <u><strong><mark>this </mark>destruction</u></strong> which <u><strong><mark>is primarily responsible for the mass extinction </mark>of the world’s species</u></strong>. It has been estimated that there are somewhere between l0 million and l00 million different species on Earth. Even if a conservative estimate of 20 million total world species is used, then l0 million species would be found in tropical rainforests, and at current rates of tropical deforestation, this would mean 27,000 species would be lost in tropical rainforests alone each year, or more than seventy-four per day, three each hour (Wilson l992). This article examines the human health implications resulting from this widespread loss of biological diversity. <u><strong>It is the author’s belief that if people fully comprehended the effect these massive species extinctions will have - in foreclosing the possibility of understanding and treating many incurable diseases, and ultimately, perhaps, in <mark>threatening human survival</mark> - then they would recognize that the current rates of biodiversity loss represent nothing less than a slowly evolving medical emergency and would </u></strong>demand that efforts to preserve species and ecosystems be given the highest priority.</p> </s>

Attempting to “know” China is based on a flawed epistemology -- causes serial policy failure

China and its relationship with the U St has been a fascinating subject of relations China scholars argue "what China precisely is," especially in terms of a positivist epistemology they believe that China is ultimately a knowable object, whose reality can be, and ought to be, empirically revealed by scientific means. For example Lampton suggests that "it is time to step back and look at where China is today, where it might be going, and what consequences that direction will hold for the rest of the world Lampton views his object of study as essentially "something we can stand back from and observe with clinical detachment in pondering whether China poses a threat or offers an opportunity to the United States, they rarely raise the question of "what the United States is U.S. conceptions of China as a threatening other are intrinsically linked to how U.S. policymakers/mainstream China specialists see themselves (as representatives of the security-conscious nation, they are not value-free descriptions of an independent, preexisting Chinese reality out there, but are better understood as a kind of normative practice that legitimates power politics in relations and helps transform the "China threat" into social reality. it is self-fulfilling in practice, and is always part of the "China threat" problem it purports merely to describe the China field and "China threat" literature have shown remarkable resistance to systematic critical reflection as discursive practice

China scholars argue what China precisely is, especially in terms of a positivist epistemology , they believe that China is a knowable object whose reality can be revealed by scientific means it is object of study as essentially "something we can stand back from and observe with clinical detachment U.S. conceptions of China as a threatening other are linked to how U.S. policymakers see themselves (as representatives of the security-conscious nation they are not value-free, descriptions of an independent, preexisting Chinese reality out there, but are understood as a normative practice that legitimates power politics in relations and helps transform the "China threat" into social reality it is self-fulfilling in practice, and is always part of the "China threat" problem it purports merely to describe.

PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University [Chengxin, The "China Threat" in American Self-Imagination: The Discursive Construction of Other as Power Politics, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, 2004] China and its relationship with the United States has long been a fascinating subject of study in the mainstream U.S. international relations community. This is reflected, for example, in the current heated debates over whether China is primarily a strategic threat to or a market bonanza for the United States and whether containment or engagement is the best way to deal with it. (1) While U.S. China scholars argue fiercely over "what China precisely is," their debates have been underpinned by some common ground, especially in terms of a positivist epistemology. Firstly, they believe that China is ultimately a knowable object, whose reality can be, and ought to be, empirically revealed by scientific means. For example, after expressing his dissatisfaction with often conflicting Western perceptions of China, David M. Lampton, former president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, suggests that "it is time to step back and look at where China is today, where it might be going, and what consequences that direction will hold for the rest of the world." (2) Like many other China scholars, Lampton views his object of study as essentially "something we can stand back from and observe with clinical detachment." (3) Secondly, associated with the first assumption, it is commonly believed that China scholars merely serve as "disinterested observers" and that their studies of China are neutral, passive descriptions of reality. And thirdly, in pondering whether China poses a threat or offers an opportunity to the United States, they rarely raise the question of "what the United States is." That is, the meaning of the United States is believed to be certain and beyond doubt. I do not dismiss altogether the conventional ways of debating China. It is not the purpose of this article to venture my own "observation" of "where China is today," nor to join the "containment" versus "engagement" debate per se. Rather, I want to contribute to a novel dimension of the China debate by questioning the seemingly unproblematic assumptions shared by most China scholars in the mainstream IR community in the United States. To perform this task, I will focus attention on a particularly significant component of the China debate; namely, the "China threat" literature. More specifically, I want to argue that U.S. conceptions of China as a threatening other are always intrinsically linked to how U.S. policymakers/mainstream China specialists see themselves (as representatives of the indispensable, security-conscious nation, for example). As such, they are not value-free, objective descriptions of an independent, preexisting Chinese reality out there, but are better understood as a kind of normative, meaning-giving practice that often legitimates power politics in U.S.-China relations and helps transform the "China threat" into social reality. In other words, it is self-fulfilling in practice, and is always part of the "China threat" problem it purports merely to describe. In doing so, I seek to bring to the fore two interconnected themes of self/other constructions and of theory as practice inherent in the "China threat" literature--themes that have been overridden and rendered largely invisible by those common positivist assumptions. These themes are of course nothing new nor peculiar to the "China threat" literature. They have been identified elsewhere by critics of some conventional fields of study such as ethnography, anthropology, oriental studies, political science, and international relations. (4) Yet, so far, the China field in the West in general and the U.S. "China threat" literature in particular have shown remarkable resistance to systematic critical reflection on both their normative status as discursive practice and their enormous practical implications for international politics. (5) It is in this context that this article seeks to make a contribution.

<h4>Attempting to “know” China is based on a flawed epistemology<strong> -- causes serial policy failure</h4><p>Pan 04 </p><p>PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University [Chengxin, The "China Threat" in American Self-Imagination: The Discursive Construction of Other as Power Politics, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, 2004]</p><p></strong> <u>China and its relationship with the U</u>nited <u>St</u>ates <u>has</u> long <u>been a fascinating subject of</u> study in the mainstream U.S. international <u>relations</u> community. This is reflected, for example, in the current heated debates over whether China is primarily a strategic threat to or a market bonanza for the United States and whether containment or engagement is the best way to deal with it. (1) While U.S. <u><mark>China scholars argue</u></mark> fiercely over <u>"<mark>what China precisely is,</mark>"</u> their debates have been underpinned by some common ground, <u><mark>especially in terms of a positivist epistemology</u></mark>. Firstly<mark>, <u>they believe that China is</mark> ultimately <mark>a knowable object</mark>, <mark>whose reality can be</mark>, and ought to be, empirically <mark>revealed by scientific means</mark>. For example</u>, after expressing his dissatisfaction with often conflicting Western perceptions of China, David M. <u>Lampton</u>, former president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, <u>suggests that "<mark>it is</mark> time to step back and look at where China is today, where it might be going, and what consequences that direction will hold for the rest of the world</u>." (2) Like many other China scholars, <u>Lampton views his <mark>object of study as essentially "something we can stand back from and observe with clinical detachment</u></mark>." (3) Secondly, associated with the first assumption, it is commonly believed that China scholars merely serve as "disinterested observers" and that their studies of China are neutral, passive descriptions of reality. And thirdly, <u>in pondering whether China poses a threat or offers an opportunity to the United States, they rarely raise the question of "what the United States is</u>." That is, the meaning of the United States is believed to be certain and beyond doubt. I do not dismiss altogether the conventional ways of debating China. It is not the purpose of this article to venture my own "observation" of "where China is today," nor to join the "containment" versus "engagement" debate per se. Rather, I want to contribute to a novel dimension of the China debate by questioning the seemingly unproblematic assumptions shared by most China scholars in the mainstream IR community in the United States. To perform this task, I will focus attention on a particularly significant component of the China debate; namely, the "China threat" literature. More specifically, I want to argue that <u><mark>U.S. conceptions of China as a threatening other are</u></mark> always <u>intrinsically <mark>linked to how U.S. policymakers</mark>/mainstream China specialists <mark>see themselves (as representatives</mark> <mark>of the</u></mark> indispensable, <u><mark>security-conscious nation</mark>,</u> for example). As such, <u><mark>they are not value-free</u>,</mark> objective <u><mark>descriptions</mark> <mark>of an independent, preexisting Chinese reality out there, but are</mark> better <mark>understood as a</mark> kind of <mark>normative</u></mark>, meaning-giving <u><mark>practice that</u></mark> often <u><mark>legitimates power politics in</u></mark> U.S.-China <u><mark>relations and helps transform the "China threat" into social reality</mark>.</u> In other words, <u><mark>it is self-fulfilling in practice, and is always part of the "China threat" problem it purports merely to describe</u>.</mark> In doing so, I seek to bring to the fore two interconnected themes of self/other constructions and of theory as practice inherent in the "China threat" literature--themes that have been overridden and rendered largely invisible by those common positivist assumptions. These themes are of course nothing new nor peculiar to the "China threat" literature. They have been identified elsewhere by critics of some conventional fields of study such as ethnography, anthropology, oriental studies, political science, and international relations. (4) Yet, so far, <u>the China field</u> in the West in general <u>and</u> the U.S. <u>"China threat" literature</u> in particular <u>have shown remarkable resistance to systematic critical reflection</u> on both their normative status <u>as discursive practice</u> and their enormous practical implications for international politics. (5) It is in this context that this article seeks to make a contribution.</p>

Pan 04

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Pan 04 fulltext: PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University [Chengxin, The "China Threat" in American Self-Imagination: The Discursive Construction of Other as Power Politics, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, 2004] China and its relationship with the United States has long been a fascinating subject of study in the mainstream U.S. international relations community. This is reflected, for example, in the current heated debates over whether China is primarily a strategic threat to or a market bonanza for the United States and whether containment or engagement is the best way to deal with it. (1) While U.S. China scholars argue fiercely over "what China precisely is," their debates have been underpinned by some common ground, especially in terms of a positivist epistemology. Firstly, they believe that China is ultimately a knowable object, whose reality can be, and ought to be, empirically revealed by scientific means. For example, after expressing his dissatisfaction with often conflicting Western perceptions of China, David M. Lampton, former president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, suggests that "it is time to step back and look at where China is today, where it might be going, and what consequences that direction will hold for the rest of the world." (2) Like many other China scholars, Lampton views his object of study as essentially "something we can stand back from and observe with clinical detachment." (3) Secondly, associated with the first assumption, it is commonly believed that China scholars merely serve as "disinterested observers" and that their studies of China are neutral, passive descriptions of reality. And thirdly, in pondering whether China poses a threat or offers an opportunity to the United States, they rarely raise the question of "what the United States is." That is, the meaning of the United States is believed to be certain and beyond doubt. I do not dismiss altogether the conventional ways of debating China. It is not the purpose of this article to venture my own "observation" of "where China is today," nor to join the "containment" versus "engagement" debate per se. Rather, I want to contribute to a novel dimension of the China debate by questioning the seemingly unproblematic assumptions shared by most China scholars in the mainstream IR community in the United States. To perform this task, I will focus attention on a particularly significant component of the China debate; namely, the "China threat" literature. More specifically, I want to argue that U.S. conceptions of China as a threatening other are always intrinsically linked to how U.S. policymakers/mainstream China specialists see themselves (as representatives of the indispensable, security-conscious nation, for example). As such, they are not value-free, objective descriptions of an independent, preexisting Chinese reality out there, but are better understood as a kind of normative, meaning-giving practice that often legitimates power politics in U.S.-China relations and helps transform the "China threat" into social reality. In other words, it is self-fulfilling in practice, and is always part of the "China threat" problem it purports merely to describe. In doing so, I seek to bring to the fore two interconnected themes of self/other constructions and of theory as practice inherent in the "China threat" literature--themes that have been overridden and rendered largely invisible by those common positivist assumptions. These themes are of course nothing new nor peculiar to the "China threat" literature. They have been identified elsewhere by critics of some conventional fields of study such as ethnography, anthropology, oriental studies, political science, and international relations. (4) Yet, so far, the China field in the West in general and the U.S. "China threat" literature in particular have shown remarkable resistance to systematic critical reflection on both their normative status as discursive practice and their enormous practical implications for international politics. (5) It is in this context that this article seeks to make a contribution. [/INST] <h4>Attempting to “know” China is based on a flawed epistemology<strong> -- causes serial policy failure</h4><p>Pan 04 </p><p>PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University [Chengxin, The "China Threat" in American Self-Imagination: The Discursive Construction of Other as Power Politics, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, 2004]</p><p></strong> <u>China and its relationship with the U</u>nited <u>St</u>ates <u>has</u> long <u>been a fascinating subject of</u> study in the mainstream U.S. international <u>relations</u> community. This is reflected, for example, in the current heated debates over whether China is primarily a strategic threat to or a market bonanza for the United States and whether containment or engagement is the best way to deal with it. (1) While U.S. <u><mark>China scholars argue</u></mark> fiercely over <u>"<mark>what China precisely is,</mark>"</u> their debates have been underpinned by some common ground, <u><mark>especially in terms of a positivist epistemology</u></mark>. Firstly<mark>, <u>they believe that China is</mark> ultimately <mark>a knowable object</mark>, <mark>whose reality can be</mark>, and ought to be, empirically <mark>revealed by scientific means</mark>. For example</u>, after expressing his dissatisfaction with often conflicting Western perceptions of China, David M. <u>Lampton</u>, former president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, <u>suggests that "<mark>it is</mark> time to step back and look at where China is today, where it might be going, and what consequences that direction will hold for the rest of the world</u>." (2) Like many other China scholars, <u>Lampton views his <mark>object of study as essentially "something we can stand back from and observe with clinical detachment</u></mark>." (3) Secondly, associated with the first assumption, it is commonly believed that China scholars merely serve as "disinterested observers" and that their studies of China are neutral, passive descriptions of reality. And thirdly, <u>in pondering whether China poses a threat or offers an opportunity to the United States, they rarely raise the question of "what the United States is</u>." That is, the meaning of the United States is believed to be certain and beyond doubt. I do not dismiss altogether the conventional ways of debating China. It is not the purpose of this article to venture my own "observation" of "where China is today," nor to join the "containment" versus "engagement" debate per se. Rather, I want to contribute to a novel dimension of the China debate by questioning the seemingly unproblematic assumptions shared by most China scholars in the mainstream IR community in the United States. To perform this task, I will focus attention on a particularly significant component of the China debate; namely, the "China threat" literature. More specifically, I want to argue that <u><mark>U.S. conceptions of China as a threatening other are</u></mark> always <u>intrinsically <mark>linked to how U.S. policymakers</mark>/mainstream China specialists <mark>see themselves (as representatives</mark> <mark>of the</u></mark> indispensable, <u><mark>security-conscious nation</mark>,</u> for example). As such, <u><mark>they are not value-free</u>,</mark> objective <u><mark>descriptions</mark> <mark>of an independent, preexisting Chinese reality out there, but are</mark> better <mark>understood as a</mark> kind of <mark>normative</u></mark>, meaning-giving <u><mark>practice that</u></mark> often <u><mark>legitimates power politics in</u></mark> U.S.-China <u><mark>relations and helps transform the "China threat" into social reality</mark>.</u> In other words, <u><mark>it is self-fulfilling in practice, and is always part of the "China threat" problem it purports merely to describe</u>.</mark> In doing so, I seek to bring to the fore two interconnected themes of self/other constructions and of theory as practice inherent in the "China threat" literature--themes that have been overridden and rendered largely invisible by those common positivist assumptions. These themes are of course nothing new nor peculiar to the "China threat" literature. They have been identified elsewhere by critics of some conventional fields of study such as ethnography, anthropology, oriental studies, political science, and international relations. (4) Yet, so far, <u>the China field</u> in the West in general <u>and</u> the U.S. <u>"China threat" literature</u> in particular <u>have shown remarkable resistance to systematic critical reflection</u> on both their normative status <u>as discursive practice</u> and their enormous practical implications for international politics. (5) It is in this context that this article seeks to make a contribution.</p> </s>

Second is liberalism – the inclusion of supposed radical knowledge into debate instills institutional legitimacy which creates a smooth space for the academy to continue hegemonic practices of distancing from the subaltern -- leads to endless imperial warfare and structural violence -- their notion of “inclusion” becomes a laboratory for governmentality

Empires of knowledge rest on the foundation of racial statecraft, militarized science, and enduring notions of civilizational superiority imperial cartographies” can be traced through the meshed contours of research methods and scholarly theories as they are staked out in the pragmatic mappings of conquest, settlement, and administration of U.S. empire expert knowledge on “other” cultures and civilizations has been a cornerstone of the development of academic disciplines and used in the management of “difference” within the nation as well as the conquest and management of native populations by the United States, here and overseas educational discourse and practices in the colonies exemplified a complex colonizing mission Cultural “difference” was mapped within the classroom through a distinct racial and gendered lens, one that, however benevolently, consistently tracked the ideologies of U.S. military, cultural, and economic supremacy. The educational mission for inclusion and civilization “there,” on the periphery, became a laboratory for new regimes of governmentality “here,” within the immediate territorial borders of the United States If universities of the imperial periphery introduced a new governmentality and constructed mobile, but unequal, racial/gendered and national subjects, then these processes must also be understood within the epistemologies of “othering” being constructed by disciplines such as anthropology Theoretical constructions of categories such as “savage” and “primitive” helped create the very scaffoldings of European and later U.S. imperial cartographies what happens when professional scholars use their disciplinary tools and training to further military projects to defend the “national interest”? Academic knowledges about others have been significant as both information and “intelligence” for the subjugation and administration of indigenous and minoritized communities, within and beyond the United States During World War I some archaeologists worked as spies to literally offer “on ground geographical knowledges” that were “highly valued in wartime intelligence circles It is World War II and the ascendance of the United States as a global superpower that propelled the alliance between the U.S. state and the academy to new heights. The Manhattan Project and the development of the atom bomb sealed this intimate and soon inextricable link between scientific research and militarism It is not General Groves at his desk in the Los Alamos labs that has provided the symbolic image of the atom bomb project’s iconography but an Italian professor building an atomic pile under the spectator’s stands of the University of Chicago’s athletic field As U.S. and Allied forces launched themselves into the global theatre of war, they recognized that they needed condensed, accelerated training about the geographies and peoples they were encountering linguistic anthropology created the capacity for “quickly learning and teaching the languages of the new theatres of warfare Army Specialized Training Programs were established on 227 college and university campuses, 25 and some anthropologists helped create “pocket guides” for Army Special Forces early predecessors to the post-9/ 11 manuals on understanding “the Arab mind” or Islam used to train U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents in the War on Terror. other sets of research skills were used for the surveillance and containment of “others” within the nation-state anthropologists at the Bureau of Indian Affairs monitored and influenced war-related opinion on Native American reservations anthropologists were involved in studying Japanese American communities as they “adapted” to their lives in the concentration camps Between 1945 and 1948, this rapid and intense distillation of “method” and “information” about world cultures consolidated in area studies, arguably a paradigm shift in U.S. scholarship, and one that was based on an interdisciplinary approach that would literally carve out—and map—“ regions” of the world By the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the state-university compact to ensure that scientific knowledges would continue to serve U.S. global power was well assured by 1945, U.S. wealth and power in the “international sphere probably had no counterpart in history Out of this mesh of forces of capital and superpower politics and supremacy emerged a consensus that state (and corporate) funding for “research and development” in science and technology in the service of military development was vital for the growth of universities McCarthyism and a new wave of political repression ensured that questions were not asked about the business of war—or the reasons that the business of war was also becoming an academic business This intersection of Department of Defense, Pentagon, and research university interests resulted in massive amounts of funding and shifted the fiscal nature of universities’ state patronage from land-grant, agricultural resources to the huge war chest of the defense establishment in 1960 the political science department at MIT was funded by the CIA; closed seminars were held and “they had a villa in Saigon where students were working on pacification projects for doctoral dissertations the CIA supported social science research throughout the 1950s and 1960s to perfect psychological torture techniques that were outsourced to Vietnam, Argentina, and other countries.” World War II and the Cold War had created, without a doubt, the prime “condition for the socialization of research and education social scientists were recruited to serve in military intelligence operations—whether gathering more “benign” forms of information, serving with the army in Vietnam, or teaching in the School of the Americas—and after 9/11, became “embedded” with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq

Empires of knowledge rest on racial statecraft, militarized science, and civilizational superiority imperial cartographies” can be traced through scholarly theories staked out in conquest, settlement, and administration of U.S. empire expert knowledge on “other” cultures has been a cornerstone of the management of “difference” as well as the conquest of native populations inclusion “there,” became governmentality “here,” universities must be understood within the epistemologies of “othering” constructed by anthropology constructions such as “savage” helped create the scaffoldings of imperial cartographies During World War I archaeologists worked as spies to offer “on ground geographical knowledges The Manhattan Project and the bomb sealed this inextricable link between research and militarism U.S. forces recognized they needed training about the peoples they were encountering linguistic anthropology created the capacity for teaching the languages of warfare Army Specialized Training Programs were established on 227 campuses anthropologists monitored Native American reservations were involved in studying Japanese American concentration camps McCarthyism ensured questions were not asked about the reasons the business of war was becoming an academic business This intersection of D o D Pentagon, and research interests shifted the fiscal nature of patronage to the defense establishment the CIA supported research to perfect psychological torture social scientists were recruited to serve in military intelligence operations and became “embedded” with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq

Empires of knowledge rest on the foundation of racial statecraft, militarized science, and enduring notions of civilizational superiority. What we call “imperial cartographies” can be traced through the meshed contours of research methods and scholarly theories as they are staked out in the pragmatic mappings of conquest, settlement, and administration of U.S. empire.14 It is important to note that expert knowledge on “other” cultures and civilizations has been a cornerstone of the development of academic disciplines and used in the management of “difference” within the nation as well as the conquest and management of native populations by the United States, here and overseas. For example, Victor Bascara examines an early iteration (and a model, perhaps) of what Bill Readings has called the “Americanization” of the university. 15 Bascara’s chapter on the imperial universities founded in the U.S.-controlled territories of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after 1898 demonstrates how educational discourse and practices in the colonies exemplified a complex colonizing mission. Cultural “difference” was mapped within the classroom through a distinct racial and gendered lens, one that, however benevolently, consistently tracked the ideologies of U.S. military, cultural, and economic supremacy. The educational mission for inclusion and civilization “there,” on the periphery, became a laboratory for new regimes of governmentality “here,” within the immediate territorial borders of the United States. If universities of the imperial periphery introduced a new governmentality and constructed mobile, but unequal, racial/gendered and national subjects, then these processes must also be understood within the epistemologies of “othering” being constructed by disciplines such as anthropology. Late nineteenth-century anthropology emerged through centuries-old scientific curiosity (and debates) about human difference as well as the administrative imperatives of other imperial powers, such as Britain.16 Theoretical constructions of categories such as “savage” and “primitive” were not mere reflections of ivory tower ruminations about human origins and human science or “cultural” essences but helped create the very scaffoldings of European and later U.S. imperial cartographies.17 If these constructions of racial hierarchy shaped the curricular and disciplinary consensus about difference in the imperial university, then what can we say about institutional research practices that explicitly furthered state projects, especially during times of internal and external crises, such as war? In other words, what happens when professional scholars use their disciplinary tools and training to further military projects to defend the “national interest”? Academic knowledges about others have been significant as both information and “intelligence” for the subjugation and administration of indigenous and minoritized communities, within and beyond the United States, as demonstrated by González’s fascinating research on the contemporary Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence programs that target students of color. While this volume does not explore the fuller histories of the relationship between the U.S. academy and war efforts throughout the twentieth century, we gesture to some historical “plottings” that signal an enduring coimplication between the institutionalized practices of the military and the academy. It is this deep historicized process of normalization that has created the dominant “consensus” and “silence” in the imperial university in the post-9/11 period. During World War I, for instance, some archaeologists worked as spies to literally offer “on ground geographical knowledges” that, as David Price argues, were “highly valued in wartime intelligence circles.”18 This involvement, however, created controversy when Franz Boas, the preeminent anthropologist, protested the involvement of anthropologists with U.S. military intelligence.19 Though Boas was not supported by a majority of his colleagues, the controversy has shaped the debates about the politics and ethics of anthropologists’ relationship to military intelligence to this day, as addressed in González’s chapter and by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists within the American Anthropological Association. The imperial university was deeply embroiled in issues of war, labor, and protest throughout the first half of the twentieth century and during the earlier Red Scare. World War I and its aftermath saw the targeting and deportation of anarchists and antiwar socialists during the infamous Palmer Raids in a period of heightened nationalism and repression. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was cofounded in 1915 by John Dewey and Arthur Lovejoy; the latter resigned from Stanford University over a controversy regarding the abuse of immigrant labor by the industrialist Stanford family.20 In 1940, the Rapp-Coudert Committee was established to “investigate ‘subversive activities’ at public and private colleges in New York.”21 Faculty and students at the City College of New York were protesting fascism and capitalism through the 1930s, with progressive student groups staging mass protests and sit-ins. The committee actually subpoenaed and questioned more than a hundred faculty, students, and staff; denounced more than eight hundred public school teachers and college faculty; and fired over sixty CCNY faculty.22 It is, of course, World War II and the ascendance of the United States as a global superpower that propelled the alliance between the U.S. state and the academy to new heights. The Manhattan Project and the development of the atom bomb sealed this intimate and soon inextricable link between scientific research and militarism. As R. C. Lewontin powerfully suggests, “It is not General Groves at his desk in the Los Alamos labs that has provided the symbolic image of the atom bomb project’s iconography but an Italian professor building an atomic pile under the spectator’s stands of the University of Chicago’s athletic field. It is there, not in the Nevada desert, that Henry Moore’s ambiguous fusion of a mushroom cloud and a death’s head memorializes the Bomb.”23 As U.S. and Allied forces launched themselves into the global theatre of war, they recognized that they needed condensed, accelerated training about the geographies and peoples they were encountering. Ironically, it was the Boasian commitment to field-based linguistic anthropology that created the capacity for “quickly learning and teaching the languages of the new theatres of warfare.”24 Further, Army Specialized Training Programs (ASTPs) were established on 227 college and university campuses, 25 and some anthropologists helped create “pocket guides” for Army Special Forces. These booklets summarized a region’s geographical history and included gems of “cultural advice” such as “not approaching Egyptian women” and “not concluding that East Indian men holding hands are homosexuals,” 26 early predecessors to the post-9/ 11 manuals on understanding “the Arab mind” or Islam used to train U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents in the War on Terror. If the distilled study of “other cultures,” enabled by academic expertise, became important for warcraft in external theaters, other sets of research skills were used for the surveillance and containment of “others” within the nation-state. For instance, anthropologists at the Bureau of Indian Affairs monitored and influenced war-related opinion on Native American reservations. 27 Some anthropologists were involved in studying Japanese American communities as they “adapted” to their lives in the concentration camps set up by the War Relocation Authority, “one of the most publicly visible and volatile topics relating to anthropology’s war time contributions.”28 Between 1945 and 1948, this rapid and intense distillation of “method” and “information” about world cultures consolidated in area studies, arguably a paradigm shift in U.S. scholarship, and one that was based on an interdisciplinary approach that would literally carve out—and map—“ regions” of the world. By the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the state-university compact to ensure that scientific knowledges would continue to serve U.S. global power was well assured. Noam Chomsky has argued that by 1945, U.S. wealth and power in the “international sphere probably had no counterpart in history.”29 Out of this mesh of forces of capital and superpower politics and supremacy emerged a consensus that state (and corporate) funding for “research and development” in science and technology in the service of military development was vital for the growth of universities.30 Warnings about the dangers of this deep alliance between the U.S. military and intelligence, civil society, and the academy came not only from the margins but also from the Oval Office itself. Dwight Eisenhower prophetically warned about consequences of the immense power inhered in what he called the “military-industrial complex.” Interestingly, in an earlier draft of this famous speech, he had apparently inserted the word “academic” in the now famous mantra of power, but it was deleted.31 It was another politician, William Fulbright, who issued a clear warning of the dangers of academic collusion with the militarized state when he stated, “In lending itself too much for the purpose of government, a university fails its higher purpose.”32 These concerns about the narrowing of the sphere of democratic debate were also being raised by distinguished scholars (such as Hannah Arendt and John Dewey33) but McCarthyism and a new wave of political repression ensured that questions were not asked about the business of war—or the reasons that the business of war was also becoming an academic business.34 This intersection of Department of Defense, Pentagon, and research university interests resulted in massive amounts of funding and shifted the fiscal nature of universities’ state patronage from land-grant, agricultural resources to the huge war chest of the defense establishment. This fiscal patronage was both overt and covert, involving individual academics and departments across the disciplines, not just the sciences, with support from military grants. Chomsky, for example, remembers that in 1960 the political science department at MIT was funded by the CIA; closed seminars were held and “they had a villa in Saigon where students were working on pacification projects for doctoral dissertations.”35 As González points out in his chapter, “the CIA supported social science research throughout the 1950s and 1960s to perfect psychological torture techniques that were outsourced to Vietnam, Argentina, and other countries.” World War II and the Cold War had created, without a doubt, the prime “condition for the socialization of research and education.”36 At the height of the Cold War, social scientists were recruited to serve in military intelligence operations—whether gathering more “benign” forms of information, serving with the army in Vietnam, or teaching in the School of the Americas—and after 9/11, became “embedded” with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq.37

<h4><u>Second is liberalism</u> – the inclusion of supposed radical knowledge into debate instills institutional legitimacy which creates a smooth space for the academy to continue hegemonic practices of distancing from the subaltern -- leads to <u>endless imperial warfare</u> and structural violence -- their notion of “inclusion” becomes a laboratory for governmentality </h4><p><strong>Chatterjee and Maira 14</strong> (Piya Chatterjee, PhD, associate professor of women’s studies at UC Riverside, Sunaina Maira, professor of Asian American studies at UC Davis, 2014, “The Imperial University: Race, War, and the Nation State,” pp 14-18) gz</p><p><u><strong><mark>Empires of knowledge rest on</mark> the foundation of <mark>racial statecraft, militarized science, and</mark> enduring notions of <mark>civilizational superiority</u></strong></mark>. What we call “<u><strong><mark>imperial cartographies” can be traced through</mark> the meshed contours of research methods and <mark>scholarly theories</mark> as they are <mark>staked out in</mark> the pragmatic mappings of <mark>conquest, settlement, and administration of U.S. empire</u></strong></mark>.14 It is important to note that <u><strong><mark>expert knowledge on “other” cultures</mark> and civilizations <mark>has been a cornerstone of</mark> the development of academic disciplines and used in <mark>the management of “difference”</mark> within the nation <mark>as well as the conquest</mark> and management <mark>of native populations</mark> by the United States, here and overseas</u></strong>. For example, Victor Bascara examines an early iteration (and a model, perhaps) of what Bill Readings has called the “Americanization” of the university. 15 Bascara’s chapter on the imperial universities founded in the U.S.-controlled territories of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after 1898 demonstrates how <u><strong>educational discourse and practices in the colonies exemplified a complex colonizing mission</u></strong>. <u><strong>Cultural “difference” was mapped within the classroom through a distinct racial and gendered lens, one that, however benevolently, consistently tracked the ideologies of U.S. military, cultural, and economic supremacy. The educational mission for <mark>inclusion</mark> and civilization <mark>“there,”</mark> on the periphery, <mark>became</mark> a laboratory for new regimes of <mark>governmentality “here,”</mark> within the immediate territorial borders of the United States</u></strong>. <u><strong>If <mark>universities</mark> of the imperial periphery introduced a new governmentality and constructed mobile, but unequal, racial/gendered and national subjects, then these processes <mark>must </mark>also <mark>be understood within the epistemologies of “othering”</mark> being <mark>constructed by</mark> disciplines such as <mark>anthropology</u></strong></mark>. Late nineteenth-century anthropology emerged through centuries-old scientific curiosity (and debates) about human difference as well as the administrative imperatives of other imperial powers, such as Britain.16 <u><strong>Theoretical <mark>constructions</mark> of categories <mark>such as “savage”</mark> and “primitive”</u></strong> were not mere reflections of ivory tower ruminations about human origins and human science or “cultural” essences but <u><strong><mark>helped create the</mark> very <mark>scaffoldings of</mark> European and later U.S. <mark>imperial cartographies</u></strong></mark>.17 If these constructions of racial hierarchy shaped the curricular and disciplinary consensus about difference in the imperial university, then what can we say about institutional research practices that explicitly furthered state projects, especially during times of internal and external crises, such as war? In other words, <u><strong>what happens when professional scholars use their disciplinary tools and training to further military projects to defend the “national interest”? Academic knowledges about others have been significant as both information and “intelligence” for the subjugation and administration of indigenous and minoritized communities, within and beyond the United States</u></strong>, as demonstrated by González’s fascinating research on the contemporary Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence programs that target students of color. While this volume does not explore the fuller histories of the relationship between the U.S. academy and war efforts throughout the twentieth century, we gesture to some historical “plottings” that signal an enduring coimplication between the institutionalized practices of the military and the academy. It is this deep historicized process of normalization that has created the dominant “consensus” and “silence” in the imperial university in the post-9/11 period. <u><strong><mark>During World War I</u></strong></mark>, for instance, <u><strong>some <mark>archaeologists worked as spies to</mark> literally <mark>offer “on ground geographical knowledges</mark>” that</u></strong>, as David Price argues, <u><strong>were “highly valued in wartime intelligence circles</u></strong>.”18 This involvement, however, created controversy when Franz Boas, the preeminent anthropologist, protested the involvement of anthropologists with U.S. military intelligence.19 Though Boas was not supported by a majority of his colleagues, the controversy has shaped the debates about the politics and ethics of anthropologists’ relationship to military intelligence to this day, as addressed in González’s chapter and by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists within the American Anthropological Association. The imperial university was deeply embroiled in issues of war, labor, and protest throughout the first half of the twentieth century and during the earlier Red Scare. World War I and its aftermath saw the targeting and deportation of anarchists and antiwar socialists during the infamous Palmer Raids in a period of heightened nationalism and repression. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was cofounded in 1915 by John Dewey and Arthur Lovejoy; the latter resigned from Stanford University over a controversy regarding the abuse of immigrant labor by the industrialist Stanford family.20 In 1940, the Rapp-Coudert Committee was established to “investigate ‘subversive activities’ at public and private colleges in New York.”21 Faculty and students at the City College of New York were protesting fascism and capitalism through the 1930s, with progressive student groups staging mass protests and sit-ins. The committee actually subpoenaed and questioned more than a hundred faculty, students, and staff; denounced more than eight hundred public school teachers and college faculty; and fired over sixty CCNY faculty.22 <u><strong>It is</u></strong>, of course, <u><strong>World War II and the ascendance of the United States as a global superpower that propelled the alliance between the U.S. state and the academy to new heights. <mark>The Manhattan Project and the</mark> development of the atom <mark>bomb sealed this</mark> intimate and soon <mark>inextricable link</mark> <mark>between</mark> scientific <mark>research and militarism</u></strong></mark>. As R. C. Lewontin powerfully suggests, “<u><strong>It is not General Groves at his desk in the Los Alamos labs that has provided the symbolic image of the atom bomb project’s iconography but an Italian professor building an atomic pile under the spectator’s stands of the University of Chicago’s athletic field</u></strong>. It is there, not in the Nevada desert, that Henry Moore’s ambiguous fusion of a mushroom cloud and a death’s head memorializes the Bomb.”23 <u><strong>As <mark>U.S.</mark> and Allied <mark>forces</mark> launched themselves into the global theatre of war, they <mark>recognized</mark> that <mark>they needed</mark> condensed, accelerated <mark>training about the</mark> geographies and <mark>peoples they were encountering</u></strong></mark>. Ironically, it was the Boasian commitment to field-based <u><strong><mark>linguistic anthropology</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>created the capacity for</mark> “quickly learning and <mark>teaching the languages of</mark> the new theatres of <mark>warfare</u></strong></mark>.”24 Further, <u><strong><mark>Army Specialized Training Programs</u></strong></mark> (ASTPs) <u><strong><mark>were established on 227</mark> college and university <mark>campuses</mark>, 25 and some anthropologists helped create “pocket guides” for Army Special Forces</u></strong>. These booklets summarized a region’s geographical history and included gems of “cultural advice” such as “not approaching Egyptian women” and “not concluding that East Indian men holding hands are homosexuals,” 26 <u><strong>early predecessors to the post-9/ 11 manuals on understanding “the Arab mind” or Islam used to train U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents in the War on Terror. </u></strong>If the distilled study of “other cultures,” enabled by academic expertise, became important for warcraft in external theaters, <u><strong>other sets of research skills were used for the surveillance and containment of “others” within the nation-state</u></strong>. For instance, <u><strong><mark>anthropologists</mark> at the Bureau of Indian Affairs <mark>monitored</mark> and influenced war-related opinion on <mark>Native American reservations</u></strong></mark>. 27 Some <u><strong>anthropologists <mark>were involved in studying</mark> <mark>Japanese American</mark> communities as they “adapted” to their lives in the <mark>concentration camps</u></strong></mark> set up by the War Relocation Authority, “one of the most publicly visible and volatile topics relating to anthropology’s war time contributions.”28 <u><strong>Between 1945 and 1948, this rapid and intense distillation of “method” and “information” about world cultures consolidated in area studies, arguably a paradigm shift in U.S. scholarship, and one that was based on an interdisciplinary approach that would literally carve out—and map—“ regions” of the world</u></strong>. <u><strong>By the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the state-university compact to ensure that scientific knowledges would continue to serve U.S. global power was well assured</u></strong>. Noam Chomsky has argued that <u><strong>by 1945, U.S. wealth and power in the “international sphere probably had no counterpart in history</u></strong>.”29 <u><strong>Out of this mesh of forces of capital and superpower politics and supremacy emerged a consensus that state (and corporate) funding for “research and development” in science and technology in the service of military development was vital for the growth of universities</u></strong>.30 Warnings about the dangers of this deep alliance between the U.S. military and intelligence, civil society, and the academy came not only from the margins but also from the Oval Office itself. Dwight Eisenhower prophetically warned about consequences of the immense power inhered in what he called the “military-industrial complex.” Interestingly, in an earlier draft of this famous speech, he had apparently inserted the word “academic” in the now famous mantra of power, but it was deleted.31 It was another politician, William Fulbright, who issued a clear warning of the dangers of academic collusion with the militarized state when he stated, “In lending itself too much for the purpose of government, a university fails its higher purpose.”32 These concerns about the narrowing of the sphere of democratic debate were also being raised by distinguished scholars (such as Hannah Arendt and John Dewey33) but <u><strong><mark>McCarthyism</mark> and a new wave of political repression <mark>ensured</mark> that <mark>questions were not asked about</mark> the business of war—or <mark>the reasons</mark> that <mark>the business of war was</mark> also <mark>becoming an academic business</u></strong></mark>.34 <u><strong><mark>This intersection of D</mark>epartment <mark>o</mark>f <mark>D</mark>efense, <mark>Pentagon, and research </mark>university <mark>interests </mark>resulted in massive amounts of funding and <mark>shifted the fiscal nature of</mark> universities’ state <mark>patronage</mark> from land-grant, agricultural resources <mark>to the</mark> huge war chest of the <mark>defense establishment</u></strong></mark>. This fiscal patronage was both overt and covert, involving individual academics and departments across the disciplines, not just the sciences, with support from military grants. Chomsky, for example, remembers that <u><strong>in 1960 the political science department at MIT was funded by the CIA; closed seminars were held and “they had a villa in Saigon where students were working on pacification projects for doctoral dissertations</u></strong>.”35 As González points out in his chapter, “<u><strong><mark>the CIA supported</mark> social science <mark>research</mark> throughout the 1950s and 1960s <mark>to perfect psychological torture</mark> techniques that were outsourced to Vietnam, Argentina, and other countries.” World War II and the Cold War had created, without a doubt, the prime “condition for the socialization of research and education</u></strong>.”36 At the height of the Cold War, <u><strong><mark>social scientists were recruited to serve in military intelligence operations</mark>—whether gathering more “benign” forms of information, serving with the army in Vietnam, or teaching in the School of the Americas—<mark>and</mark> after 9/11, <mark>became “embedded” with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq</u></strong></mark>.37</p>

Chatterjee and Maira 14 (Piya Chatterjee, PhD, associate professor of women’s studies at UC Riverside, Sunaina Maira, professor of Asian American studies at UC Davis, 2014, “The Imperial University: Race, War, and the Nation State,” pp 14-18) gz

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Chatterjee and Maira 14 (Piya Chatterjee, PhD, associate professor of women’s studies at UC Riverside, Sunaina Maira, professor of Asian American studies at UC Davis, 2014, “The Imperial University: Race, War, and the Nation State,” pp 14-18) gz fulltext: Empires of knowledge rest on the foundation of racial statecraft, militarized science, and enduring notions of civilizational superiority. What we call “imperial cartographies” can be traced through the meshed contours of research methods and scholarly theories as they are staked out in the pragmatic mappings of conquest, settlement, and administration of U.S. empire.14 It is important to note that expert knowledge on “other” cultures and civilizations has been a cornerstone of the development of academic disciplines and used in the management of “difference” within the nation as well as the conquest and management of native populations by the United States, here and overseas. For example, Victor Bascara examines an early iteration (and a model, perhaps) of what Bill Readings has called the “Americanization” of the university. 15 Bascara’s chapter on the imperial universities founded in the U.S.-controlled territories of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after 1898 demonstrates how educational discourse and practices in the colonies exemplified a complex colonizing mission. Cultural “difference” was mapped within the classroom through a distinct racial and gendered lens, one that, however benevolently, consistently tracked the ideologies of U.S. military, cultural, and economic supremacy. The educational mission for inclusion and civilization “there,” on the periphery, became a laboratory for new regimes of governmentality “here,” within the immediate territorial borders of the United States. If universities of the imperial periphery introduced a new governmentality and constructed mobile, but unequal, racial/gendered and national subjects, then these processes must also be understood within the epistemologies of “othering” being constructed by disciplines such as anthropology. Late nineteenth-century anthropology emerged through centuries-old scientific curiosity (and debates) about human difference as well as the administrative imperatives of other imperial powers, such as Britain.16 Theoretical constructions of categories such as “savage” and “primitive” were not mere reflections of ivory tower ruminations about human origins and human science or “cultural” essences but helped create the very scaffoldings of European and later U.S. imperial cartographies.17 If these constructions of racial hierarchy shaped the curricular and disciplinary consensus about difference in the imperial university, then what can we say about institutional research practices that explicitly furthered state projects, especially during times of internal and external crises, such as war? In other words, what happens when professional scholars use their disciplinary tools and training to further military projects to defend the “national interest”? Academic knowledges about others have been significant as both information and “intelligence” for the subjugation and administration of indigenous and minoritized communities, within and beyond the United States, as demonstrated by González’s fascinating research on the contemporary Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence programs that target students of color. While this volume does not explore the fuller histories of the relationship between the U.S. academy and war efforts throughout the twentieth century, we gesture to some historical “plottings” that signal an enduring coimplication between the institutionalized practices of the military and the academy. It is this deep historicized process of normalization that has created the dominant “consensus” and “silence” in the imperial university in the post-9/11 period. During World War I, for instance, some archaeologists worked as spies to literally offer “on ground geographical knowledges” that, as David Price argues, were “highly valued in wartime intelligence circles.”18 This involvement, however, created controversy when Franz Boas, the preeminent anthropologist, protested the involvement of anthropologists with U.S. military intelligence.19 Though Boas was not supported by a majority of his colleagues, the controversy has shaped the debates about the politics and ethics of anthropologists’ relationship to military intelligence to this day, as addressed in González’s chapter and by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists within the American Anthropological Association. The imperial university was deeply embroiled in issues of war, labor, and protest throughout the first half of the twentieth century and during the earlier Red Scare. World War I and its aftermath saw the targeting and deportation of anarchists and antiwar socialists during the infamous Palmer Raids in a period of heightened nationalism and repression. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was cofounded in 1915 by John Dewey and Arthur Lovejoy; the latter resigned from Stanford University over a controversy regarding the abuse of immigrant labor by the industrialist Stanford family.20 In 1940, the Rapp-Coudert Committee was established to “investigate ‘subversive activities’ at public and private colleges in New York.”21 Faculty and students at the City College of New York were protesting fascism and capitalism through the 1930s, with progressive student groups staging mass protests and sit-ins. The committee actually subpoenaed and questioned more than a hundred faculty, students, and staff; denounced more than eight hundred public school teachers and college faculty; and fired over sixty CCNY faculty.22 It is, of course, World War II and the ascendance of the United States as a global superpower that propelled the alliance between the U.S. state and the academy to new heights. The Manhattan Project and the development of the atom bomb sealed this intimate and soon inextricable link between scientific research and militarism. As R. C. Lewontin powerfully suggests, “It is not General Groves at his desk in the Los Alamos labs that has provided the symbolic image of the atom bomb project’s iconography but an Italian professor building an atomic pile under the spectator’s stands of the University of Chicago’s athletic field. It is there, not in the Nevada desert, that Henry Moore’s ambiguous fusion of a mushroom cloud and a death’s head memorializes the Bomb.”23 As U.S. and Allied forces launched themselves into the global theatre of war, they recognized that they needed condensed, accelerated training about the geographies and peoples they were encountering. Ironically, it was the Boasian commitment to field-based linguistic anthropology that created the capacity for “quickly learning and teaching the languages of the new theatres of warfare.”24 Further, Army Specialized Training Programs (ASTPs) were established on 227 college and university campuses, 25 and some anthropologists helped create “pocket guides” for Army Special Forces. These booklets summarized a region’s geographical history and included gems of “cultural advice” such as “not approaching Egyptian women” and “not concluding that East Indian men holding hands are homosexuals,” 26 early predecessors to the post-9/ 11 manuals on understanding “the Arab mind” or Islam used to train U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents in the War on Terror. If the distilled study of “other cultures,” enabled by academic expertise, became important for warcraft in external theaters, other sets of research skills were used for the surveillance and containment of “others” within the nation-state. For instance, anthropologists at the Bureau of Indian Affairs monitored and influenced war-related opinion on Native American reservations. 27 Some anthropologists were involved in studying Japanese American communities as they “adapted” to their lives in the concentration camps set up by the War Relocation Authority, “one of the most publicly visible and volatile topics relating to anthropology’s war time contributions.”28 Between 1945 and 1948, this rapid and intense distillation of “method” and “information” about world cultures consolidated in area studies, arguably a paradigm shift in U.S. scholarship, and one that was based on an interdisciplinary approach that would literally carve out—and map—“ regions” of the world. By the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the state-university compact to ensure that scientific knowledges would continue to serve U.S. global power was well assured. Noam Chomsky has argued that by 1945, U.S. wealth and power in the “international sphere probably had no counterpart in history.”29 Out of this mesh of forces of capital and superpower politics and supremacy emerged a consensus that state (and corporate) funding for “research and development” in science and technology in the service of military development was vital for the growth of universities.30 Warnings about the dangers of this deep alliance between the U.S. military and intelligence, civil society, and the academy came not only from the margins but also from the Oval Office itself. Dwight Eisenhower prophetically warned about consequences of the immense power inhered in what he called the “military-industrial complex.” Interestingly, in an earlier draft of this famous speech, he had apparently inserted the word “academic” in the now famous mantra of power, but it was deleted.31 It was another politician, William Fulbright, who issued a clear warning of the dangers of academic collusion with the militarized state when he stated, “In lending itself too much for the purpose of government, a university fails its higher purpose.”32 These concerns about the narrowing of the sphere of democratic debate were also being raised by distinguished scholars (such as Hannah Arendt and John Dewey33) but McCarthyism and a new wave of political repression ensured that questions were not asked about the business of war—or the reasons that the business of war was also becoming an academic business.34 This intersection of Department of Defense, Pentagon, and research university interests resulted in massive amounts of funding and shifted the fiscal nature of universities’ state patronage from land-grant, agricultural resources to the huge war chest of the defense establishment. This fiscal patronage was both overt and covert, involving individual academics and departments across the disciplines, not just the sciences, with support from military grants. Chomsky, for example, remembers that in 1960 the political science department at MIT was funded by the CIA; closed seminars were held and “they had a villa in Saigon where students were working on pacification projects for doctoral dissertations.”35 As González points out in his chapter, “the CIA supported social science research throughout the 1950s and 1960s to perfect psychological torture techniques that were outsourced to Vietnam, Argentina, and other countries.” World War II and the Cold War had created, without a doubt, the prime “condition for the socialization of research and education.”36 At the height of the Cold War, social scientists were recruited to serve in military intelligence operations—whether gathering more “benign” forms of information, serving with the army in Vietnam, or teaching in the School of the Americas—and after 9/11, became “embedded” with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq.37 [/INST] <h4><u>Second is liberalism</u> – the inclusion of supposed radical knowledge into debate instills institutional legitimacy which creates a smooth space for the academy to continue hegemonic practices of distancing from the subaltern -- leads to <u>endless imperial warfare</u> and structural violence -- their notion of “inclusion” becomes a laboratory for governmentality </h4><p><strong>Chatterjee and Maira 14</strong> (Piya Chatterjee, PhD, associate professor of women’s studies at UC Riverside, Sunaina Maira, professor of Asian American studies at UC Davis, 2014, “The Imperial University: Race, War, and the Nation State,” pp 14-18) gz</p><p><u><strong><mark>Empires of knowledge rest on</mark> the foundation of <mark>racial statecraft, militarized science, and</mark> enduring notions of <mark>civilizational superiority</u></strong></mark>. What we call “<u><strong><mark>imperial cartographies” can be traced through</mark> the meshed contours of research methods and <mark>scholarly theories</mark> as they are <mark>staked out in</mark> the pragmatic mappings of <mark>conquest, settlement, and administration of U.S. empire</u></strong></mark>.14 It is important to note that <u><strong><mark>expert knowledge on “other” cultures</mark> and civilizations <mark>has been a cornerstone of</mark> the development of academic disciplines and used in <mark>the management of “difference”</mark> within the nation <mark>as well as the conquest</mark> and management <mark>of native populations</mark> by the United States, here and overseas</u></strong>. For example, Victor Bascara examines an early iteration (and a model, perhaps) of what Bill Readings has called the “Americanization” of the university. 15 Bascara’s chapter on the imperial universities founded in the U.S.-controlled territories of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after 1898 demonstrates how <u><strong>educational discourse and practices in the colonies exemplified a complex colonizing mission</u></strong>. <u><strong>Cultural “difference” was mapped within the classroom through a distinct racial and gendered lens, one that, however benevolently, consistently tracked the ideologies of U.S. military, cultural, and economic supremacy. The educational mission for <mark>inclusion</mark> and civilization <mark>“there,”</mark> on the periphery, <mark>became</mark> a laboratory for new regimes of <mark>governmentality “here,”</mark> within the immediate territorial borders of the United States</u></strong>. <u><strong>If <mark>universities</mark> of the imperial periphery introduced a new governmentality and constructed mobile, but unequal, racial/gendered and national subjects, then these processes <mark>must </mark>also <mark>be understood within the epistemologies of “othering”</mark> being <mark>constructed by</mark> disciplines such as <mark>anthropology</u></strong></mark>. Late nineteenth-century anthropology emerged through centuries-old scientific curiosity (and debates) about human difference as well as the administrative imperatives of other imperial powers, such as Britain.16 <u><strong>Theoretical <mark>constructions</mark> of categories <mark>such as “savage”</mark> and “primitive”</u></strong> were not mere reflections of ivory tower ruminations about human origins and human science or “cultural” essences but <u><strong><mark>helped create the</mark> very <mark>scaffoldings of</mark> European and later U.S. <mark>imperial cartographies</u></strong></mark>.17 If these constructions of racial hierarchy shaped the curricular and disciplinary consensus about difference in the imperial university, then what can we say about institutional research practices that explicitly furthered state projects, especially during times of internal and external crises, such as war? In other words, <u><strong>what happens when professional scholars use their disciplinary tools and training to further military projects to defend the “national interest”? Academic knowledges about others have been significant as both information and “intelligence” for the subjugation and administration of indigenous and minoritized communities, within and beyond the United States</u></strong>, as demonstrated by González’s fascinating research on the contemporary Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence programs that target students of color. While this volume does not explore the fuller histories of the relationship between the U.S. academy and war efforts throughout the twentieth century, we gesture to some historical “plottings” that signal an enduring coimplication between the institutionalized practices of the military and the academy. It is this deep historicized process of normalization that has created the dominant “consensus” and “silence” in the imperial university in the post-9/11 period. <u><strong><mark>During World War I</u></strong></mark>, for instance, <u><strong>some <mark>archaeologists worked as spies to</mark> literally <mark>offer “on ground geographical knowledges</mark>” that</u></strong>, as David Price argues, <u><strong>were “highly valued in wartime intelligence circles</u></strong>.”18 This involvement, however, created controversy when Franz Boas, the preeminent anthropologist, protested the involvement of anthropologists with U.S. military intelligence.19 Though Boas was not supported by a majority of his colleagues, the controversy has shaped the debates about the politics and ethics of anthropologists’ relationship to military intelligence to this day, as addressed in González’s chapter and by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists within the American Anthropological Association. The imperial university was deeply embroiled in issues of war, labor, and protest throughout the first half of the twentieth century and during the earlier Red Scare. World War I and its aftermath saw the targeting and deportation of anarchists and antiwar socialists during the infamous Palmer Raids in a period of heightened nationalism and repression. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was cofounded in 1915 by John Dewey and Arthur Lovejoy; the latter resigned from Stanford University over a controversy regarding the abuse of immigrant labor by the industrialist Stanford family.20 In 1940, the Rapp-Coudert Committee was established to “investigate ‘subversive activities’ at public and private colleges in New York.”21 Faculty and students at the City College of New York were protesting fascism and capitalism through the 1930s, with progressive student groups staging mass protests and sit-ins. The committee actually subpoenaed and questioned more than a hundred faculty, students, and staff; denounced more than eight hundred public school teachers and college faculty; and fired over sixty CCNY faculty.22 <u><strong>It is</u></strong>, of course, <u><strong>World War II and the ascendance of the United States as a global superpower that propelled the alliance between the U.S. state and the academy to new heights. <mark>The Manhattan Project and the</mark> development of the atom <mark>bomb sealed this</mark> intimate and soon <mark>inextricable link</mark> <mark>between</mark> scientific <mark>research and militarism</u></strong></mark>. As R. C. Lewontin powerfully suggests, “<u><strong>It is not General Groves at his desk in the Los Alamos labs that has provided the symbolic image of the atom bomb project’s iconography but an Italian professor building an atomic pile under the spectator’s stands of the University of Chicago’s athletic field</u></strong>. It is there, not in the Nevada desert, that Henry Moore’s ambiguous fusion of a mushroom cloud and a death’s head memorializes the Bomb.”23 <u><strong>As <mark>U.S.</mark> and Allied <mark>forces</mark> launched themselves into the global theatre of war, they <mark>recognized</mark> that <mark>they needed</mark> condensed, accelerated <mark>training about the</mark> geographies and <mark>peoples they were encountering</u></strong></mark>. Ironically, it was the Boasian commitment to field-based <u><strong><mark>linguistic anthropology</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>created the capacity for</mark> “quickly learning and <mark>teaching the languages of</mark> the new theatres of <mark>warfare</u></strong></mark>.”24 Further, <u><strong><mark>Army Specialized Training Programs</u></strong></mark> (ASTPs) <u><strong><mark>were established on 227</mark> college and university <mark>campuses</mark>, 25 and some anthropologists helped create “pocket guides” for Army Special Forces</u></strong>. These booklets summarized a region’s geographical history and included gems of “cultural advice” such as “not approaching Egyptian women” and “not concluding that East Indian men holding hands are homosexuals,” 26 <u><strong>early predecessors to the post-9/ 11 manuals on understanding “the Arab mind” or Islam used to train U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents in the War on Terror. </u></strong>If the distilled study of “other cultures,” enabled by academic expertise, became important for warcraft in external theaters, <u><strong>other sets of research skills were used for the surveillance and containment of “others” within the nation-state</u></strong>. For instance, <u><strong><mark>anthropologists</mark> at the Bureau of Indian Affairs <mark>monitored</mark> and influenced war-related opinion on <mark>Native American reservations</u></strong></mark>. 27 Some <u><strong>anthropologists <mark>were involved in studying</mark> <mark>Japanese American</mark> communities as they “adapted” to their lives in the <mark>concentration camps</u></strong></mark> set up by the War Relocation Authority, “one of the most publicly visible and volatile topics relating to anthropology’s war time contributions.”28 <u><strong>Between 1945 and 1948, this rapid and intense distillation of “method” and “information” about world cultures consolidated in area studies, arguably a paradigm shift in U.S. scholarship, and one that was based on an interdisciplinary approach that would literally carve out—and map—“ regions” of the world</u></strong>. <u><strong>By the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the state-university compact to ensure that scientific knowledges would continue to serve U.S. global power was well assured</u></strong>. Noam Chomsky has argued that <u><strong>by 1945, U.S. wealth and power in the “international sphere probably had no counterpart in history</u></strong>.”29 <u><strong>Out of this mesh of forces of capital and superpower politics and supremacy emerged a consensus that state (and corporate) funding for “research and development” in science and technology in the service of military development was vital for the growth of universities</u></strong>.30 Warnings about the dangers of this deep alliance between the U.S. military and intelligence, civil society, and the academy came not only from the margins but also from the Oval Office itself. Dwight Eisenhower prophetically warned about consequences of the immense power inhered in what he called the “military-industrial complex.” Interestingly, in an earlier draft of this famous speech, he had apparently inserted the word “academic” in the now famous mantra of power, but it was deleted.31 It was another politician, William Fulbright, who issued a clear warning of the dangers of academic collusion with the militarized state when he stated, “In lending itself too much for the purpose of government, a university fails its higher purpose.”32 These concerns about the narrowing of the sphere of democratic debate were also being raised by distinguished scholars (such as Hannah Arendt and John Dewey33) but <u><strong><mark>McCarthyism</mark> and a new wave of political repression <mark>ensured</mark> that <mark>questions were not asked about</mark> the business of war—or <mark>the reasons</mark> that <mark>the business of war was</mark> also <mark>becoming an academic business</u></strong></mark>.34 <u><strong><mark>This intersection of D</mark>epartment <mark>o</mark>f <mark>D</mark>efense, <mark>Pentagon, and research </mark>university <mark>interests </mark>resulted in massive amounts of funding and <mark>shifted the fiscal nature of</mark> universities’ state <mark>patronage</mark> from land-grant, agricultural resources <mark>to the</mark> huge war chest of the <mark>defense establishment</u></strong></mark>. This fiscal patronage was both overt and covert, involving individual academics and departments across the disciplines, not just the sciences, with support from military grants. Chomsky, for example, remembers that <u><strong>in 1960 the political science department at MIT was funded by the CIA; closed seminars were held and “they had a villa in Saigon where students were working on pacification projects for doctoral dissertations</u></strong>.”35 As González points out in his chapter, “<u><strong><mark>the CIA supported</mark> social science <mark>research</mark> throughout the 1950s and 1960s <mark>to perfect psychological torture</mark> techniques that were outsourced to Vietnam, Argentina, and other countries.” World War II and the Cold War had created, without a doubt, the prime “condition for the socialization of research and education</u></strong>.”36 At the height of the Cold War, <u><strong><mark>social scientists were recruited to serve in military intelligence operations</mark>—whether gathering more “benign” forms of information, serving with the army in Vietnam, or teaching in the School of the Americas—<mark>and</mark> after 9/11, <mark>became “embedded” with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq</u></strong></mark>.37</p> </s>

Multiple scenarios for nuclear escalation

underlying sources of conflict and tension will remain In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters with nuclear aspirant Iran bordering Afghanistan on one side and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India on the other Afghanistan will determine the shape of our security challenges in the region we can't afford nuclear weapons a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan will remain and may actually rise in importance The key here is to promote regional stability and cooperation, not a power vacuum maintain a stable Afghanistan

underlying sources of conflict and tension will remain In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters -- with Iran and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India Afghanistan will determine security in the region potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan -- will remain and may rise in importance The key here is to promote regional stability , not a power vacuum

The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the underlying sources of conflict and tension in South and Central Asia will remain after an American withdrawal. In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters -- with nuclear aspirant Iran bordering Afghanistan on one side and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India on the other -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in Afghanistan will determine the shape of our security challenges in the region for the foreseeable future. And we can't afford for nuclear weapons to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region -- potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan -- will remain and may actually rise in importance. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. The key here is to leave in a way that promotes regional stability and cooperation, not a power vacuum that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, maintain a stable Afghanistan, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.

<h4>Multiple scenarios for nuclear escalation</h4><p><strong>Rubin, 11</strong> (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)</p><p>The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the <u><strong><mark>underlying sources of conflict and tension</u></strong></mark> in South and Central Asia <u><strong><mark>will remain</u></strong></mark> after an American withdrawal. <u><strong><mark>In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters</u></strong></mark> <mark>-- <u><strong>with</mark> nuclear aspirant <mark>Iran</mark> bordering Afghanistan on one side <mark>and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India</mark> on the other</u></strong> -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in <u><strong><mark>Afghanistan will determine</mark> the shape of our <mark>security</mark> challenges <mark>in the region</u></strong></mark> for the foreseeable future. And <u><strong>we can't afford</u></strong> for <u><strong>nuclear weapons</u></strong> to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, <u><strong>a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region</u></strong> -- <u><strong><mark>potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan</u></strong> -- <u><strong>will remain and may</mark> actually <mark>rise in importance</u></strong></mark>. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. <u><strong><mark>The key here is to</u></strong></mark> leave in a way that <u><strong><mark>promote</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong><mark>regional stability</mark> and cooperation<mark>, not a power vacuum</u></strong></mark> that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, <u><strong>maintain a stable Afghanistan</u></strong>, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.</p>

Rubin, 11 (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Rubin, 11 (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html) fulltext: The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the underlying sources of conflict and tension in South and Central Asia will remain after an American withdrawal. In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters -- with nuclear aspirant Iran bordering Afghanistan on one side and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India on the other -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in Afghanistan will determine the shape of our security challenges in the region for the foreseeable future. And we can't afford for nuclear weapons to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region -- potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan -- will remain and may actually rise in importance. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. The key here is to leave in a way that promotes regional stability and cooperation, not a power vacuum that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, maintain a stable Afghanistan, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world. [/INST] <h4>Multiple scenarios for nuclear escalation</h4><p><strong>Rubin, 11</strong> (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)</p><p>The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the <u><strong><mark>underlying sources of conflict and tension</u></strong></mark> in South and Central Asia <u><strong><mark>will remain</u></strong></mark> after an American withdrawal. <u><strong><mark>In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters</u></strong></mark> <mark>-- <u><strong>with</mark> nuclear aspirant <mark>Iran</mark> bordering Afghanistan on one side <mark>and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India</mark> on the other</u></strong> -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in <u><strong><mark>Afghanistan will determine</mark> the shape of our <mark>security</mark> challenges <mark>in the region</u></strong></mark> for the foreseeable future. And <u><strong>we can't afford</u></strong> for <u><strong>nuclear weapons</u></strong> to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, <u><strong>a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region</u></strong> -- <u><strong><mark>potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan</u></strong> -- <u><strong>will remain and may</mark> actually <mark>rise in importance</u></strong></mark>. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. <u><strong><mark>The key here is to</u></strong></mark> leave in a way that <u><strong><mark>promote</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong><mark>regional stability</mark> and cooperation<mark>, not a power vacuum</u></strong></mark> that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, <u><strong>maintain a stable Afghanistan</u></strong>, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.</p> </s>

African instability causes great power war

Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes can give rise to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers The conflicts in the Horn of Africa have regional and global dimensions

Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have global aspects. All conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes can give rise to global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers conflicts in Africa have regional and global dimensions

The Horn of Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars, which rage continuously, can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All of the conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, can potentially give rise to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers. Located in and around the Horn of Africa are the states of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya. Eritrea, which gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year civil war, is a major source of regional conflict. Eritrea has a nagging border dispute with Ethiopia which could easily ignite. The two countries fought a bloody border war from 1998-2000 over control of the town of Badme. Although a UN mandated body determined in 2002 that the disputed town belonged to Eritrea, Ethiopia has rejected the finding and so the conflict festers. Eritrea also fights a proxy war against Ethiopia in Somalia and in Ethiopia's rebellious Ogaden region. In Somalia, Eritrea is the primary sponsor of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Courts Union which took control of Somalia in June, 2006. In November 2006, the ICU government declared jihad against Ethiopia and Kenya. Backed by the US, Ethiopia invaded Somalia last December to restore the recognized Transitional Federal Government to power which the ICU had deposed. Although the Ethiopian army successfully ousted the ICU from power in less than a week, backed by massive military and financial assistance from Eritrea, as well as Egypt and Libya, the ICU has waged a brutal insurgency against the TFG and the Ethiopian military for the past year. The senior ICU leadership, including Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed have received safe haven in Eritrea. In September, the exiled ICU leadership held a nine-day conference in the Eritrean capital of Asmara where they formed the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia headed by Ahmed. Eritrean President-for-life Isaias Afwerki declared his country's support for the insurgents stating, "The Eritrean people's support to the Somali people is consistent and historical, as well as a legal and moral obligation." Although touted in the West as a moderate, Ahmed has openly supported jihad and terrorism against Ethiopia, Kenya and the West. Aweys, for his part, is wanted by the FBI in connection with his role in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then there is Eritrea's support for the Ogaden separatists in Ethiopia. The Ogaden rebels are Somali ethnics who live in the region bordering Somalia and Kenya. The rebellion is run by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which uses terror and sabotage as its preferred methods of warfare. It targets not only Ethiopian forces and military installations, but locals who wish to maintain their allegiance to Ethiopia or reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict. In their most sensationalist attack to date, in April ONLF terror forces attacked a Chinese-run oil installation in April killing nine Chinese and 65 Ethiopians. Ethiopia, for its part has fought a brutal counter-insurgency to restore its control over the region. Human rights organizations have accused Ethiopia of massive human rights abuses of civilians in Ogaden. Then there is Sudan. As Eric Reeves wrote in the Boston Globe on Saturday, "The brutal regime in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur for five years, and is now poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region's African populations." The Islamist government of Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is refusing to accept non-African states as members of the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur that is due to replace the undermanned and demoralized African Union peacekeeping force whose mandate ends on December 31. Without its UN component of non-African states, the UN Security Council mandated force will be unable to operate effectively. Khartoum's veto led Jean-Marie Guehenno, the UN undersecretary for peacekeeping to warn last month that the entire peacekeeping mission may have to be aborted. And the Darfur region is not the only one at risk. Due to Khartoum's refusal to carry out the terms of its 2005 peace treaty with the Southern Sudanese that ended Khartoum's 20-year war and genocide against the region's Christian and animist population, the unsteady peace may be undone. Given Khartoum's apparent sprint to victory over the international community regarding Darfur, there is little reason to doubt that once victory is secured, it will renew its attacks in the south. The conflicts in the Horn of Africa have regional and global dimensions. Regionally, Egypt has played a central role in sponsoring and fomenting conflicts. Egypt's meddling advances its interest of preventing the African nations from mounting a unified challenge to Egypt's colonial legacy of extraordinary rights to the waters of the Nile River which flows through all countries of the region.

<h4>African instability causes great power war</h4><p>Caroline <strong>Glick 7</strong>, senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy, 12/12, Condi’s African holiday,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=56&categoryid=56&subcategoryid=90&newsid=11568 </p><p>The Horn of<u><strong> <mark>Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars</u></strong></mark>, which rage continuously, <u><strong><mark>can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have</mark> regional and <mark>global aspects. All</u></strong></mark> of the <u><strong><mark>conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes</u></strong></mark> from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, <u><strong><mark>can</u></strong></mark> potentially <u><strong><mark>give rise to</mark> regional, and indeed <mark>global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers</u></strong></mark>. Located in and around the Horn of Africa are the states of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya. Eritrea, which gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year civil war, is a major source of regional conflict. Eritrea has a nagging border dispute with Ethiopia which could easily ignite. The two countries fought a bloody border war from 1998-2000 over control of the town of Badme. Although a UN mandated body determined in 2002 that the disputed town belonged to Eritrea, Ethiopia has rejected the finding and so the conflict festers. Eritrea also fights a proxy war against Ethiopia in Somalia and in Ethiopia's rebellious Ogaden region. In Somalia, Eritrea is the primary sponsor of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Courts Union which took control of Somalia in June, 2006. In November 2006, the ICU government declared jihad against Ethiopia and Kenya. Backed by the US, Ethiopia invaded Somalia last December to restore the recognized Transitional Federal Government to power which the ICU had deposed. Although the Ethiopian army successfully ousted the ICU from power in less than a week, backed by massive military and financial assistance from Eritrea, as well as Egypt and Libya, the ICU has waged a brutal insurgency against the TFG and the Ethiopian military for the past year. The senior ICU leadership, including Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed have received safe haven in Eritrea. In September, the exiled ICU leadership held a nine-day conference in the Eritrean capital of Asmara where they formed the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia headed by Ahmed. Eritrean President-for-life Isaias Afwerki declared his country's support for the insurgents stating, "The Eritrean people's support to the Somali people is consistent and historical, as well as a legal and moral obligation." Although touted in the West as a moderate, Ahmed has openly supported jihad and terrorism against Ethiopia, Kenya and the West. Aweys, for his part, is wanted by the FBI in connection with his role in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then there is Eritrea's support for the Ogaden separatists in Ethiopia. The Ogaden rebels are Somali ethnics who live in the region bordering Somalia and Kenya. The rebellion is run by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which uses terror and sabotage as its preferred methods of warfare. It targets not only Ethiopian forces and military installations, but locals who wish to maintain their allegiance to Ethiopia or reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict. In their most sensationalist attack to date, in April ONLF terror forces attacked a Chinese-run oil installation in April killing nine Chinese and 65 Ethiopians. Ethiopia, for its part has fought a brutal counter-insurgency to restore its control over the region. Human rights organizations have accused Ethiopia of massive human rights abuses of civilians in Ogaden. Then there is Sudan. As Eric Reeves wrote in the Boston Globe on Saturday, "The brutal regime in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur for five years, and is now poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region's African populations." The Islamist government of Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is refusing to accept non-African states as members of the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur that is due to replace the undermanned and demoralized African Union peacekeeping force whose mandate ends on December 31. Without its UN component of non-African states, the UN Security Council mandated force will be unable to operate effectively. Khartoum's veto led Jean-Marie Guehenno, the UN undersecretary for peacekeeping to warn last month that the entire peacekeeping mission may have to be aborted. And the Darfur region is not the only one at risk. Due to Khartoum's refusal to carry out the terms of its 2005 peace treaty with the Southern Sudanese that ended Khartoum's 20-year war and genocide against the region's Christian and animist population, the unsteady peace may be undone. Given Khartoum's apparent sprint to victory over the international community regarding Darfur, there is little reason to doubt that once victory is secured, it will renew its attacks in the south. <u><strong>The <mark>conflicts in</mark> the Horn of <mark>Africa have regional and global dimensions</u></strong></mark>. Regionally, Egypt has played a central role in sponsoring and fomenting conflicts. Egypt's meddling advances its interest of preventing the African nations from mounting a unified challenge to Egypt's colonial legacy of extraordinary rights to the waters of the Nile River which flows through all countries of the region.</p>

Caroline Glick 7, senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy, 12/12, Condi’s African holiday,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=56&categoryid=56&subcategoryid=90&newsid=11568

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Caroline Glick 7, senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy, 12/12, Condi’s African holiday,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=56&categoryid=56&subcategoryid=90&newsid=11568 fulltext: The Horn of Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars, which rage continuously, can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have regional and global aspects. All of the conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, can potentially give rise to regional, and indeed global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers. Located in and around the Horn of Africa are the states of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya. Eritrea, which gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year civil war, is a major source of regional conflict. Eritrea has a nagging border dispute with Ethiopia which could easily ignite. The two countries fought a bloody border war from 1998-2000 over control of the town of Badme. Although a UN mandated body determined in 2002 that the disputed town belonged to Eritrea, Ethiopia has rejected the finding and so the conflict festers. Eritrea also fights a proxy war against Ethiopia in Somalia and in Ethiopia's rebellious Ogaden region. In Somalia, Eritrea is the primary sponsor of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Courts Union which took control of Somalia in June, 2006. In November 2006, the ICU government declared jihad against Ethiopia and Kenya. Backed by the US, Ethiopia invaded Somalia last December to restore the recognized Transitional Federal Government to power which the ICU had deposed. Although the Ethiopian army successfully ousted the ICU from power in less than a week, backed by massive military and financial assistance from Eritrea, as well as Egypt and Libya, the ICU has waged a brutal insurgency against the TFG and the Ethiopian military for the past year. The senior ICU leadership, including Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed have received safe haven in Eritrea. In September, the exiled ICU leadership held a nine-day conference in the Eritrean capital of Asmara where they formed the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia headed by Ahmed. Eritrean President-for-life Isaias Afwerki declared his country's support for the insurgents stating, "The Eritrean people's support to the Somali people is consistent and historical, as well as a legal and moral obligation." Although touted in the West as a moderate, Ahmed has openly supported jihad and terrorism against Ethiopia, Kenya and the West. Aweys, for his part, is wanted by the FBI in connection with his role in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then there is Eritrea's support for the Ogaden separatists in Ethiopia. The Ogaden rebels are Somali ethnics who live in the region bordering Somalia and Kenya. The rebellion is run by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which uses terror and sabotage as its preferred methods of warfare. It targets not only Ethiopian forces and military installations, but locals who wish to maintain their allegiance to Ethiopia or reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict. In their most sensationalist attack to date, in April ONLF terror forces attacked a Chinese-run oil installation in April killing nine Chinese and 65 Ethiopians. Ethiopia, for its part has fought a brutal counter-insurgency to restore its control over the region. Human rights organizations have accused Ethiopia of massive human rights abuses of civilians in Ogaden. Then there is Sudan. As Eric Reeves wrote in the Boston Globe on Saturday, "The brutal regime in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur for five years, and is now poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region's African populations." The Islamist government of Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is refusing to accept non-African states as members of the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur that is due to replace the undermanned and demoralized African Union peacekeeping force whose mandate ends on December 31. Without its UN component of non-African states, the UN Security Council mandated force will be unable to operate effectively. Khartoum's veto led Jean-Marie Guehenno, the UN undersecretary for peacekeeping to warn last month that the entire peacekeeping mission may have to be aborted. And the Darfur region is not the only one at risk. Due to Khartoum's refusal to carry out the terms of its 2005 peace treaty with the Southern Sudanese that ended Khartoum's 20-year war and genocide against the region's Christian and animist population, the unsteady peace may be undone. Given Khartoum's apparent sprint to victory over the international community regarding Darfur, there is little reason to doubt that once victory is secured, it will renew its attacks in the south. The conflicts in the Horn of Africa have regional and global dimensions. Regionally, Egypt has played a central role in sponsoring and fomenting conflicts. Egypt's meddling advances its interest of preventing the African nations from mounting a unified challenge to Egypt's colonial legacy of extraordinary rights to the waters of the Nile River which flows through all countries of the region. [/INST] <h4>African instability causes great power war</h4><p>Caroline <strong>Glick 7</strong>, senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy, 12/12, Condi’s African holiday,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=56&categoryid=56&subcategoryid=90&newsid=11568 </p><p>The Horn of<u><strong> <mark>Africa is a dangerous and strategically vital place. Small wars</u></strong></mark>, which rage continuously, <u><strong><mark>can easily escalate into big wars. Local conflicts have</mark> regional and <mark>global aspects. All</u></strong></mark> of the <u><strong><mark>conflicts in this tinderbox, which controls shipping lanes</u></strong></mark> from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, <u><strong><mark>can</u></strong></mark> potentially <u><strong><mark>give rise to</mark> regional, and indeed <mark>global conflagrations between competing regional actors and global powers</u></strong></mark>. Located in and around the Horn of Africa are the states of Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Kenya. Eritrea, which gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year civil war, is a major source of regional conflict. Eritrea has a nagging border dispute with Ethiopia which could easily ignite. The two countries fought a bloody border war from 1998-2000 over control of the town of Badme. Although a UN mandated body determined in 2002 that the disputed town belonged to Eritrea, Ethiopia has rejected the finding and so the conflict festers. Eritrea also fights a proxy war against Ethiopia in Somalia and in Ethiopia's rebellious Ogaden region. In Somalia, Eritrea is the primary sponsor of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Courts Union which took control of Somalia in June, 2006. In November 2006, the ICU government declared jihad against Ethiopia and Kenya. Backed by the US, Ethiopia invaded Somalia last December to restore the recognized Transitional Federal Government to power which the ICU had deposed. Although the Ethiopian army successfully ousted the ICU from power in less than a week, backed by massive military and financial assistance from Eritrea, as well as Egypt and Libya, the ICU has waged a brutal insurgency against the TFG and the Ethiopian military for the past year. The senior ICU leadership, including Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed have received safe haven in Eritrea. In September, the exiled ICU leadership held a nine-day conference in the Eritrean capital of Asmara where they formed the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia headed by Ahmed. Eritrean President-for-life Isaias Afwerki declared his country's support for the insurgents stating, "The Eritrean people's support to the Somali people is consistent and historical, as well as a legal and moral obligation." Although touted in the West as a moderate, Ahmed has openly supported jihad and terrorism against Ethiopia, Kenya and the West. Aweys, for his part, is wanted by the FBI in connection with his role in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Then there is Eritrea's support for the Ogaden separatists in Ethiopia. The Ogaden rebels are Somali ethnics who live in the region bordering Somalia and Kenya. The rebellion is run by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which uses terror and sabotage as its preferred methods of warfare. It targets not only Ethiopian forces and military installations, but locals who wish to maintain their allegiance to Ethiopia or reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict. In their most sensationalist attack to date, in April ONLF terror forces attacked a Chinese-run oil installation in April killing nine Chinese and 65 Ethiopians. Ethiopia, for its part has fought a brutal counter-insurgency to restore its control over the region. Human rights organizations have accused Ethiopia of massive human rights abuses of civilians in Ogaden. Then there is Sudan. As Eric Reeves wrote in the Boston Globe on Saturday, "The brutal regime in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur for five years, and is now poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region's African populations." The Islamist government of Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is refusing to accept non-African states as members of the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur that is due to replace the undermanned and demoralized African Union peacekeeping force whose mandate ends on December 31. Without its UN component of non-African states, the UN Security Council mandated force will be unable to operate effectively. Khartoum's veto led Jean-Marie Guehenno, the UN undersecretary for peacekeeping to warn last month that the entire peacekeeping mission may have to be aborted. And the Darfur region is not the only one at risk. Due to Khartoum's refusal to carry out the terms of its 2005 peace treaty with the Southern Sudanese that ended Khartoum's 20-year war and genocide against the region's Christian and animist population, the unsteady peace may be undone. Given Khartoum's apparent sprint to victory over the international community regarding Darfur, there is little reason to doubt that once victory is secured, it will renew its attacks in the south. <u><strong>The <mark>conflicts in</mark> the Horn of <mark>Africa have regional and global dimensions</u></strong></mark>. Regionally, Egypt has played a central role in sponsoring and fomenting conflicts. Egypt's meddling advances its interest of preventing the African nations from mounting a unified challenge to Egypt's colonial legacy of extraordinary rights to the waters of the Nile River which flows through all countries of the region.</p> </s>

Increases Dem voter turnout but doesn’t cause GOP backlash

The chance to vote on marijuana could persuade some voters to show up on Election Day, according to a poll Sixty-nine percent of voters polled said they would be more likely to vote in an election if a proposal to legalize marijuana was on the ballot, just 13 percent said they'd be less likely Liberals were even more enthusiastic about voting under those circumstances than conservatives or moderates.¶ some Democrats hope their inclusion on state ballots could help boost midterm turnout, especially among young voters.¶ "You can imagine that we're very excited about the marijuana numbers in this poll, not only for personal consumption to get through this election but also in terms of turnout," With marijuana initiatives, we actually don't get a backlash."

The chance to vote on marijuana could persuade some voters to show up on Election Day according to a George Washington University Battleground poll Sixty-nine percent of voters polled said they would be more likely to vote in an election if a proposal to legalize marijuana was on the ballot Liberals were even more enthusiastic about voting under those circumstances than conservatives or moderates With marijuana initiatives, we actually don't get a backlash."

The chance to vote on marijuana could persuade some voters to show up on Election Day, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll conducted by the bipartisan team of Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group.¶ Sixty-nine percent of voters polled said they would be more likely to vote in an election if a proposal to legalize marijuana was on the ballot, while just 13 percent said they'd be less likely. Liberals were even more enthusiastic about voting under those circumstances than conservatives or moderates.¶ Getting voters to the polls during midterm elections is a recurrent challenge for Democrats. No one is suggesting marijuana initiatives as a key get-out-the-vote strategy, but some Democrats hope their inclusion on state ballots could help boost midterm turnout, especially among young voters.¶ Florida will have a medical marijuana initiative on its ballot in November, and pot advocates are pushing to get initiatives on the ballot in several other states.¶ "You can imagine that we're very excited about the marijuana numbers in this poll, not only for personal consumption to get through this election but also in terms of turnout," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake joked at a reporter breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. Speaking later to HuffPost, she added, "The great thing about it is, marriage equality increases turnout, but we get a backlash too. Abortion issues increase turnout, but we get a backlash too. With marijuana initiatives, we actually don't get a backlash."

<h4>Increases Dem voter turnout but doesn’t cause GOP backlash</h4><p><strong>Edwards-Levy 14</strong> <u><strong><Ariel, HuffPo, Voters Say They're More Likely To Turn Out If Marijuana Is On The Ballot, March 25, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/marijuana-turnout-poll_n_5030351.html>#SPS</p><p><mark>The chance to vote on marijuana could persuade some voters to show up on Election Day</mark>, <mark>according to a</u></strong> George Washington University Battleground <u><strong>poll</u></strong></mark> conducted by the bipartisan team of Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group.¶ <u><strong><mark>Sixty-nine percent of voters polled said they would be more likely to vote in an election if a proposal to legalize marijuana was on the ballot</mark>,</u></strong> while <u><strong>just 13 percent said they'd be less likely</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Liberals were even more enthusiastic about voting under those circumstances than conservatives or moderates</mark>.¶ </u></strong>Getting voters to the polls during midterm elections is a recurrent challenge for Democrats. No one is suggesting marijuana initiatives as a key get-out-the-vote strategy, but <u><strong>some Democrats hope their inclusion on state ballots could help boost midterm turnout, especially among young voters.¶ </u></strong>Florida will have a medical marijuana initiative on its ballot in November, and pot advocates are pushing to get initiatives on the ballot in several other states.¶ <u><strong>"You can imagine that we're very excited about the marijuana numbers in this poll, not only for personal consumption to get through this election but also in terms of turnout,"</u></strong> Democratic pollster Celinda Lake joked at a reporter breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. Speaking later to HuffPost, she added, "The great thing about it is, marriage equality increases turnout, but we get a backlash too. Abortion issues increase turnout, but we get a backlash too. <u><strong><mark>With marijuana initiatives, we actually don't get a backlash."</p></u></strong></mark>

Edwards-Levy 14 <Ariel, HuffPo, Voters Say They're More Likely To Turn Out If Marijuana Is On The Ballot, March 25, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/marijuana-turnout-poll_n_5030351.html>#SPS

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Edwards-Levy 14 <Ariel, HuffPo, Voters Say They're More Likely To Turn Out If Marijuana Is On The Ballot, March 25, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/marijuana-turnout-poll_n_5030351.html>#SPS fulltext: The chance to vote on marijuana could persuade some voters to show up on Election Day, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll conducted by the bipartisan team of Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group.¶ Sixty-nine percent of voters polled said they would be more likely to vote in an election if a proposal to legalize marijuana was on the ballot, while just 13 percent said they'd be less likely. Liberals were even more enthusiastic about voting under those circumstances than conservatives or moderates.¶ Getting voters to the polls during midterm elections is a recurrent challenge for Democrats. No one is suggesting marijuana initiatives as a key get-out-the-vote strategy, but some Democrats hope their inclusion on state ballots could help boost midterm turnout, especially among young voters.¶ Florida will have a medical marijuana initiative on its ballot in November, and pot advocates are pushing to get initiatives on the ballot in several other states.¶ "You can imagine that we're very excited about the marijuana numbers in this poll, not only for personal consumption to get through this election but also in terms of turnout," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake joked at a reporter breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. Speaking later to HuffPost, she added, "The great thing about it is, marriage equality increases turnout, but we get a backlash too. Abortion issues increase turnout, but we get a backlash too. With marijuana initiatives, we actually don't get a backlash." [/INST] <h4>Increases Dem voter turnout but doesn’t cause GOP backlash</h4><p><strong>Edwards-Levy 14</strong> <u><strong><Ariel, HuffPo, Voters Say They're More Likely To Turn Out If Marijuana Is On The Ballot, March 25, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/marijuana-turnout-poll_n_5030351.html>#SPS</p><p><mark>The chance to vote on marijuana could persuade some voters to show up on Election Day</mark>, <mark>according to a</u></strong> George Washington University Battleground <u><strong>poll</u></strong></mark> conducted by the bipartisan team of Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group.¶ <u><strong><mark>Sixty-nine percent of voters polled said they would be more likely to vote in an election if a proposal to legalize marijuana was on the ballot</mark>,</u></strong> while <u><strong>just 13 percent said they'd be less likely</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Liberals were even more enthusiastic about voting under those circumstances than conservatives or moderates</mark>.¶ </u></strong>Getting voters to the polls during midterm elections is a recurrent challenge for Democrats. No one is suggesting marijuana initiatives as a key get-out-the-vote strategy, but <u><strong>some Democrats hope their inclusion on state ballots could help boost midterm turnout, especially among young voters.¶ </u></strong>Florida will have a medical marijuana initiative on its ballot in November, and pot advocates are pushing to get initiatives on the ballot in several other states.¶ <u><strong>"You can imagine that we're very excited about the marijuana numbers in this poll, not only for personal consumption to get through this election but also in terms of turnout,"</u></strong> Democratic pollster Celinda Lake joked at a reporter breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. Speaking later to HuffPost, she added, "The great thing about it is, marriage equality increases turnout, but we get a backlash too. Abortion issues increase turnout, but we get a backlash too. <u><strong><mark>With marijuana initiatives, we actually don't get a backlash."</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Doha

The collapse last week of a global trade agreement on simplifying customs rules will make it much harder for the World Trade Organization to finish its much-delayed Doha round of negotiations, which has a much broader agenda to lower tariffs and reduce barriers to trade. India vetoed the final agreement on customs rules. In recent weeks, it had insisted that the W.T.O. move up negotiations over agricultural subsidies to this year. India vastly expanded its food subsidy program, under which the government buys wheat and rice from farmers at above-market prices, stockpiles the grain and sells some of it to consumers at much lower prices One of their concerns is that India is accumulating so much grain — with millions of tons rotting for lack of storage space — that the country will inevitably end up dumping some of it onto the world market, which would depress global prices and hurt farmers in other countries. . It is disappointing that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was elected in part because it promised to revive India’s economy, did not give the agreements reached in Bali a chance. W.T.O. members have a poor record of concluding trade deals — the current Doha round of talks, of which the Bali agreements are a part, has not resulted in a completed agreement since it began in 2001. This latest failure will further erode confidence in the global trading system, and it will encourage officials in the United States, the European Union, China and Japan to pursue more regional and industry-specific trade deals those deals often leave out the smallest and poorest nations . Trade negotiators might still be able to revive the Doha negotiations, but don’t count on it.

The collapse last week of a global trade agreement on customs rules will make it much harder for the W T O to finish its Doha negotiations, India vetoed the final agreement on customs rules W.T.O. members have a poor record of concluding trade deals This latest failure will further erode confidence in the global trading system, and will encourage officials in the U S E U China and Japan to pursue regional and industry-specific trade deals

The collapse last week of a global trade agreement on simplifying customs rules will make it much harder for the World Trade Organization to finish its much-delayed Doha round of negotiations, which has a much broader agenda to lower tariffs and reduce barriers to trade. Last year at a meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali, the W.T.O.’s 160 members agreed to improve customs procedures by reducing red tape — a deal that some analysts estimated could add $1 trillion to the global economy by increasing trade. The W.T.O. had set a July 31 deadline to finalize that agreement. At the Bali meeting, the countries also agreed to renegotiate existing rules on agricultural subsidies by the end of 2017 to address India’s concerns that those regulations were too restrictive and could hurt the nation’s ability to stockpile grains to ensure food security. But last week, India vetoed the final agreement on customs rules. In recent weeks, it had insisted that the W.T.O. move up negotiations over agricultural subsidies to this year. Under W.T.O. rules, agreements must be adopted unanimously before they can be sent to the legislature of each country for ratification; two-thirds of the countries have to ratify trade deals for them to become effective. Last year, India vastly expanded its food subsidy program, under which the government buys wheat and rice from farmers at above-market prices, stockpiles the grain and sells some of it to consumers at much lower prices. Other countries like the United States and Pakistan have complained that the program distorts trade. One of their concerns is that India is accumulating so much grain — with millions of tons rotting for lack of storage space — that the country will inevitably end up dumping some of it onto the world market, which would depress global prices and hurt farmers in other countries. India should, of course, have the ability to help its struggling farmers and protect the poor. But it could achieve those goals in a more constructive way. The Bali pact, which India’s previous government supported, included an agreement by the United States, the European Union and other nations not to challenge the food policies of India and other developing nations while the food subsidy rules were renegotiated. It is disappointing that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was elected in part because it promised to revive India’s economy, did not give the agreements reached in Bali a chance. Indian officials have played down their veto, saying that the July 31 deadline was an arbitrary date and arguing that trade negotiators can sign the agreement in September. But W.T.O. members have a poor record of concluding trade deals — the current Doha round of talks, of which the Bali agreements are a part, has not resulted in a completed agreement since it began in 2001. This latest failure will further erode confidence in the global trading system, and it will encourage officials in the United States, the European Union, China and Japan to pursue more regional and industry-specific trade deals. Sadly, those deals often leave out the smallest and poorest nations, as Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo, the director general of the W.T.O., noted last week. Trade negotiators might still be able to revive the Doha negotiations, but don’t count on it.

<h4>Doha</h4><p><strong>NYT 14<u> (The New York Times, August 3, 2014, “Global Trade Talks Suffer another Setback”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/global-trade-talks-suffer-another-setback.html///TS)</p><p><mark>The collapse last week of a global trade agreement on</mark> simplifying <mark>customs rules will make it much harder for the W</mark>orld <mark>T</mark>rade <mark>O</mark>rganization <mark>to finish its</mark> much-delayed <mark>Doha</mark> round of <mark>negotiations, </mark>which has a much broader agenda to lower tariffs and reduce barriers to trade.</u></strong> Last year at a meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali, the W.T.O.’s 160 members agreed to improve customs procedures by reducing red tape — a deal that some analysts estimated could add $1 trillion to the global economy by increasing trade. The W.T.O. had set a July 31 deadline to finalize that agreement. At the Bali meeting, the countries also agreed to renegotiate existing rules on agricultural subsidies by the end of 2017 to address India’s concerns that those regulations were too restrictive and could hurt the nation’s ability to stockpile grains to ensure food security. But last week, <u><strong><mark>India vetoed the final agreement on customs rules</mark>. In recent weeks, it had insisted that the W.T.O. move up negotiations over agricultural subsidies to this year.</u></strong> Under W.T.O. rules, agreements must be adopted unanimously before they can be sent to the legislature of each country for ratification; two-thirds of the countries have to ratify trade deals for them to become effective. Last year, <u><strong>India vastly expanded its food subsidy program, under which the government buys wheat and rice from farmers at above-market prices, stockpiles the grain and sells some of it to consumers at much lower prices</u></strong>. Other countries like the United States and Pakistan have complained that the program distorts trade. <u><strong>One of their concerns is that India is accumulating so much grain — with millions of tons rotting for lack of storage space — that the country will inevitably end up dumping some of it onto the world market, which would depress global prices and hurt farmers in other countries.</u></strong> India should, of course, have the ability to help its struggling farmers and protect the poor. But it could achieve those goals in a more constructive way. The Bali pact, which India’s previous government supported, included an agreement by the United States, the European Union and other nations not to challenge the food policies of India and other developing nations while the food subsidy rules were renegotiated<u><strong>. It is disappointing that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was elected in part because it promised to revive India’s economy, did not give the agreements reached in Bali a chance.</u></strong> Indian officials have played down their veto, saying that the July 31 deadline was an arbitrary date and arguing that trade negotiators can sign the agreement in September. But <u><strong><mark>W.T.O. members have a poor record of concluding trade deals</mark> — the current Doha round of talks, of which the Bali agreements are a part, has not resulted in a completed agreement since it began in 2001. <mark>This latest failure will further erode confidence in the global trading system, and</mark> it <mark>will</mark> <mark>encourage officials in the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates, the <mark>E</mark>uropean <mark>U</mark>nion, <mark>China and Japan to pursue</mark> more <mark>regional</mark> <mark>and industry-specific trade deals</u></strong></mark>. Sadly, <u><strong>those deals often leave out the smallest and poorest nations</u></strong>, as Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo, the director general of the W.T.O., noted last week<u><strong>. Trade negotiators might still be able to revive the Doha negotiations, but don’t count on it. </p></u></strong>

NYT 14 (The New York Times, August 3, 2014, “Global Trade Talks Suffer another Setback”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/global-trade-talks-suffer-another-setback.html///TS)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: NYT 14 (The New York Times, August 3, 2014, “Global Trade Talks Suffer another Setback”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/global-trade-talks-suffer-another-setback.html///TS) fulltext: The collapse last week of a global trade agreement on simplifying customs rules will make it much harder for the World Trade Organization to finish its much-delayed Doha round of negotiations, which has a much broader agenda to lower tariffs and reduce barriers to trade. Last year at a meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali, the W.T.O.’s 160 members agreed to improve customs procedures by reducing red tape — a deal that some analysts estimated could add $1 trillion to the global economy by increasing trade. The W.T.O. had set a July 31 deadline to finalize that agreement. At the Bali meeting, the countries also agreed to renegotiate existing rules on agricultural subsidies by the end of 2017 to address India’s concerns that those regulations were too restrictive and could hurt the nation’s ability to stockpile grains to ensure food security. But last week, India vetoed the final agreement on customs rules. In recent weeks, it had insisted that the W.T.O. move up negotiations over agricultural subsidies to this year. Under W.T.O. rules, agreements must be adopted unanimously before they can be sent to the legislature of each country for ratification; two-thirds of the countries have to ratify trade deals for them to become effective. Last year, India vastly expanded its food subsidy program, under which the government buys wheat and rice from farmers at above-market prices, stockpiles the grain and sells some of it to consumers at much lower prices. Other countries like the United States and Pakistan have complained that the program distorts trade. One of their concerns is that India is accumulating so much grain — with millions of tons rotting for lack of storage space — that the country will inevitably end up dumping some of it onto the world market, which would depress global prices and hurt farmers in other countries. India should, of course, have the ability to help its struggling farmers and protect the poor. But it could achieve those goals in a more constructive way. The Bali pact, which India’s previous government supported, included an agreement by the United States, the European Union and other nations not to challenge the food policies of India and other developing nations while the food subsidy rules were renegotiated. It is disappointing that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was elected in part because it promised to revive India’s economy, did not give the agreements reached in Bali a chance. Indian officials have played down their veto, saying that the July 31 deadline was an arbitrary date and arguing that trade negotiators can sign the agreement in September. But W.T.O. members have a poor record of concluding trade deals — the current Doha round of talks, of which the Bali agreements are a part, has not resulted in a completed agreement since it began in 2001. This latest failure will further erode confidence in the global trading system, and it will encourage officials in the United States, the European Union, China and Japan to pursue more regional and industry-specific trade deals. Sadly, those deals often leave out the smallest and poorest nations, as Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo, the director general of the W.T.O., noted last week. Trade negotiators might still be able to revive the Doha negotiations, but don’t count on it. [/INST] <h4>Doha</h4><p><strong>NYT 14<u> (The New York Times, August 3, 2014, “Global Trade Talks Suffer another Setback”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/global-trade-talks-suffer-another-setback.html///TS)</p><p><mark>The collapse last week of a global trade agreement on</mark> simplifying <mark>customs rules will make it much harder for the W</mark>orld <mark>T</mark>rade <mark>O</mark>rganization <mark>to finish its</mark> much-delayed <mark>Doha</mark> round of <mark>negotiations, </mark>which has a much broader agenda to lower tariffs and reduce barriers to trade.</u></strong> Last year at a meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali, the W.T.O.’s 160 members agreed to improve customs procedures by reducing red tape — a deal that some analysts estimated could add $1 trillion to the global economy by increasing trade. The W.T.O. had set a July 31 deadline to finalize that agreement. At the Bali meeting, the countries also agreed to renegotiate existing rules on agricultural subsidies by the end of 2017 to address India’s concerns that those regulations were too restrictive and could hurt the nation’s ability to stockpile grains to ensure food security. But last week, <u><strong><mark>India vetoed the final agreement on customs rules</mark>. In recent weeks, it had insisted that the W.T.O. move up negotiations over agricultural subsidies to this year.</u></strong> Under W.T.O. rules, agreements must be adopted unanimously before they can be sent to the legislature of each country for ratification; two-thirds of the countries have to ratify trade deals for them to become effective. Last year, <u><strong>India vastly expanded its food subsidy program, under which the government buys wheat and rice from farmers at above-market prices, stockpiles the grain and sells some of it to consumers at much lower prices</u></strong>. Other countries like the United States and Pakistan have complained that the program distorts trade. <u><strong>One of their concerns is that India is accumulating so much grain — with millions of tons rotting for lack of storage space — that the country will inevitably end up dumping some of it onto the world market, which would depress global prices and hurt farmers in other countries.</u></strong> India should, of course, have the ability to help its struggling farmers and protect the poor. But it could achieve those goals in a more constructive way. The Bali pact, which India’s previous government supported, included an agreement by the United States, the European Union and other nations not to challenge the food policies of India and other developing nations while the food subsidy rules were renegotiated<u><strong>. It is disappointing that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was elected in part because it promised to revive India’s economy, did not give the agreements reached in Bali a chance.</u></strong> Indian officials have played down their veto, saying that the July 31 deadline was an arbitrary date and arguing that trade negotiators can sign the agreement in September. But <u><strong><mark>W.T.O. members have a poor record of concluding trade deals</mark> — the current Doha round of talks, of which the Bali agreements are a part, has not resulted in a completed agreement since it began in 2001. <mark>This latest failure will further erode confidence in the global trading system, and</mark> it <mark>will</mark> <mark>encourage officials in the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates, the <mark>E</mark>uropean <mark>U</mark>nion, <mark>China and Japan to pursue</mark> more <mark>regional</mark> <mark>and industry-specific trade deals</u></strong></mark>. Sadly, <u><strong>those deals often leave out the smallest and poorest nations</u></strong>, as Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo, the director general of the W.T.O., noted last week<u><strong>. Trade negotiators might still be able to revive the Doha negotiations, but don’t count on it. </p></u></strong> </s>

Legalization of marijuana would legalize hemp under the CSA

The CSA was initiated under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act of 1970 the CSA makes it illegal "to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess ... a controlled substance" except as authorized by the CSA. The CSA classifies marijuana in the first category of schedules, placing it among the most harmful and dangerous drugs. The CSA defines marijuana as follows: The term ""marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. This effectively placed the entire use of the hemp plant, whether for drug use or as industrial hemp, squarely under the control of the CSA. n141 Therefore, the DEA views industrial hemp containing .3% THC the same as marijuana grown for drug use which commonly contains a 24% THC level The CSA permits the United States Attorney General to establish the schedules of drugs in accordance with the CSA. These duties have been shifted to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the DEA, which allows them to maintain or exempt substances from the schedule. when the DEA executes rules regarding controlled substances, the newly implemented rules have the full force of the law. The DEA's power to make rulings on its regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool for the agency to influence the regulation of industrial hemp. , the DEA has interpreted every product that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance. Although 21 C.F.R. § 1308.35 exempted certain products from the CSA Schedule I list, the DEA clearly stated that the exemptions did not change the rule for the manufacturing or cultivation of any THC-containing product, which still requires registration under the CSA The importance placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THC-containing products has prohibited farmers from growing industrial hemp even though the .3% THC content makes it illegal.

The CSA classifies marijuana in the first category of schedules The CSA defines marijuana as all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., This effectively placed the entire hemp plant, whether for drug use or industri under the control of the CSA the DEA views industrial hemp the same as marijuana grown for drug use The DEA's regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool the DEA has interpreted every product that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance The importance placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THC-containing products has prohibited farmers from growing industrial hemp

Background of the Controlled Substances Act The CSA was initiated under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act of 1970. n128 The CSA went into effect on May 1, 1971. n129 It streamlined federal drug enforcement by replacing more than fifty pieces of drug legislation. n130 The purpose of the CSA was to focus the federal government's efforts in curtailing the spread of drug use in Amer-ica. n131 The subsequent enforcement of the criminal and regulatory provisions [*417] of the CSA were consolidated into the DEA under the Department of Justice in 1973. n132 By creating the CSA, the federal government established a single system of control for both narcotic and psychotropic drugs for the first time in United States history. n133 In effect, the CSA makes it illegal "to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess ... a controlled substance" except as authorized by the CSA. n134 An essential component of this regulatory scheme was to implement a series of categories or "schedules" in order to distinguish potency among various drugs. n135 The CSA has implemented five schedules and determined various findings in order to properly classify each drug through three categories: (1) the drug's potential of abuse; (2) its medical relevance; and (3) the safety of use of the drug. n136 B. Classification of Marijuana Under the Controlled Substances Act The CSA classifies marijuana in the first category of schedules, placing it among the most harmful and dangerous drugs. n137 Marijuana meets the criteria for a Schedule I controlled substance because of its THC content, which is a psychoactive hallucinogenic substance with a high potential for abuse. n138 Another key classification made by the CSA regarding marijuana was its broad definition of the drug. n139 The CSA defines marijuana as follows: The term ""marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except [*418] the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. n140 This effectively placed the entire use of the hemp plant, whether for drug use or as industrial hemp, squarely under the control of the CSA. n141 Therefore, the DEA views industrial hemp containing .3% THC the same as marijuana grown for drug use which commonly contains a 24% THC level, or eighty times more THC. n142 The CSA permits the United States Attorney General to establish the schedules of drugs in accordance with the CSA. n143 The Attorney General must consider several factors in determining whether a drug should be controlled or removed from the schedule. n144 Also, the Attorney General, when appropriate, is authorized to enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures in order to execute the purpose of the CSA. n145 These duties have been shifted to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the DEA, which allows them to maintain or exempt substances from the schedule. n146 Accordingly, when the DEA executes rules regarding controlled substances, the newly implemented rules have the full force of the law. n147 C. The DEA Issues New Rules The DEA's power to make rulings on its regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool for the agency to influence the regulation of industrial hemp. n148 The most recent substantive rulings on industrial hemp are pro-vided in the next two sections to develop a better understanding of the [*419] proper role of the CSA as well as to present various regulatory issues facing American industrial hemp producers. Also, the subsequent section provides a brief overview of the DEA registration requirements, which is the basis to understand the purpose of the North Dakota registration requirements. 1. DEA Issues an "Interpretive Ruling" Since its inception, the DEA has interpreted every product that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance. n149 In response to increased requests for clarifications on industrial hemp law, the DEA, on October 9, 2001, issued an interpretive ruling. n150 The purpose of the interpretive ruling was to make clear that the listing of THC "refers to both natural and synthetic THC." n151 This ruling initiated a lawsuit from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) because the ruling would have banned them from selling their products. n152 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp I), n153 American hemp importers challenged the validity of the DEA's interpretive ruling of October 9, 2001. n154 Since the ruling would have banned many industrial hemp products that the petitioners sold, the HIA petitioned the Ninth Circuit to declare the rule invalid. n155 The HIA argued that the interpretive rule issued by the DEA was legislative and, therefore, subjected the DEA to the notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). n156 [*420] Whether the ruling was interpretive or legislative was a critical determination because if the DEA's rule had the effect of a legislative rule, it would be invalid, because the agency cannot make legislative rules under the APA. n157 The DEA argued that its interpretative ruling did not have the effect of a legislative ruling. n158 However, the court concluded that because the interpretive ruling would have altered the way in which American hemp retailers could operate, it had the force of law. n159 Also, because the DEA did not post notice or comment regarding the rule, the DEA did not properly implement the ruling even if it was a legislative rather than an interpretive ruling. n160 The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted HIA's request and declared the ruling invalid. n161 2. DEA Issues a "Final Ruling" On March 21, 2003, the DEA issued the agency's final rules regarding the listing of industrial hemp products containing THC. n162 The purpose of the rules was to clarify the DEA's position that the CSA applied to both natural and synthetic THC. n163 Although the Ninth Circuit held that the DEA's interpretive rule had the effect of a legislative rule, the DEA determined that the October 2001 rule was consistent with APA principles. n164 According to the DEA, the agency's final ruling only prohibited hemp products that did not enter the human body, regardless of THC content. n165 It did not matter whether the product was grown naturally or synthetically. n166 The DEA's examples of exempted industrial hemp products that contain THC included, but were not limited to, paper, rope, clothes, animal feed mixtures, and personal care products. n167 The exemption effectively altered the scheduling from all products with THC to all products containing THC, excluding products that are not used for human consumption. n168 The practical reason behind the DEA's exemption of industrial hemp products [*421] was due to the DEA's belief that the regulation of these products was not an appropriate prioritization of its time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined the enforcement of the final rule. n169 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp II), n170 American importers of hemp challenged the DEA's final rule, which regulated any product that contained any amount of natural or synthetic THC. n171 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA could regulate synthetic THC of any kind. n172 However, the court also held that the DEA could not regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana products, because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. n173 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA's definition of THC contradicts the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA" and therefore cannot be upheld. n174 Moreover, the court determined that the inclusion of hemp products would place non-psychoactive industrial hemp in Schedule I for the first time and therefore voided the DEA's rule making THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant. n175 3. DEA Registration Requirements Although 21 C.F.R. § 1308.35 exempted certain products from the CSA Schedule I list, the DEA clearly stated that the exemptions did not change the rule for the manufacturing or cultivation of any THC-containing product, which still requires registration under the CSA. n176 Registration through the DEA is an essential component of the CSA as it "provides for control by the Justice Department of problems related to drug abuse" and "makes transactions outside the legitimate distribution chain illegal." n177 The importance placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THC-containing products has prohibited North [*422] Dakota farmers from growing industrial hemp even though the .3% THC content makes it illegal.

<h4><strong>Legalization of marijuana would legalize hemp under the CSA</h4><p>Duppong 9 </strong>(Thomas A., J.D. candidate at the University of North Dakota School of Law, “NOTE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP: HOW THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS MARIJUANA UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT HAS CAUSED THE DREAM OF GROWING INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN NORTH DAKOTA TO GO UP IN SMOKE,” 2009, 85 N. Dak<u><strong>. L. Rev. 403, Lexis)</p><p></u></strong>Background of the Controlled Substances Act <u><strong>The CSA was initiated under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act of 1970</u></strong>. n128 The CSA went into effect on May 1, 1971. n129 It streamlined federal drug enforcement by replacing more than fifty pieces of drug legislation. n130 The purpose of the CSA was to focus the federal government's efforts in curtailing the spread of drug use in Amer-ica. n131 The subsequent enforcement of the criminal and regulatory provisions [*417] of the CSA were consolidated into the DEA under the Department of Justice in 1973. n132 By creating the CSA, the federal government established a single system of control for both narcotic and psychotropic drugs for the first time in United States history. n133 In effect, <u><strong>the CSA makes it illegal "to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess ... a controlled substance" except as authorized by the CSA.</u></strong> n134 An essential component of this regulatory scheme was to implement a series of categories or "schedules" in order to distinguish potency among various drugs. n135 The CSA has implemented five schedules and determined various findings in order to properly classify each drug through three categories: (1) the drug's potential of abuse; (2) its medical relevance; and (3) the safety of use of the drug. n136 B. Classification of Marijuana Under the Controlled Substances Act <u><strong><mark>The CSA classifies</mark> <mark>marijuana in the first category of schedules</mark>, placing it among the most harmful and dangerous drugs.</u></strong> n137 Marijuana meets the criteria for a Schedule I controlled substance because of its THC content, which is a psychoactive hallucinogenic substance with a high potential for abuse. n138 Another key classification made by the CSA regarding marijuana was its broad definition of the drug. n139 <u><strong><mark>The CSA defines marijuana as</mark> follows: The term ""marihuana" means <mark>all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., </mark>whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.</u></strong> Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except [*418] the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. n140 <u><strong><mark>This effectively placed the entire</mark> use of the <mark>hemp plant, whether for drug use or</mark> as <mark>industri</mark>al hemp, squarely <mark>under the control of the CSA</mark>. n141 Therefore, <mark>the DEA views industrial hemp</mark> containing .3% THC <mark>the same as marijuana grown for drug use</mark> which commonly contains a 24% THC level</u></strong>, or eighty times more THC. n142 <u><strong>The CSA permits the United States Attorney General to establish the schedules of drugs in accordance with the CSA.</u></strong> n143 The Attorney General must consider several factors in determining whether a drug should be controlled or removed from the schedule. n144 Also, the Attorney General, when appropriate, is authorized to enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures in order to execute the purpose of the CSA. n145 <u><strong>These duties have been shifted to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the DEA, which allows them to maintain or exempt substances from the schedule.</u></strong> n146 Accordingly, <u><strong>when the DEA executes rules regarding controlled substances, the newly implemented rules have the full force of the law.</u></strong> n147 C. The DEA Issues New Rules <u><strong><mark>The DEA's </mark>power to make rulings on its <mark>regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool </mark>for the agency to influence the regulation of industrial hemp.</u></strong> n148 The most recent substantive rulings on industrial hemp are pro-vided in the next two sections to develop a better understanding of the [*419] proper role of the CSA as well as to present various regulatory issues facing American industrial hemp producers. Also, the subsequent section provides a brief overview of the DEA registration requirements, which is the basis to understand the purpose of the North Dakota registration requirements. 1. DEA Issues an "Interpretive Ruling" Since its inception<u><strong>, <mark>the DEA has interpreted every product that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance</mark>.</u></strong> n149 In response to increased requests for clarifications on industrial hemp law, the DEA, on October 9, 2001, issued an interpretive ruling. n150 The purpose of the interpretive ruling was to make clear that the listing of THC "refers to both natural and synthetic THC." n151 This ruling initiated a lawsuit from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) because the ruling would have banned them from selling their products. n152 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp I), n153 American hemp importers challenged the validity of the DEA's interpretive ruling of October 9, 2001. n154 Since the ruling would have banned many industrial hemp products that the petitioners sold, the HIA petitioned the Ninth Circuit to declare the rule invalid. n155 The HIA argued that the interpretive rule issued by the DEA was legislative and, therefore, subjected the DEA to the notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). n156 [*420] Whether the ruling was interpretive or legislative was a critical determination because if the DEA's rule had the effect of a legislative rule, it would be invalid, because the agency cannot make legislative rules under the APA. n157 The DEA argued that its interpretative ruling did not have the effect of a legislative ruling. n158 However, the court concluded that because the interpretive ruling would have altered the way in which American hemp retailers could operate, it had the force of law. n159 Also, because the DEA did not post notice or comment regarding the rule, the DEA did not properly implement the ruling even if it was a legislative rather than an interpretive ruling. n160 The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted HIA's request and declared the ruling invalid. n161 2. DEA Issues a "Final Ruling" On March 21, 2003, the DEA issued the agency's final rules regarding the listing of industrial hemp products containing THC. n162 The purpose of the rules was to clarify the DEA's position that the CSA applied to both natural and synthetic THC. n163 Although the Ninth Circuit held that the DEA's interpretive rule had the effect of a legislative rule, the DEA determined that the October 2001 rule was consistent with APA principles. n164 According to the DEA, the agency's final ruling only prohibited hemp products that did not enter the human body, regardless of THC content. n165 It did not matter whether the product was grown naturally or synthetically. n166 The DEA's examples of exempted industrial hemp products that contain THC included, but were not limited to, paper, rope, clothes, animal feed mixtures, and personal care products. n167 The exemption effectively altered the scheduling from all products with THC to all products containing THC, excluding products that are not used for human consumption. n168 The practical reason behind the DEA's exemption of industrial hemp products [*421] was due to the DEA's belief that the regulation of these products was not an appropriate prioritization of its time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined the enforcement of the final rule. n169 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp II), n170 American importers of hemp challenged the DEA's final rule, which regulated any product that contained any amount of natural or synthetic THC. n171 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA could regulate synthetic THC of any kind. n172 However, the court also held that the DEA could not regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana products, because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. n173 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA's definition of THC contradicts the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA" and therefore cannot be upheld. n174 Moreover, the court determined that the inclusion of hemp products would place non-psychoactive industrial hemp in Schedule I for the first time and therefore voided the DEA's rule making THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant. n175 3. DEA Registration Requirements <u><strong>Although 21 C.F.R. § 1308.35 exempted certain products from the CSA Schedule I list, the DEA clearly stated that the exemptions did not change the rule for the manufacturing or cultivation of any THC-containing product, which still requires registration under the CSA</u></strong>. n176 Registration through the DEA is an essential component of the CSA as it "provides for control by the Justice Department of problems related to drug abuse" and "makes transactions outside the legitimate distribution chain illegal." n177 <u><strong><mark>The importance placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THC-containing products has prohibited</u></strong></mark> North [*422] Dakota <u><strong><mark>farmers from growing industrial hemp</mark> even though the .3% THC content makes it illegal.</p></u></strong>

Duppong 9 (Thomas A., J.D. candidate at the University of North Dakota School of Law, “NOTE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP: HOW THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS MARIJUANA UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT HAS CAUSED THE DREAM OF GROWING INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN NORTH DAKOTA TO GO UP IN SMOKE,” 2009, 85 N. Dak. L. Rev. 403, Lexis)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Duppong 9 (Thomas A., J.D. candidate at the University of North Dakota School of Law, “NOTE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP: HOW THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS MARIJUANA UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT HAS CAUSED THE DREAM OF GROWING INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN NORTH DAKOTA TO GO UP IN SMOKE,” 2009, 85 N. Dak. L. Rev. 403, Lexis) fulltext: Background of the Controlled Substances Act The CSA was initiated under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act of 1970. n128 The CSA went into effect on May 1, 1971. n129 It streamlined federal drug enforcement by replacing more than fifty pieces of drug legislation. n130 The purpose of the CSA was to focus the federal government's efforts in curtailing the spread of drug use in Amer-ica. n131 The subsequent enforcement of the criminal and regulatory provisions [*417] of the CSA were consolidated into the DEA under the Department of Justice in 1973. n132 By creating the CSA, the federal government established a single system of control for both narcotic and psychotropic drugs for the first time in United States history. n133 In effect, the CSA makes it illegal "to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess ... a controlled substance" except as authorized by the CSA. n134 An essential component of this regulatory scheme was to implement a series of categories or "schedules" in order to distinguish potency among various drugs. n135 The CSA has implemented five schedules and determined various findings in order to properly classify each drug through three categories: (1) the drug's potential of abuse; (2) its medical relevance; and (3) the safety of use of the drug. n136 B. Classification of Marijuana Under the Controlled Substances Act The CSA classifies marijuana in the first category of schedules, placing it among the most harmful and dangerous drugs. n137 Marijuana meets the criteria for a Schedule I controlled substance because of its THC content, which is a psychoactive hallucinogenic substance with a high potential for abuse. n138 Another key classification made by the CSA regarding marijuana was its broad definition of the drug. n139 The CSA defines marijuana as follows: The term ""marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except [*418] the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. n140 This effectively placed the entire use of the hemp plant, whether for drug use or as industrial hemp, squarely under the control of the CSA. n141 Therefore, the DEA views industrial hemp containing .3% THC the same as marijuana grown for drug use which commonly contains a 24% THC level, or eighty times more THC. n142 The CSA permits the United States Attorney General to establish the schedules of drugs in accordance with the CSA. n143 The Attorney General must consider several factors in determining whether a drug should be controlled or removed from the schedule. n144 Also, the Attorney General, when appropriate, is authorized to enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures in order to execute the purpose of the CSA. n145 These duties have been shifted to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the DEA, which allows them to maintain or exempt substances from the schedule. n146 Accordingly, when the DEA executes rules regarding controlled substances, the newly implemented rules have the full force of the law. n147 C. The DEA Issues New Rules The DEA's power to make rulings on its regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool for the agency to influence the regulation of industrial hemp. n148 The most recent substantive rulings on industrial hemp are pro-vided in the next two sections to develop a better understanding of the [*419] proper role of the CSA as well as to present various regulatory issues facing American industrial hemp producers. Also, the subsequent section provides a brief overview of the DEA registration requirements, which is the basis to understand the purpose of the North Dakota registration requirements. 1. DEA Issues an "Interpretive Ruling" Since its inception, the DEA has interpreted every product that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance. n149 In response to increased requests for clarifications on industrial hemp law, the DEA, on October 9, 2001, issued an interpretive ruling. n150 The purpose of the interpretive ruling was to make clear that the listing of THC "refers to both natural and synthetic THC." n151 This ruling initiated a lawsuit from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) because the ruling would have banned them from selling their products. n152 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp I), n153 American hemp importers challenged the validity of the DEA's interpretive ruling of October 9, 2001. n154 Since the ruling would have banned many industrial hemp products that the petitioners sold, the HIA petitioned the Ninth Circuit to declare the rule invalid. n155 The HIA argued that the interpretive rule issued by the DEA was legislative and, therefore, subjected the DEA to the notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). n156 [*420] Whether the ruling was interpretive or legislative was a critical determination because if the DEA's rule had the effect of a legislative rule, it would be invalid, because the agency cannot make legislative rules under the APA. n157 The DEA argued that its interpretative ruling did not have the effect of a legislative ruling. n158 However, the court concluded that because the interpretive ruling would have altered the way in which American hemp retailers could operate, it had the force of law. n159 Also, because the DEA did not post notice or comment regarding the rule, the DEA did not properly implement the ruling even if it was a legislative rather than an interpretive ruling. n160 The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted HIA's request and declared the ruling invalid. n161 2. DEA Issues a "Final Ruling" On March 21, 2003, the DEA issued the agency's final rules regarding the listing of industrial hemp products containing THC. n162 The purpose of the rules was to clarify the DEA's position that the CSA applied to both natural and synthetic THC. n163 Although the Ninth Circuit held that the DEA's interpretive rule had the effect of a legislative rule, the DEA determined that the October 2001 rule was consistent with APA principles. n164 According to the DEA, the agency's final ruling only prohibited hemp products that did not enter the human body, regardless of THC content. n165 It did not matter whether the product was grown naturally or synthetically. n166 The DEA's examples of exempted industrial hemp products that contain THC included, but were not limited to, paper, rope, clothes, animal feed mixtures, and personal care products. n167 The exemption effectively altered the scheduling from all products with THC to all products containing THC, excluding products that are not used for human consumption. n168 The practical reason behind the DEA's exemption of industrial hemp products [*421] was due to the DEA's belief that the regulation of these products was not an appropriate prioritization of its time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined the enforcement of the final rule. n169 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp II), n170 American importers of hemp challenged the DEA's final rule, which regulated any product that contained any amount of natural or synthetic THC. n171 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA could regulate synthetic THC of any kind. n172 However, the court also held that the DEA could not regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana products, because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. n173 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA's definition of THC contradicts the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA" and therefore cannot be upheld. n174 Moreover, the court determined that the inclusion of hemp products would place non-psychoactive industrial hemp in Schedule I for the first time and therefore voided the DEA's rule making THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant. n175 3. DEA Registration Requirements Although 21 C.F.R. § 1308.35 exempted certain products from the CSA Schedule I list, the DEA clearly stated that the exemptions did not change the rule for the manufacturing or cultivation of any THC-containing product, which still requires registration under the CSA. n176 Registration through the DEA is an essential component of the CSA as it "provides for control by the Justice Department of problems related to drug abuse" and "makes transactions outside the legitimate distribution chain illegal." n177 The importance placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THC-containing products has prohibited North [*422] Dakota farmers from growing industrial hemp even though the .3% THC content makes it illegal. [/INST] <h4><strong>Legalization of marijuana would legalize hemp under the CSA</h4><p>Duppong 9 </strong>(Thomas A., J.D. candidate at the University of North Dakota School of Law, “NOTE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP: HOW THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS MARIJUANA UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT HAS CAUSED THE DREAM OF GROWING INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN NORTH DAKOTA TO GO UP IN SMOKE,” 2009, 85 N. Dak<u><strong>. L. Rev. 403, Lexis)</p><p></u></strong>Background of the Controlled Substances Act <u><strong>The CSA was initiated under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act of 1970</u></strong>. n128 The CSA went into effect on May 1, 1971. n129 It streamlined federal drug enforcement by replacing more than fifty pieces of drug legislation. n130 The purpose of the CSA was to focus the federal government's efforts in curtailing the spread of drug use in Amer-ica. n131 The subsequent enforcement of the criminal and regulatory provisions [*417] of the CSA were consolidated into the DEA under the Department of Justice in 1973. n132 By creating the CSA, the federal government established a single system of control for both narcotic and psychotropic drugs for the first time in United States history. n133 In effect, <u><strong>the CSA makes it illegal "to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess ... a controlled substance" except as authorized by the CSA.</u></strong> n134 An essential component of this regulatory scheme was to implement a series of categories or "schedules" in order to distinguish potency among various drugs. n135 The CSA has implemented five schedules and determined various findings in order to properly classify each drug through three categories: (1) the drug's potential of abuse; (2) its medical relevance; and (3) the safety of use of the drug. n136 B. Classification of Marijuana Under the Controlled Substances Act <u><strong><mark>The CSA classifies</mark> <mark>marijuana in the first category of schedules</mark>, placing it among the most harmful and dangerous drugs.</u></strong> n137 Marijuana meets the criteria for a Schedule I controlled substance because of its THC content, which is a psychoactive hallucinogenic substance with a high potential for abuse. n138 Another key classification made by the CSA regarding marijuana was its broad definition of the drug. n139 <u><strong><mark>The CSA defines marijuana as</mark> follows: The term ""marihuana" means <mark>all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., </mark>whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.</u></strong> Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except [*418] the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. n140 <u><strong><mark>This effectively placed the entire</mark> use of the <mark>hemp plant, whether for drug use or</mark> as <mark>industri</mark>al hemp, squarely <mark>under the control of the CSA</mark>. n141 Therefore, <mark>the DEA views industrial hemp</mark> containing .3% THC <mark>the same as marijuana grown for drug use</mark> which commonly contains a 24% THC level</u></strong>, or eighty times more THC. n142 <u><strong>The CSA permits the United States Attorney General to establish the schedules of drugs in accordance with the CSA.</u></strong> n143 The Attorney General must consider several factors in determining whether a drug should be controlled or removed from the schedule. n144 Also, the Attorney General, when appropriate, is authorized to enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures in order to execute the purpose of the CSA. n145 <u><strong>These duties have been shifted to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the DEA, which allows them to maintain or exempt substances from the schedule.</u></strong> n146 Accordingly, <u><strong>when the DEA executes rules regarding controlled substances, the newly implemented rules have the full force of the law.</u></strong> n147 C. The DEA Issues New Rules <u><strong><mark>The DEA's </mark>power to make rulings on its <mark>regulation of industrial hemp is an important tool </mark>for the agency to influence the regulation of industrial hemp.</u></strong> n148 The most recent substantive rulings on industrial hemp are pro-vided in the next two sections to develop a better understanding of the [*419] proper role of the CSA as well as to present various regulatory issues facing American industrial hemp producers. Also, the subsequent section provides a brief overview of the DEA registration requirements, which is the basis to understand the purpose of the North Dakota registration requirements. 1. DEA Issues an "Interpretive Ruling" Since its inception<u><strong>, <mark>the DEA has interpreted every product that contains any amount of THC to be a Schedule I controlled substance</mark>.</u></strong> n149 In response to increased requests for clarifications on industrial hemp law, the DEA, on October 9, 2001, issued an interpretive ruling. n150 The purpose of the interpretive ruling was to make clear that the listing of THC "refers to both natural and synthetic THC." n151 This ruling initiated a lawsuit from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) because the ruling would have banned them from selling their products. n152 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp I), n153 American hemp importers challenged the validity of the DEA's interpretive ruling of October 9, 2001. n154 Since the ruling would have banned many industrial hemp products that the petitioners sold, the HIA petitioned the Ninth Circuit to declare the rule invalid. n155 The HIA argued that the interpretive rule issued by the DEA was legislative and, therefore, subjected the DEA to the notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). n156 [*420] Whether the ruling was interpretive or legislative was a critical determination because if the DEA's rule had the effect of a legislative rule, it would be invalid, because the agency cannot make legislative rules under the APA. n157 The DEA argued that its interpretative ruling did not have the effect of a legislative ruling. n158 However, the court concluded that because the interpretive ruling would have altered the way in which American hemp retailers could operate, it had the force of law. n159 Also, because the DEA did not post notice or comment regarding the rule, the DEA did not properly implement the ruling even if it was a legislative rather than an interpretive ruling. n160 The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted HIA's request and declared the ruling invalid. n161 2. DEA Issues a "Final Ruling" On March 21, 2003, the DEA issued the agency's final rules regarding the listing of industrial hemp products containing THC. n162 The purpose of the rules was to clarify the DEA's position that the CSA applied to both natural and synthetic THC. n163 Although the Ninth Circuit held that the DEA's interpretive rule had the effect of a legislative rule, the DEA determined that the October 2001 rule was consistent with APA principles. n164 According to the DEA, the agency's final ruling only prohibited hemp products that did not enter the human body, regardless of THC content. n165 It did not matter whether the product was grown naturally or synthetically. n166 The DEA's examples of exempted industrial hemp products that contain THC included, but were not limited to, paper, rope, clothes, animal feed mixtures, and personal care products. n167 The exemption effectively altered the scheduling from all products with THC to all products containing THC, excluding products that are not used for human consumption. n168 The practical reason behind the DEA's exemption of industrial hemp products [*421] was due to the DEA's belief that the regulation of these products was not an appropriate prioritization of its time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals permanently enjoined the enforcement of the final rule. n169 In Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Hemp II), n170 American importers of hemp challenged the DEA's final rule, which regulated any product that contained any amount of natural or synthetic THC. n171 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA could regulate synthetic THC of any kind. n172 However, the court also held that the DEA could not regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana products, because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. n173 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the DEA's definition of THC contradicts the "unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA" and therefore cannot be upheld. n174 Moreover, the court determined that the inclusion of hemp products would place non-psychoactive industrial hemp in Schedule I for the first time and therefore voided the DEA's rule making THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant. n175 3. DEA Registration Requirements <u><strong>Although 21 C.F.R. § 1308.35 exempted certain products from the CSA Schedule I list, the DEA clearly stated that the exemptions did not change the rule for the manufacturing or cultivation of any THC-containing product, which still requires registration under the CSA</u></strong>. n176 Registration through the DEA is an essential component of the CSA as it "provides for control by the Justice Department of problems related to drug abuse" and "makes transactions outside the legitimate distribution chain illegal." n177 <u><strong><mark>The importance placed on registration and the ability of the DEA to control the manufacturing of THC-containing products has prohibited</u></strong></mark> North [*422] Dakota <u><strong><mark>farmers from growing industrial hemp</mark> even though the .3% THC content makes it illegal.</p></u></strong> </s>

Their unique process of working within the university is bad -- it causes the appropriation of suffering and prevents successful movements

Neither does the analysis of structures, of processes, of histories, of suffering require any accountable engagement on our part with suffering bodies nor with any of the vectors of violence whose complex intersections in historical time give material, embodied content to what we, in distance, name suffering the suffering condition when appropriated for the purposes of theory possesses no experiential meaning. Whilst lip service is paid to ‘voices of suffering’, voices as such are absented of experiential truth or ontological-political significance in any objectification of suffering as condition; voices are retained instead as theory’s justificatory launch-pads for intervention. At no point, for most of us theorists, is the suffering voice the voice of theory. the ‘subaltern cannot speak’! The politics of discoursing suffering therefore is a politics of the theorist, suffering a problem to be solved by the theorist, where prescription is divorced from experience, theory from the relationality of violence and its local, day-to-day, normal and norm-alised infliction. those that suffer, are invited to await the trickle-down of whatever benign ‘solution’ theory may purport to offer, post its lengthy journeys through intellectual and policy interrogations, as suffering is validated (or otherwise), its structural causation identified (or otherwise), its alleviation interrogated for many a disputed appropriateness of response (or otherwise). suffering itself becomes secondary to the politics of the ‘theorist/philosopher’ – the ‘Self’ thinking for the suffering Other - of imperial recognition, response and intervention Thus are offered rationalised solutions to the problem of the suffering condition, as if some ideal may indeed be redeemed and made ‘real’ from the incomplete actual of the present, laying as it were, immanent, latent, awaiting (re)discovery. The theorist becomes the technician, the expert wielder of knowledge and strategic wisdom, to overcome the problem of suffering, perceived as one of inadequate social cognition, institutional organisation and planning. suffering, as human rights violations becomes the result of inadequate understanding of rights-scope and obligations or of the conceptual essence of rights itself, or of the allocation of resources suffering, as global injustice, becomes a problem of reformulating political affinities within the new meta-game of globalisation as methodological cosmopolitanism towards ‘global citizenship’ to overcome the limits of anachronistic notions of political identities and responsibilities of ‘social connection models thinking suffering and its alleviation, true to the ‘problem of the passage’ becomes rational work, and the technocratic, even bureaucratic, measuring of suffering and its responses becomes the practical implication of theory constant fluctuations of betrayals and aspirations, always with some justification close at hand, only serving to further entrench the Levinasian injunction to responsibility - for further endeavours of thinking-hope, to further serve the cause of salvation for the lost souls of ‘strangers’, Suffering, as condition, as commodity to be exploited, as depoliticised category rather than experience, as a technical/bureaucratic/managerial problem to be solved, remains therefore the ever-present alibi for legitimate interventions amidst constant (and inevitable) disappointments. A corrupt, violent, imperial, global order(ing) of social relations becomes also the saviour, constantly revitalised and called unto renewed being, with every call for the alleviation of suffering How do we account for the constant supply of suffering that continues to move the demand for suffering-based thinking We make a huge assumption - we who theorise alleviatory possibilities out of the suffering condition - that our faith systems are true to the promises proclaimed we attempt to think our way out of (continuing) betrayals to enable the realisation of promises we wish to believe in. With so many questions, and perhaps to assuage our faith in the consequentiality of our thoughts, follows the so many ‘should’-assertions that crowd our repeated redesigns for Humanity – that the world community should respond to suffering; should expend the necessary resources that would alleviate chronic deprivation; should redress prevailing inequalities and injustices within the global economic order; should prioritise human rights in world trade and economic relations, should enforce legal regimes to hold transnational corporations responsible, should reform and democratise international institutions, the list, again, goes on. As do, notwithstanding all of these manifold ‘shoulds’, the ways of the world in which betrayals remain the normalities of business-as-usual

suffering when appropriated for theory possesses no experiential meaning lip service is paid to suffering’ voices are retained as theory’s justificatory launch-pads for intervention At no point is the suffering voice the voice of theory The politics of suffering is a politics of the theorist to be solved by the theorist where prescription is divorced from experience theory from the relationality of violence and local infliction those that suffer await the trickle-down of whatever ‘solution’ theory may offer post journeys through intellectual interrogations suffering becomes secondary to the philosopher’ the ‘Self’ thinking for the suffering Other - of imperial recognition, response and intervention The theorist becomes the technician expert of knowledge to overcome suffering suffering becomes rational work, and the technocratic bureaucratic, measuring of suffering entrench Levinasian responsibility to serve the cause of salvation for strangers’ Suffering as commodity to be exploited depoliticised experience, as a technical/bureaucratic problem remains the alibi for interventions A violent, imperial order(ing) of social relations becomes the saviour with every call for the alleviation of suffering With so many questions to assuage faith our thoughts follow should’-assertions that crowd our repeated redesigns for Humanity the world should respond to suffering should expend resources should redress inequalities should enforce legal regimes should democratise institutions the list, goes on the ways of the world remain the normalities of business-as-usual

People suffer.17 This is a simple truth that takes little effort to state. Neither does the analysis of structures, of processes, of histories, of suffering require any accountable engagement on our part with suffering bodies (save perhaps in our field-work phase of enquiry as we seek data) nor with any of the vectors of violence whose complex intersections in historical time give material, embodied content to what we, in distance, name suffering. Put differently, the suffering condition when appropriated for the purposes of theory possesses no experiential meaning. Whilst lip service is paid to ‘voices of suffering’, voices as such are absented of experiential truth or ontological-political significance in any objectification of suffering as condition; voices are retained instead (perhaps, again, through the inclusion of some choice quotes of wretchedness, accumulated as data from the field) as theory’s justificatory launch-pads for intervention. At no point, for most of us theorists, is the suffering voice the voice of theory. Indeed, as Gayatri Spivak (1988) so trenchantly affirmed, the ‘subaltern cannot speak’!18 The politics of discoursing suffering therefore is a politics of the theorist, suffering a problem to be solved by the theorist, where prescription is divorced from experience, theory from the relationality of violence and its local, day-to-day, normal and norm-alised infliction. At best, those that suffer, are invited to await the trickle-down of whatever benign ‘solution’ theory may purport to offer, post its lengthy journeys through intellectual and policy interrogations, as suffering is validated (or otherwise), its structural causation identified (or otherwise), its alleviation interrogated for many a disputed appropriateness of response (or otherwise).19 Having served the purpose of instigating theory suffering itself becomes secondary to the politics of the ‘theorist/philosopher’ – the ‘Self’ thinking for the suffering Other - of imperial recognition, response and intervention.20 Thus are offered rationalised solutions to the problem of the suffering condition, as if some ideal may indeed be redeemed and made ‘real’ from the incomplete actual of the present, laying as it were, immanent, latent, awaiting (re)discovery. The theorist becomes the technician, the expert wielder of knowledge and strategic wisdom, to overcome the problem of suffering, perceived as one of inadequate social cognition, institutional organisation and planning. Thus, for example, suffering, as human rights violations becomes the result of inadequate understanding of rights-scope and obligations (Craven 2007; Alston and Quinn 1987), or of the conceptual essence of rights itself, or of the allocation of resources.21 Or, to refer to another example of theory-talk (where the legacy of Levinas is apparent), suffering, as global injustice, becomes a problem of reformulating political affinities within the new meta-game of globalisation as methodological cosmopolitanism (Beck 2005),22 towards ‘global citizenship’ to overcome the limits of anachronistic notions of political identities and responsibilities (Dower and Williams 2002), of ‘social connection models (Young 2006), or of the ‘ethics of assistance’ (Chatterjee 2004), or of cosmopolitan care, responsibility, and the politics of redistribution and institutional reform (Pogge 2008). In these examples of discoursing suffering, thinking suffering and its alleviation, true to the ‘problem of the passage’ in Levinasian thought (Wolcher 2003),23 becomes rational work, and the technocratic, even bureaucratic, measuring of suffering and its (appropriate) responses becomes the practical implication of theory; the constant fluctuations of betrayals and aspirations, always with some justification close at hand, only serving to further entrench the Levinasian injunction to responsibility - for further endeavours of thinking-hope, to further serve the cause of salvation for the lost souls of ‘strangers’, as Wheeler (2000) so poignantly put it. Suffering, as condition, as commodity to be exploited, as depoliticised category rather than experience, as a technical/bureaucratic/managerial problem to be solved, remains therefore the ever-present alibi for legitimate interventions amidst constant (and inevitable) disappointments. A corrupt, violent, imperial, global order(ing) of social relations becomes also the saviour, constantly revitalised and called unto renewed being, with every call for the alleviation of suffering (Douzinas 2007b).24 For all the repeated urgings for the expansion of its boundaries, to repair the various denials of exteriority, totality, it seems, is little affected.25 How, therefore, do we account for the constant supply of suffering (through the cruelties of the world) that continues to move the demand for suffering-based thinking (despite these cruelties)? How might the apparent inconsequentiality of so much humanisation in the pervasiveness of inhumanity demand our critical self-reflection as we engage in the politics of hope? We make a huge assumption - we who theorise alleviatory possibilities out of the suffering condition - that our faith systems are true to the promises proclaimed. With this assumption, we attempt to think our way out of (continuing) betrayals to enable the realisation of promises we wish to believe in. Good promises they seemingly are: the promise to eliminate poverty; to end starvation; to realise education for all; the list goes on. We ask the question, what prevents the realisation of these promises? What might enable the realisation of these promises? How much more resources? What kind of political institutions? With so many questions, and perhaps 21 to assuage our faith in the consequentiality of our thoughts, follows the so many ‘should’-assertions that crowd our repeated redesigns for Humanity – that the world community should respond to suffering; should expend the necessary (miniscule) resources that would alleviate chronic deprivation; should redress prevailing inequalities and injustices within the global economic order; should prioritise human rights in world trade and economic relations, should enforce legal regimes to hold transnational corporations responsible, should reform and democratise international institutions, the list, again, goes on. As do, notwithstanding all of these manifold ‘shoulds’, the ways of the world in which betrayals remain the normalities of business-as-usual (Robinson and Tormey 2009).

<h4>Their unique process of working within the university is bad -- it causes the appropriation of suffering and prevents successful movements </h4><p>Jayan <strong>Nayar 13</strong>, PhD from the University of Cambridge and Department of Law at the University of Warwick, February 2013, “The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-The-World: Thinking Exteriority,” Law and Critique Volume 24 Issue 1, gz</p><p>People suffer.17 This is a simple truth that takes little effort to state. <u><strong>Neither does the analysis of structures, of processes, of histories, of suffering require any accountable engagement on our part with suffering bodies</u></strong> (save perhaps in our field-work phase of enquiry as we seek data) <u><strong>nor with any of the vectors of violence whose complex intersections in historical time give material, embodied content to what we, in distance, name suffering</u></strong>. Put differently, <u><strong>the <mark>suffering</mark> condition <mark>when appropriated for</mark> the purposes of <mark>theory possesses no experiential meaning</mark>. Whilst <mark>lip service is paid to </mark>‘voices of <mark>suffering’</mark>, voices as such are absented of experiential truth or ontological-political significance in any objectification of suffering as condition; <mark>voices are retained</mark> instead</u></strong> (perhaps, again, through the inclusion of some choice quotes of wretchedness, accumulated as data from the field) <u><strong><mark>as theory’s justificatory launch-pads for intervention</mark>. <mark>At no point</mark>, for most of us theorists, <mark>is the suffering voice the voice of theory</mark>.</u></strong> Indeed, as Gayatri Spivak (1988) so trenchantly affirmed, <u><strong>the ‘subaltern cannot speak’!</u></strong>18 <u><strong><mark>The politics of </mark>discoursing <mark>suffering</mark> therefore <mark>is a politics of the theorist</mark>, suffering a problem <mark>to be solved by the theorist</mark>, <mark>where prescription is divorced from experience</mark>, <mark>theory from the relationality of violence and</mark> its <mark>local</mark>, day-to-day, normal and norm-alised <mark>infliction</mark>.</u></strong> At best, <u><strong><mark>those that suffer</mark>, are invited to <mark>await the trickle-down of whatever</mark> benign <mark>‘solution’ theory may</mark> purport to <mark>offer</mark>, <mark>post</mark> its lengthy <mark>journeys through intellectual</mark> and policy <mark>interrogations</mark>, as suffering is validated (or otherwise), its structural causation identified (or otherwise), its alleviation interrogated for many a disputed appropriateness of response (or otherwise).</u></strong>19 Having served the purpose of instigating theory <u><strong><mark>suffering</mark> itself <mark>becomes secondary to the</mark> politics of the ‘theorist/<mark>philosopher’</mark> – <mark>the ‘Self’ thinking for the suffering</mark> <mark>Other - of imperial recognition, response and intervention</u></strong></mark>.20 <u><strong>Thus are offered rationalised solutions to the problem of the suffering condition, as if some ideal may indeed be redeemed and made ‘real’ from the incomplete actual of the present, laying as it were, immanent, latent, awaiting (re)discovery. <mark>The theorist becomes the technician</mark>, the <mark>expert</mark> wielder <mark>of knowledge</mark> and strategic wisdom, <mark>to overcome</mark> the problem of <mark>suffering</mark>, perceived as one of inadequate social cognition, institutional organisation and planning.</u></strong> Thus, for example, <u><strong>suffering, as human rights violations becomes the result of inadequate understanding of rights-scope and obligations</u></strong> (Craven 2007; Alston and Quinn 1987), <u><strong>or of the conceptual essence of rights itself, or of the allocation of resources</u></strong>.21 Or, to refer to another example of theory-talk (where the legacy of Levinas is apparent), <u><strong>suffering, as global injustice, becomes a problem of reformulating political affinities within the new meta-game of globalisation as methodological cosmopolitanism</u></strong> (Beck 2005),22 <u><strong>towards ‘global citizenship’ to overcome the limits of anachronistic notions of political identities and responsibilities</u></strong> (Dower and Williams 2002), <u><strong>of ‘social connection models</u></strong> (Young 2006), or of the ‘ethics of assistance’ (Chatterjee 2004), or of cosmopolitan care, responsibility, and the politics of redistribution and institutional reform (Pogge 2008). In these examples of discoursing suffering, <u><strong>thinking <mark>suffering</mark> and its alleviation, true to the ‘problem of the passage’</u></strong> in Levinasian thought (Wolcher 2003),23 <u><strong><mark>becomes rational work, and the technocratic</mark>, even <mark>bureaucratic, measuring of suffering</mark> and its</u></strong> (appropriate) <u><strong>responses becomes the practical implication of theory</u></strong>; the <u><strong>constant fluctuations of betrayals and aspirations, always with some justification close at hand, only serving to further <mark>entrench</mark> the <mark>Levinasian</mark> injunction to <mark>responsibility</mark> - for further endeavours of thinking-hope, <mark>to</mark> further <mark>serve the cause of salvation for</mark> the lost souls of ‘<mark>strangers’</mark>,</u></strong> as Wheeler (2000) so poignantly put it. <u><strong><mark>Suffering</mark>, as condition, <mark>as commodity to be exploited</mark>, as <mark>depoliticised</mark> category rather than <mark>experience, as a technical/bureaucratic</mark>/managerial <mark>problem</mark> to be solved, <mark>remains</mark> therefore <mark>the</mark> ever-present <mark>alibi for</mark> legitimate <mark>interventions</mark> amidst constant (and inevitable) disappointments. <mark>A</mark> corrupt, <mark>violent, imperial</mark>, global <mark>order(ing) of social relations becomes</mark> also <mark>the saviour</mark>, constantly revitalised and called unto renewed being, <mark>with every call for the alleviation of suffering</u></strong></mark> (Douzinas 2007b).24 For all the repeated urgings for the expansion of its boundaries, to repair the various denials of exteriority, totality, it seems, is little affected.25 <u><strong>How</u></strong>, therefore, <u><strong>do we account for the constant supply of suffering </u></strong>(through the cruelties of the world) <u><strong>that continues to move the demand for suffering-based thinking</u></strong> (despite these cruelties)? How might the apparent inconsequentiality of so much humanisation in the pervasiveness of inhumanity demand our critical self-reflection as we engage in the politics of hope? <u><strong>We make a huge assumption - we who theorise alleviatory possibilities out of the suffering condition - that our faith systems are true to the promises proclaimed</u></strong>. With this assumption, <u><strong>we attempt to think our way out of (continuing) betrayals to enable the realisation of promises we wish to believe in.</u></strong> Good promises they seemingly are: the promise to eliminate poverty; to end starvation; to realise education for all; the list goes on. We ask the question, what prevents the realisation of these promises? What might enable the realisation of these promises? How much more resources? What kind of political institutions? <u><strong><mark>With so many</mark> <mark>questions</mark>, and perhaps </u></strong>21 <u><strong><mark>to assuage</mark> our <mark>faith</mark> in the consequentiality of <mark>our thoughts</mark>, <mark>follow</mark>s the so many ‘<mark>should’-assertions</mark> <mark>that</mark> <mark>crowd our repeated redesigns for Humanity</mark> – that <mark>the world</mark> community <mark>should respond to suffering</mark>; <mark>should expend</mark> the necessary</u></strong> (miniscule) <u><strong><mark>resources</mark> that would alleviate chronic deprivation; <mark>should</mark> <mark>redress</mark> prevailing <mark>inequalities</mark> and injustices within the global economic order; should prioritise human rights in world trade and economic relations, <mark>should enforce legal regimes</mark> to hold transnational corporations responsible, <mark>should</mark> reform and <mark>democratise</mark> international <mark>institutions</mark>, <mark>the list,</mark> again, <mark>goes on</mark>. As do, notwithstanding all of these manifold ‘shoulds’, <mark>the ways of the world</mark> in which betrayals <mark>remain the normalities of business-as-usual</u></strong></mark> (Robinson and Tormey 2009).</p>

Jayan Nayar 13, PhD from the University of Cambridge and Department of Law at the University of Warwick, February 2013, “The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-The-World: Thinking Exteriority,” Law and Critique Volume 24 Issue 1, gz

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jayan Nayar 13, PhD from the University of Cambridge and Department of Law at the University of Warwick, February 2013, “The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-The-World: Thinking Exteriority,” Law and Critique Volume 24 Issue 1, gz fulltext: People suffer.17 This is a simple truth that takes little effort to state. Neither does the analysis of structures, of processes, of histories, of suffering require any accountable engagement on our part with suffering bodies (save perhaps in our field-work phase of enquiry as we seek data) nor with any of the vectors of violence whose complex intersections in historical time give material, embodied content to what we, in distance, name suffering. Put differently, the suffering condition when appropriated for the purposes of theory possesses no experiential meaning. Whilst lip service is paid to ‘voices of suffering’, voices as such are absented of experiential truth or ontological-political significance in any objectification of suffering as condition; voices are retained instead (perhaps, again, through the inclusion of some choice quotes of wretchedness, accumulated as data from the field) as theory’s justificatory launch-pads for intervention. At no point, for most of us theorists, is the suffering voice the voice of theory. Indeed, as Gayatri Spivak (1988) so trenchantly affirmed, the ‘subaltern cannot speak’!18 The politics of discoursing suffering therefore is a politics of the theorist, suffering a problem to be solved by the theorist, where prescription is divorced from experience, theory from the relationality of violence and its local, day-to-day, normal and norm-alised infliction. At best, those that suffer, are invited to await the trickle-down of whatever benign ‘solution’ theory may purport to offer, post its lengthy journeys through intellectual and policy interrogations, as suffering is validated (or otherwise), its structural causation identified (or otherwise), its alleviation interrogated for many a disputed appropriateness of response (or otherwise).19 Having served the purpose of instigating theory suffering itself becomes secondary to the politics of the ‘theorist/philosopher’ – the ‘Self’ thinking for the suffering Other - of imperial recognition, response and intervention.20 Thus are offered rationalised solutions to the problem of the suffering condition, as if some ideal may indeed be redeemed and made ‘real’ from the incomplete actual of the present, laying as it were, immanent, latent, awaiting (re)discovery. The theorist becomes the technician, the expert wielder of knowledge and strategic wisdom, to overcome the problem of suffering, perceived as one of inadequate social cognition, institutional organisation and planning. Thus, for example, suffering, as human rights violations becomes the result of inadequate understanding of rights-scope and obligations (Craven 2007; Alston and Quinn 1987), or of the conceptual essence of rights itself, or of the allocation of resources.21 Or, to refer to another example of theory-talk (where the legacy of Levinas is apparent), suffering, as global injustice, becomes a problem of reformulating political affinities within the new meta-game of globalisation as methodological cosmopolitanism (Beck 2005),22 towards ‘global citizenship’ to overcome the limits of anachronistic notions of political identities and responsibilities (Dower and Williams 2002), of ‘social connection models (Young 2006), or of the ‘ethics of assistance’ (Chatterjee 2004), or of cosmopolitan care, responsibility, and the politics of redistribution and institutional reform (Pogge 2008). In these examples of discoursing suffering, thinking suffering and its alleviation, true to the ‘problem of the passage’ in Levinasian thought (Wolcher 2003),23 becomes rational work, and the technocratic, even bureaucratic, measuring of suffering and its (appropriate) responses becomes the practical implication of theory; the constant fluctuations of betrayals and aspirations, always with some justification close at hand, only serving to further entrench the Levinasian injunction to responsibility - for further endeavours of thinking-hope, to further serve the cause of salvation for the lost souls of ‘strangers’, as Wheeler (2000) so poignantly put it. Suffering, as condition, as commodity to be exploited, as depoliticised category rather than experience, as a technical/bureaucratic/managerial problem to be solved, remains therefore the ever-present alibi for legitimate interventions amidst constant (and inevitable) disappointments. A corrupt, violent, imperial, global order(ing) of social relations becomes also the saviour, constantly revitalised and called unto renewed being, with every call for the alleviation of suffering (Douzinas 2007b).24 For all the repeated urgings for the expansion of its boundaries, to repair the various denials of exteriority, totality, it seems, is little affected.25 How, therefore, do we account for the constant supply of suffering (through the cruelties of the world) that continues to move the demand for suffering-based thinking (despite these cruelties)? How might the apparent inconsequentiality of so much humanisation in the pervasiveness of inhumanity demand our critical self-reflection as we engage in the politics of hope? We make a huge assumption - we who theorise alleviatory possibilities out of the suffering condition - that our faith systems are true to the promises proclaimed. With this assumption, we attempt to think our way out of (continuing) betrayals to enable the realisation of promises we wish to believe in. Good promises they seemingly are: the promise to eliminate poverty; to end starvation; to realise education for all; the list goes on. We ask the question, what prevents the realisation of these promises? What might enable the realisation of these promises? How much more resources? What kind of political institutions? With so many questions, and perhaps 21 to assuage our faith in the consequentiality of our thoughts, follows the so many ‘should’-assertions that crowd our repeated redesigns for Humanity – that the world community should respond to suffering; should expend the necessary (miniscule) resources that would alleviate chronic deprivation; should redress prevailing inequalities and injustices within the global economic order; should prioritise human rights in world trade and economic relations, should enforce legal regimes to hold transnational corporations responsible, should reform and democratise international institutions, the list, again, goes on. As do, notwithstanding all of these manifold ‘shoulds’, the ways of the world in which betrayals remain the normalities of business-as-usual (Robinson and Tormey 2009). [/INST] <h4>Their unique process of working within the university is bad -- it causes the appropriation of suffering and prevents successful movements </h4><p>Jayan <strong>Nayar 13</strong>, PhD from the University of Cambridge and Department of Law at the University of Warwick, February 2013, “The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-The-World: Thinking Exteriority,” Law and Critique Volume 24 Issue 1, gz</p><p>People suffer.17 This is a simple truth that takes little effort to state. <u><strong>Neither does the analysis of structures, of processes, of histories, of suffering require any accountable engagement on our part with suffering bodies</u></strong> (save perhaps in our field-work phase of enquiry as we seek data) <u><strong>nor with any of the vectors of violence whose complex intersections in historical time give material, embodied content to what we, in distance, name suffering</u></strong>. Put differently, <u><strong>the <mark>suffering</mark> condition <mark>when appropriated for</mark> the purposes of <mark>theory possesses no experiential meaning</mark>. Whilst <mark>lip service is paid to </mark>‘voices of <mark>suffering’</mark>, voices as such are absented of experiential truth or ontological-political significance in any objectification of suffering as condition; <mark>voices are retained</mark> instead</u></strong> (perhaps, again, through the inclusion of some choice quotes of wretchedness, accumulated as data from the field) <u><strong><mark>as theory’s justificatory launch-pads for intervention</mark>. <mark>At no point</mark>, for most of us theorists, <mark>is the suffering voice the voice of theory</mark>.</u></strong> Indeed, as Gayatri Spivak (1988) so trenchantly affirmed, <u><strong>the ‘subaltern cannot speak’!</u></strong>18 <u><strong><mark>The politics of </mark>discoursing <mark>suffering</mark> therefore <mark>is a politics of the theorist</mark>, suffering a problem <mark>to be solved by the theorist</mark>, <mark>where prescription is divorced from experience</mark>, <mark>theory from the relationality of violence and</mark> its <mark>local</mark>, day-to-day, normal and norm-alised <mark>infliction</mark>.</u></strong> At best, <u><strong><mark>those that suffer</mark>, are invited to <mark>await the trickle-down of whatever</mark> benign <mark>‘solution’ theory may</mark> purport to <mark>offer</mark>, <mark>post</mark> its lengthy <mark>journeys through intellectual</mark> and policy <mark>interrogations</mark>, as suffering is validated (or otherwise), its structural causation identified (or otherwise), its alleviation interrogated for many a disputed appropriateness of response (or otherwise).</u></strong>19 Having served the purpose of instigating theory <u><strong><mark>suffering</mark> itself <mark>becomes secondary to the</mark> politics of the ‘theorist/<mark>philosopher’</mark> – <mark>the ‘Self’ thinking for the suffering</mark> <mark>Other - of imperial recognition, response and intervention</u></strong></mark>.20 <u><strong>Thus are offered rationalised solutions to the problem of the suffering condition, as if some ideal may indeed be redeemed and made ‘real’ from the incomplete actual of the present, laying as it were, immanent, latent, awaiting (re)discovery. <mark>The theorist becomes the technician</mark>, the <mark>expert</mark> wielder <mark>of knowledge</mark> and strategic wisdom, <mark>to overcome</mark> the problem of <mark>suffering</mark>, perceived as one of inadequate social cognition, institutional organisation and planning.</u></strong> Thus, for example, <u><strong>suffering, as human rights violations becomes the result of inadequate understanding of rights-scope and obligations</u></strong> (Craven 2007; Alston and Quinn 1987), <u><strong>or of the conceptual essence of rights itself, or of the allocation of resources</u></strong>.21 Or, to refer to another example of theory-talk (where the legacy of Levinas is apparent), <u><strong>suffering, as global injustice, becomes a problem of reformulating political affinities within the new meta-game of globalisation as methodological cosmopolitanism</u></strong> (Beck 2005),22 <u><strong>towards ‘global citizenship’ to overcome the limits of anachronistic notions of political identities and responsibilities</u></strong> (Dower and Williams 2002), <u><strong>of ‘social connection models</u></strong> (Young 2006), or of the ‘ethics of assistance’ (Chatterjee 2004), or of cosmopolitan care, responsibility, and the politics of redistribution and institutional reform (Pogge 2008). In these examples of discoursing suffering, <u><strong>thinking <mark>suffering</mark> and its alleviation, true to the ‘problem of the passage’</u></strong> in Levinasian thought (Wolcher 2003),23 <u><strong><mark>becomes rational work, and the technocratic</mark>, even <mark>bureaucratic, measuring of suffering</mark> and its</u></strong> (appropriate) <u><strong>responses becomes the practical implication of theory</u></strong>; the <u><strong>constant fluctuations of betrayals and aspirations, always with some justification close at hand, only serving to further <mark>entrench</mark> the <mark>Levinasian</mark> injunction to <mark>responsibility</mark> - for further endeavours of thinking-hope, <mark>to</mark> further <mark>serve the cause of salvation for</mark> the lost souls of ‘<mark>strangers’</mark>,</u></strong> as Wheeler (2000) so poignantly put it. <u><strong><mark>Suffering</mark>, as condition, <mark>as commodity to be exploited</mark>, as <mark>depoliticised</mark> category rather than <mark>experience, as a technical/bureaucratic</mark>/managerial <mark>problem</mark> to be solved, <mark>remains</mark> therefore <mark>the</mark> ever-present <mark>alibi for</mark> legitimate <mark>interventions</mark> amidst constant (and inevitable) disappointments. <mark>A</mark> corrupt, <mark>violent, imperial</mark>, global <mark>order(ing) of social relations becomes</mark> also <mark>the saviour</mark>, constantly revitalised and called unto renewed being, <mark>with every call for the alleviation of suffering</u></strong></mark> (Douzinas 2007b).24 For all the repeated urgings for the expansion of its boundaries, to repair the various denials of exteriority, totality, it seems, is little affected.25 <u><strong>How</u></strong>, therefore, <u><strong>do we account for the constant supply of suffering </u></strong>(through the cruelties of the world) <u><strong>that continues to move the demand for suffering-based thinking</u></strong> (despite these cruelties)? How might the apparent inconsequentiality of so much humanisation in the pervasiveness of inhumanity demand our critical self-reflection as we engage in the politics of hope? <u><strong>We make a huge assumption - we who theorise alleviatory possibilities out of the suffering condition - that our faith systems are true to the promises proclaimed</u></strong>. With this assumption, <u><strong>we attempt to think our way out of (continuing) betrayals to enable the realisation of promises we wish to believe in.</u></strong> Good promises they seemingly are: the promise to eliminate poverty; to end starvation; to realise education for all; the list goes on. We ask the question, what prevents the realisation of these promises? What might enable the realisation of these promises? How much more resources? What kind of political institutions? <u><strong><mark>With so many</mark> <mark>questions</mark>, and perhaps </u></strong>21 <u><strong><mark>to assuage</mark> our <mark>faith</mark> in the consequentiality of <mark>our thoughts</mark>, <mark>follow</mark>s the so many ‘<mark>should’-assertions</mark> <mark>that</mark> <mark>crowd our repeated redesigns for Humanity</mark> – that <mark>the world</mark> community <mark>should respond to suffering</mark>; <mark>should expend</mark> the necessary</u></strong> (miniscule) <u><strong><mark>resources</mark> that would alleviate chronic deprivation; <mark>should</mark> <mark>redress</mark> prevailing <mark>inequalities</mark> and injustices within the global economic order; should prioritise human rights in world trade and economic relations, <mark>should enforce legal regimes</mark> to hold transnational corporations responsible, <mark>should</mark> reform and <mark>democratise</mark> international <mark>institutions</mark>, <mark>the list,</mark> again, <mark>goes on</mark>. As do, notwithstanding all of these manifold ‘shoulds’, <mark>the ways of the world</mark> in which betrayals <mark>remain the normalities of business-as-usual</u></strong></mark> (Robinson and Tormey 2009).</p> </s>

Specifically, US prohibition undermines global implementation of AIDS harm-reduction policies

with the emergence of the HIV epidemic¶ health experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to the¶ problem of drug dependency. social and behavioral research provided an unprecedented level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction services it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous In 2003, at the mid-term review of¶ the UNGASS on drugs, the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition, nothing has been more important than the policy positions promoted and defended internationally by the US government all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy and US policies related to drugs have largely determined drug control practices globally. Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, US commitment to the war on drugs has been one of the central factors underlying resistance to the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ public health approaches to disease prevention There can be no doubt that the policies pursued by Bush are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade

with the emergence of HIV epidemic experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to drug dependency research provided an unprecedented level of evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction In 2003, at the UNGASS the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition nothing has been more important than the positions promoted by the US US policies have determined practices globally US commitment to the war on drugs has been the central factor underlying resistance to health approaches to disease

During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly with the emergence of the HIV epidemic¶ and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ health experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to the¶ problem of drug dependency. A significant increase in¶ social and behavioral research carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ provided an unprecedented level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction services, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches grounded in public¶ health principles would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7 In 2003, at the mid-term review of¶ the UNGASS on drugs, the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition, with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably nothing has been more important than the policy positions promoted and defended internationally by the US government. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy since its inception more than a century ago, and US policies related to drugs have largely determined drug control practices globally. Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, US commitment to the war on drugs has been one of the central factors underlying resistance to the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ contemporary public health approaches to health promotion and disease prevention.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. There can be no doubt, for example,¶ that the policies pursued by the Bush administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century.

<h4>Specifically, US prohibition undermines global implementation of AIDS harm-reduction policies</h4><p>Joanne <strong>Csete 10, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf</p><p></strong>During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly <u><mark>with the emergence of</mark> the <mark>HIV epidemic</mark>¶ </u>and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ <u>health <mark>experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to</mark> the¶ problem of <mark>drug dependency</mark>. </u>A significant increase in¶ <u>social and behavioral <mark>research</u></mark> carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ <u><mark>provided an unprecedented level of</mark> scientific <mark>evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction</mark> services</u>, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, <u>it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches</u> grounded in public¶ health principles <u>would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services</u> <u>and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous</u> than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7<u> <mark>In 2003, at the</mark> mid-term review of¶ the <mark>UNGASS</mark> on drugs, <mark>the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition</mark>,</u> with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably <u><strong><mark>nothing has been more important</strong> than the</mark> <strong>policy <mark>positions promoted</mark> and defended internationally <mark>by the US</mark> government</u></strong>. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, <u>all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy </u>since its inception more than a century ago, <u>and <mark>US policies</mark> related to drugs <mark>have</mark> <strong>largely <mark>determined</mark> drug control <mark>practices globally</mark>.</u></strong> <u>Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, <mark>US commitment to the war on drugs has been</mark> one of <mark>the central factor</mark>s <mark>underlying resistance to</mark> the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ </u>contemporary <u>public <mark>health approaches to</mark> </u>health promotion and <u><mark>disease</mark> prevention</u>.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. <u>There can be no doubt</u>, for example,¶ <u>that the policies pursued by</u> the <u>Bush</u> administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, <u>are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade</u>. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century.</p>

Joanne Csete 10, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Joanne Csete 10, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf fulltext: During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly with the emergence of the HIV epidemic¶ and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ health experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to the¶ problem of drug dependency. A significant increase in¶ social and behavioral research carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ provided an unprecedented level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction services, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches grounded in public¶ health principles would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7 In 2003, at the mid-term review of¶ the UNGASS on drugs, the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition, with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably nothing has been more important than the policy positions promoted and defended internationally by the US government. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy since its inception more than a century ago, and US policies related to drugs have largely determined drug control practices globally. Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, US commitment to the war on drugs has been one of the central factors underlying resistance to the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ contemporary public health approaches to health promotion and disease prevention.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. There can be no doubt, for example,¶ that the policies pursued by the Bush administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century. [/INST] <h4>Specifically, US prohibition undermines global implementation of AIDS harm-reduction policies</h4><p>Joanne <strong>Csete 10, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf</p><p></strong>During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly <u><mark>with the emergence of</mark> the <mark>HIV epidemic</mark>¶ </u>and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ <u>health <mark>experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to</mark> the¶ problem of <mark>drug dependency</mark>. </u>A significant increase in¶ <u>social and behavioral <mark>research</u></mark> carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ <u><mark>provided an unprecedented level of</mark> scientific <mark>evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction</mark> services</u>, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, <u>it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches</u> grounded in public¶ health principles <u>would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services</u> <u>and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous</u> than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7<u> <mark>In 2003, at the</mark> mid-term review of¶ the <mark>UNGASS</mark> on drugs, <mark>the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition</mark>,</u> with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably <u><strong><mark>nothing has been more important</strong> than the</mark> <strong>policy <mark>positions promoted</mark> and defended internationally <mark>by the US</mark> government</u></strong>. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, <u>all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy </u>since its inception more than a century ago, <u>and <mark>US policies</mark> related to drugs <mark>have</mark> <strong>largely <mark>determined</mark> drug control <mark>practices globally</mark>.</u></strong> <u>Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, <mark>US commitment to the war on drugs has been</mark> one of <mark>the central factor</mark>s <mark>underlying resistance to</mark> the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ </u>contemporary <u>public <mark>health approaches to</mark> </u>health promotion and <u><mark>disease</mark> prevention</u>.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. <u>There can be no doubt</u>, for example,¶ <u>that the policies pursued by</u> the <u>Bush</u> administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, <u>are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade</u>. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century.</p> </s>

Afghan instability causes nuclear war

We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails Most forget that throwing Vietnam to the wolves made the world far more dangerous Soviets saw it as a sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America They went on a nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over terrorism came into fashion he world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India triggering a nuclear war between the two countries Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive selling their nuclear weapons Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold War’s the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States Our allies might rethink things as well NATO might well fall apart

We can expect if Afghan fails a nuclear spending spree to kill the world several times over Al-Qaida would be back in the game triggering a nuclear war , Iran and Korea could shift nuclear programs into overdrive The resulting arms race could be far more dangerous the world would snowball into a big, tragic war Russia, China and Venezuela would challenge the U S NATO might fall apart

James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/ We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails and he opts to cut and run. Most forget that throwing South Vietnam to the wolves made the world a far more dangerous place. The Soviets saw it as an unmistakable sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America. They went on a conventional- and nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over. State-sponsorship of terrorism came into fashion. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are the world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game. Regional terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India—potentially triggering a nuclear war between the two countries. Sensing a Washington in retreat, Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive, hoping to save their failing economies by selling their nuclear weapons and technologies to all comers. Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own. The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold War’s two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus as well. That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States. Our allies might rethink things as well. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. NATO might well fall apart. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.

<h4>Afghan instability causes <u>nuclear war</h4><p></u><strong>Carafano 10</strong> </p><p>James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/</p><p><u><strong><mark>We can expect</mark> similar results <mark>if </mark>Obama’s <mark>Afghan </mark>strategy <mark>fails </u></strong></mark>and he opts to cut and run. <u><strong>Most forget that throwing </u></strong>South <u><strong>Vietnam to the wolves made the world </u></strong>a <u><strong>far more dangerous </u></strong>place. The <u><strong>Soviets saw it as a</u></strong>n unmistakable <u><strong>sign that America was in decline. They abetted</u></strong> <u><strong>military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America</u></strong>. <u><strong>They went on <mark>a</mark> </u></strong>conventional- and <u><strong><mark>nuclear</mark>-arms <mark>spending spree</mark>. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax <mark>to kill the world several times over</u></strong></mark>. State-sponsorship of <u><strong>terrorism came into fashion</u></strong>. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are t<u><strong>he world will get a lot less safe. <mark>Al-Qaida would be back in the game</u></strong></mark>. Regional <u><strong>terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India</u></strong>—potentially <u><strong><mark>triggering a nuclear war </mark>between the two countries</u></strong>. Sensing a Washington in retreat<mark>, <u><strong>Iran and </mark>North <mark>Korea could shift </mark>their <mark>nuclear programs into overdrive</u></strong></mark>, hoping to save their failing economies by <u><strong>selling their nuclear weapons</u></strong> and technologies to all comers. <u><strong>Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The resulting </mark>nuclear <mark>arms race could be far more dangerous</mark> than the Cold War’s</u></strong> two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, <u><strong><mark>the world would</mark> look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances <mark>snowball</mark>ed <mark>into a </mark>very <mark>big, tragic war</u></strong></mark>. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as <u><strong><mark>Russia, China and Venezuela would</mark> rethink their strategic calculus</u></strong> as well. <u><strong>That could produce all kinds of serious regional <mark>challenge</mark>s for <mark>the</mark> <mark>U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u></strong>. <u><strong>Our allies might rethink things as well</u></strong>. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. <u><strong><mark>NATO might</mark> well <mark>fall apart</u></strong></mark>. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.</p>

Carafano 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Carafano 10 fulltext: James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/ We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails and he opts to cut and run. Most forget that throwing South Vietnam to the wolves made the world a far more dangerous place. The Soviets saw it as an unmistakable sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America. They went on a conventional- and nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over. State-sponsorship of terrorism came into fashion. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are the world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game. Regional terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India—potentially triggering a nuclear war between the two countries. Sensing a Washington in retreat, Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive, hoping to save their failing economies by selling their nuclear weapons and technologies to all comers. Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own. The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold War’s two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus as well. That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States. Our allies might rethink things as well. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. NATO might well fall apart. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations. [/INST] <h4>Afghan instability causes <u>nuclear war</h4><p></u><strong>Carafano 10</strong> </p><p>James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe,” Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/</p><p><u><strong><mark>We can expect</mark> similar results <mark>if </mark>Obama’s <mark>Afghan </mark>strategy <mark>fails </u></strong></mark>and he opts to cut and run. <u><strong>Most forget that throwing </u></strong>South <u><strong>Vietnam to the wolves made the world </u></strong>a <u><strong>far more dangerous </u></strong>place. The <u><strong>Soviets saw it as a</u></strong>n unmistakable <u><strong>sign that America was in decline. They abetted</u></strong> <u><strong>military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America</u></strong>. <u><strong>They went on <mark>a</mark> </u></strong>conventional- and <u><strong><mark>nuclear</mark>-arms <mark>spending spree</mark>. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax <mark>to kill the world several times over</u></strong></mark>. State-sponsorship of <u><strong>terrorism came into fashion</u></strong>. Osama bin Laden called America a “paper tiger.” If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are t<u><strong>he world will get a lot less safe. <mark>Al-Qaida would be back in the game</u></strong></mark>. Regional <u><strong>terrorists would go after both Pakistan and India</u></strong>—potentially <u><strong><mark>triggering a nuclear war </mark>between the two countries</u></strong>. Sensing a Washington in retreat<mark>, <u><strong>Iran and </mark>North <mark>Korea could shift </mark>their <mark>nuclear programs into overdrive</u></strong></mark>, hoping to save their failing economies by <u><strong>selling their nuclear weapons</u></strong> and technologies to all comers. <u><strong>Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The resulting </mark>nuclear <mark>arms race could be far more dangerous</mark> than the Cold War’s</u></strong> two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, <u><strong><mark>the world would</mark> look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances <mark>snowball</mark>ed <mark>into a </mark>very <mark>big, tragic war</u></strong></mark>. The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as <u><strong><mark>Russia, China and Venezuela would</mark> rethink their strategic calculus</u></strong> as well. <u><strong>That could produce all kinds of serious regional <mark>challenge</mark>s for <mark>the</mark> <mark>U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u></strong>. <u><strong>Our allies might rethink things as well</u></strong>. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it can’t be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. <u><strong><mark>NATO might</mark> well <mark>fall apart</u></strong></mark>. Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.</p> </s>

Pot on the ballot could save the dems

Democrats see the question of whether to it’s particularly popular among young voters – a critical part of the Democratic coalition both Washington and Colorado saw spikes in youth turnout when marijuana initiatives//// were on the ballot It’s a smart move on the Democrats’ part It’s going to help them The marijuana initiative may be one bright spot for Democrats in an election year that could be grim for the party could have a marginal impact, and a marginal impact in Florida could be the difference between winning and losing.” Democrats say the ot measure could help counter Republican energy by motivating young and independent voters

Democrats see the question of whether to t’s particularly popular among young voters – a critical part of the Democratic coalition both Washington and Colorado saw spikes in youth turnout when marijuana initiatives//// were on the ballo It’s a smart move on the Democrats’ part It’s going to help them marijuana initiative may be one bright spot for Democrats in an election year that could be grim for the party could have a impact in Florida could be the difference between winning and losing.” Democrats say the measure could help counter Republican energy by motivating young and independent voters

Democrats in the nation’s largest swing-state see the question of whether to legalize medical marijuana as a rare source of hope and high voter turnout in this year’s midterm elections. Party operatives are pushing a constitutional amendment that would make Florida the first state in the South to legalize some pot use. Polls show the measure has widespread public support, and it’s particularly popular among young voters – a critical part of the Democratic coalition with historically weak turnout in non-presidential election years. “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters to go and vote because there’s far too much at stake for them and their children,” said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.” At stake is the Florida governor’s office, as well as a handful of competitive House seats. But the nation’s political world will be watching Florida’s turnout in November for clues to whether pot on the ballot could draw young people to the polls. In 2012, both Washington and Colorado saw spikes in youth turnout when marijuana initiatives//// were on the ballot. This year, Florida could be a critical test case for whether those increases were an anomaly or the start of a trend in advance of the presidential election in 2016, when activists plan to launch legalization campaigns in at least six states, including battleground Nevada. “It’s a smart move on the Democrats’ part,” said David Flaherty, a Colorado-based GOP pollster. “It’s going to help them, no doubt about it.” The marijuana initiative may be one bright spot for Democrats in an election year that could be grim for the party. President Barack Obama remains unpopular, and Republicans are trying to make the elections a referendum on his health care law. Gov. Rick Scott is making the health care overhaul a central issue in the governor’s race and outside conservative groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, are funding a barrage of negative ads against Democrats in a handful of swing-voting House districts. “I would rather have it on the ballot than not,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic consultant who managed Obama’s Florida campaign in 2008. “It could have a marginal impact, and a marginal impact in Florida could be the difference between winning and losing.” A Republican victory in a special House election last month in Florida underscored the Democrats’ turnout problem. The St. Petersburg-area district has 2.4 percent more registered Republicans than Democrats, but GOP voters outnumbered Democrats by 8 percentage points among those who cast ballots. While far from a cure-all, Democrats say the medical pot measure could help counter Republican energy by motivating young and independent voters. According to a national survey sponsored by George Washington University last month, nearly 40 percent of likely voters said they would be “much more likely” to vote if a legalization measure was on the ballot, with another 30 percent saying they would be “somewhat” more likely to vote.

<h4>Pot on the ballot could save the dems</h4><p>Michael <strong>Mishak</strong>, staff, “Florida Democrats Hope Medical Pot Measure Will Boost Voter Turnout,” PBS NEWSHOUR, 4—14—<strong>14</strong>, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/florida-democrats-hope/, accessed 9-5-14.</p><p><u><strong><mark>Democrats</mark> </u></strong>in the nation’s largest swing-state <u><strong><mark>see the question of whether to </u></strong></mark>legalize medical marijuana as a rare source of hope and high voter turnout in this year’s midterm elections. Party operatives are pushing a constitutional amendment that would make Florida the first state in the South to legalize some pot use. Polls show the measure has widespread public support, and <u><strong>i<mark>t’s particularly popular among young voters – a critical part of the Democratic coalition</mark> </u></strong>with historically weak turnout in non-presidential election years. “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters to go and vote because there’s far too much at stake for them and their children,” said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.” At stake is the Florida governor’s office, as well as a handful of competitive House seats. But the nation’s political world will be watching Florida’s turnout in November for clues to whether pot on the ballot could draw young people to the polls. In 2012,<u><strong> <mark>both Washington and Colorado saw spikes in youth turnout when marijuana initiatives//// were on the ballo</mark>t</u></strong>. This year, Florida could be a critical test case for whether those increases were an anomaly or the start of a trend in advance of the presidential election in 2016, when activists plan to launch legalization campaigns in at least six states, including battleground Nevada. “<u><strong><mark>It’s a smart move on the Democrats’ part</u></strong></mark>,” said David Flaherty, a Colorado-based GOP pollster. “<u><strong><mark>It’s going to help them</u></strong></mark>, no doubt about it.” <u><strong>The <mark>marijuana initiative may be one bright spot for Democrats in an election year that could be grim for the party</u></strong></mark>. President Barack Obama remains unpopular, and Republicans are trying to make the elections a referendum on his health care law. Gov. Rick Scott is making the health care overhaul a central issue in the governor’s race and outside conservative groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, are funding a barrage of negative ads against Democrats in a handful of swing-voting House districts. “I would rather have it on the ballot than not,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic consultant who managed Obama’s Florida campaign in 2008. “It <u><strong><mark>could have a</mark> marginal impact, and a marginal <mark>impact in Florida could be the difference between winning and losing.” </u></strong></mark>A<u><strong> </u></strong>Republican victory in a special House election last month in Florida underscored the Democrats’ turnout problem. The St. Petersburg-area district has 2.4 percent more registered Republicans than Democrats, but GOP voters outnumbered Democrats by 8 percentage points among those who cast ballots. While far from a cure-all, <u><strong><mark>Democrats say the</mark> </u></strong>medical p<u><strong>ot <mark>measure could help counter Republican energy by motivating young and independent voters</u></strong></mark>. According to a national survey sponsored by George Washington University last month, nearly 40 percent of likely voters said they would be “much more likely” to vote if a legalization measure was on the ballot, with another 30 percent saying they would be “somewhat” more likely to vote.</p>

Michael Mishak, staff, “Florida Democrats Hope Medical Pot Measure Will Boost Voter Turnout,” PBS NEWSHOUR, 4—14—14, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/florida-democrats-hope/, accessed 9-5-14.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Michael Mishak, staff, “Florida Democrats Hope Medical Pot Measure Will Boost Voter Turnout,” PBS NEWSHOUR, 4—14—14, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/florida-democrats-hope/, accessed 9-5-14. fulltext: Democrats in the nation’s largest swing-state see the question of whether to legalize medical marijuana as a rare source of hope and high voter turnout in this year’s midterm elections. Party operatives are pushing a constitutional amendment that would make Florida the first state in the South to legalize some pot use. Polls show the measure has widespread public support, and it’s particularly popular among young voters – a critical part of the Democratic coalition with historically weak turnout in non-presidential election years. “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters to go and vote because there’s far too much at stake for them and their children,” said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.” At stake is the Florida governor’s office, as well as a handful of competitive House seats. But the nation’s political world will be watching Florida’s turnout in November for clues to whether pot on the ballot could draw young people to the polls. In 2012, both Washington and Colorado saw spikes in youth turnout when marijuana initiatives//// were on the ballot. This year, Florida could be a critical test case for whether those increases were an anomaly or the start of a trend in advance of the presidential election in 2016, when activists plan to launch legalization campaigns in at least six states, including battleground Nevada. “It’s a smart move on the Democrats’ part,” said David Flaherty, a Colorado-based GOP pollster. “It’s going to help them, no doubt about it.” The marijuana initiative may be one bright spot for Democrats in an election year that could be grim for the party. President Barack Obama remains unpopular, and Republicans are trying to make the elections a referendum on his health care law. Gov. Rick Scott is making the health care overhaul a central issue in the governor’s race and outside conservative groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, are funding a barrage of negative ads against Democrats in a handful of swing-voting House districts. “I would rather have it on the ballot than not,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic consultant who managed Obama’s Florida campaign in 2008. “It could have a marginal impact, and a marginal impact in Florida could be the difference between winning and losing.” A Republican victory in a special House election last month in Florida underscored the Democrats’ turnout problem. The St. Petersburg-area district has 2.4 percent more registered Republicans than Democrats, but GOP voters outnumbered Democrats by 8 percentage points among those who cast ballots. While far from a cure-all, Democrats say the medical pot measure could help counter Republican energy by motivating young and independent voters. According to a national survey sponsored by George Washington University last month, nearly 40 percent of likely voters said they would be “much more likely” to vote if a legalization measure was on the ballot, with another 30 percent saying they would be “somewhat” more likely to vote. [/INST] <h4>Pot on the ballot could save the dems</h4><p>Michael <strong>Mishak</strong>, staff, “Florida Democrats Hope Medical Pot Measure Will Boost Voter Turnout,” PBS NEWSHOUR, 4—14—<strong>14</strong>, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/florida-democrats-hope/, accessed 9-5-14.</p><p><u><strong><mark>Democrats</mark> </u></strong>in the nation’s largest swing-state <u><strong><mark>see the question of whether to </u></strong></mark>legalize medical marijuana as a rare source of hope and high voter turnout in this year’s midterm elections. Party operatives are pushing a constitutional amendment that would make Florida the first state in the South to legalize some pot use. Polls show the measure has widespread public support, and <u><strong>i<mark>t’s particularly popular among young voters – a critical part of the Democratic coalition</mark> </u></strong>with historically weak turnout in non-presidential election years. “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters to go and vote because there’s far too much at stake for them and their children,” said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.” At stake is the Florida governor’s office, as well as a handful of competitive House seats. But the nation’s political world will be watching Florida’s turnout in November for clues to whether pot on the ballot could draw young people to the polls. In 2012,<u><strong> <mark>both Washington and Colorado saw spikes in youth turnout when marijuana initiatives//// were on the ballo</mark>t</u></strong>. This year, Florida could be a critical test case for whether those increases were an anomaly or the start of a trend in advance of the presidential election in 2016, when activists plan to launch legalization campaigns in at least six states, including battleground Nevada. “<u><strong><mark>It’s a smart move on the Democrats’ part</u></strong></mark>,” said David Flaherty, a Colorado-based GOP pollster. “<u><strong><mark>It’s going to help them</u></strong></mark>, no doubt about it.” <u><strong>The <mark>marijuana initiative may be one bright spot for Democrats in an election year that could be grim for the party</u></strong></mark>. President Barack Obama remains unpopular, and Republicans are trying to make the elections a referendum on his health care law. Gov. Rick Scott is making the health care overhaul a central issue in the governor’s race and outside conservative groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, are funding a barrage of negative ads against Democrats in a handful of swing-voting House districts. “I would rather have it on the ballot than not,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic consultant who managed Obama’s Florida campaign in 2008. “It <u><strong><mark>could have a</mark> marginal impact, and a marginal <mark>impact in Florida could be the difference between winning and losing.” </u></strong></mark>A<u><strong> </u></strong>Republican victory in a special House election last month in Florida underscored the Democrats’ turnout problem. The St. Petersburg-area district has 2.4 percent more registered Republicans than Democrats, but GOP voters outnumbered Democrats by 8 percentage points among those who cast ballots. While far from a cure-all, <u><strong><mark>Democrats say the</mark> </u></strong>medical p<u><strong>ot <mark>measure could help counter Republican energy by motivating young and independent voters</u></strong></mark>. According to a national survey sponsored by George Washington University last month, nearly 40 percent of likely voters said they would be “much more likely” to vote if a legalization measure was on the ballot, with another 30 percent saying they would be “somewhat” more likely to vote.</p> </s>

No impact to trade –

<h4>No impact to trade – </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>No impact to trade – </h4> </s>

Hemp production solves deforestation

Deforestation is a major threat. Hemp¶ is an outstanding substitute for wood¶ in the paper industry as it is an¶ extremely fast growing and renewable¶ crop One¶ hectare of hemp yields the equivalent¶ volume of usable fibre as 3-4 hectares¶ of forest one hectare of¶ industrial hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest.¶ growing hemp is a very efficient way of¶ absorbing carbon dioxide, especially¶ if it is used as a means of reducing¶ deforestation.¶ the hemp plant helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil; it uses¶ far less fertiliser, fungicides, herbicides¶ or pesticides than other crops. and it¶ needs less amounts of water too.

Hemp is an outstanding substitute for paper industry one hectare of¶ hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest. growing hemp is a very efficient way of absorbing carbon dioxide the hemp plant helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil

[Jeffrey, 5/1. “Medical Marijuana / Cannabis Cultivation: Trees of Life at the University of London”] Deforestation is a major threat. Hemp¶ is an outstanding substitute for wood¶ in the paper industry as it is an¶ extremely fast growing and renewable¶ crop. Hemp can be harvested every¶ three to four months whereas forests¶ take many years to regenerate. One¶ hectare of hemp yields the equivalent¶ volume of usable fibre as 3-4 hectares¶ of forest. In short, one hectare of¶ industrial hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest.¶ The greenhouse effect is very much in¶ the news at the moment. Interestingly.¶ growing hemp is a very efficient way of¶ absorbing carbon dioxide, especially¶ if it is used as a means of reducing¶ deforestation.¶ In addition, the hemp plant helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil; it uses¶ far less fertiliser, fungicides, herbicides¶ or pesticides than other crops. and it¶ needs less amounts of water too. Hemp¶ grows well in a variety of climates and¶ conditions as long as they are frost-free¶ tor at least 90 days or more per year.¶ At the very least. hemp makes excellent¶ green manure, especially when used as¶ a rotational crop. Hemp stabilises and¶ enriches the soil and ensures fields are¶ free from weeds negating the needs¶ and costs of herbicides. Its value on¶ this point alone, even if no part of the¶ plant is being utilised is immense. Any¶ additional benefits. be they industrial¶ or monetary, represent a bonus.

<h4><strong>Hemp production solves deforestation </h4><p>Winterborne 12 – director at Esoteric Hydroponics</p><p></strong>[Jeffrey, 5/1. “Medical Marijuana / Cannabis Cultivation: Trees of Life at the University of London”]</p><p><u><strong>Deforestation is a major threat. <mark>Hemp</mark>¶ <mark>is an outstanding substitute for </mark>wood¶ in the <mark>paper industry </mark>as it is an¶ extremely fast growing and renewable¶ crop</u></strong>. Hemp can be harvested every¶ three to four months whereas forests¶ take many years to regenerate. <u><strong>One¶ hectare of hemp yields the equivalent¶ volume of usable fibre as 3-4 hectares¶ of forest</u></strong>. In short, <u><strong><mark>one hectare of¶ </mark>industrial <mark>hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest.</mark>¶ </u></strong>The greenhouse effect is very much in¶ the news at the moment. Interestingly.¶ <u><strong><mark>growing hemp is a very efficient way of</mark>¶ <mark>absorbing carbon dioxide</mark>, especially¶ if it is used as a means of reducing¶ deforestation.¶ </u></strong>In addition, <u><strong><mark>the hemp plant helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil</mark>; it uses¶ far less fertiliser, fungicides, herbicides¶ or pesticides than other crops. and it¶ needs less amounts of water too.</u></strong> Hemp¶ grows well in a variety of climates and¶ conditions as long as they are frost-free¶ tor at least 90 days or more per year.¶ At the very least. hemp makes excellent¶ green manure, especially when used as¶ a rotational crop. Hemp stabilises and¶ enriches the soil and ensures fields are¶ free from weeds negating the needs¶ and costs of herbicides. Its value on¶ this point alone, even if no part of the¶ plant is being utilised is immense. Any¶ additional benefits. be they industrial¶ or monetary, represent a bonus.</p>

Winterborne 12 – director at Esoteric Hydroponics

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Winterborne 12 – director at Esoteric Hydroponics fulltext: [Jeffrey, 5/1. “Medical Marijuana / Cannabis Cultivation: Trees of Life at the University of London”] Deforestation is a major threat. Hemp¶ is an outstanding substitute for wood¶ in the paper industry as it is an¶ extremely fast growing and renewable¶ crop. Hemp can be harvested every¶ three to four months whereas forests¶ take many years to regenerate. One¶ hectare of hemp yields the equivalent¶ volume of usable fibre as 3-4 hectares¶ of forest. In short, one hectare of¶ industrial hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest.¶ The greenhouse effect is very much in¶ the news at the moment. Interestingly.¶ growing hemp is a very efficient way of¶ absorbing carbon dioxide, especially¶ if it is used as a means of reducing¶ deforestation.¶ In addition, the hemp plant helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil; it uses¶ far less fertiliser, fungicides, herbicides¶ or pesticides than other crops. and it¶ needs less amounts of water too. Hemp¶ grows well in a variety of climates and¶ conditions as long as they are frost-free¶ tor at least 90 days or more per year.¶ At the very least. hemp makes excellent¶ green manure, especially when used as¶ a rotational crop. Hemp stabilises and¶ enriches the soil and ensures fields are¶ free from weeds negating the needs¶ and costs of herbicides. Its value on¶ this point alone, even if no part of the¶ plant is being utilised is immense. Any¶ additional benefits. be they industrial¶ or monetary, represent a bonus. [/INST] <h4><strong>Hemp production solves deforestation </h4><p>Winterborne 12 – director at Esoteric Hydroponics</p><p></strong>[Jeffrey, 5/1. “Medical Marijuana / Cannabis Cultivation: Trees of Life at the University of London”]</p><p><u><strong>Deforestation is a major threat. <mark>Hemp</mark>¶ <mark>is an outstanding substitute for </mark>wood¶ in the <mark>paper industry </mark>as it is an¶ extremely fast growing and renewable¶ crop</u></strong>. Hemp can be harvested every¶ three to four months whereas forests¶ take many years to regenerate. <u><strong>One¶ hectare of hemp yields the equivalent¶ volume of usable fibre as 3-4 hectares¶ of forest</u></strong>. In short, <u><strong><mark>one hectare of¶ </mark>industrial <mark>hemp preserves 3-4 hectares¶ of forest.</mark>¶ </u></strong>The greenhouse effect is very much in¶ the news at the moment. Interestingly.¶ <u><strong><mark>growing hemp is a very efficient way of</mark>¶ <mark>absorbing carbon dioxide</mark>, especially¶ if it is used as a means of reducing¶ deforestation.¶ </u></strong>In addition, <u><strong><mark>the hemp plant helps to¶ replenish and detoxify the soil</mark>; it uses¶ far less fertiliser, fungicides, herbicides¶ or pesticides than other crops. and it¶ needs less amounts of water too.</u></strong> Hemp¶ grows well in a variety of climates and¶ conditions as long as they are frost-free¶ tor at least 90 days or more per year.¶ At the very least. hemp makes excellent¶ green manure, especially when used as¶ a rotational crop. Hemp stabilises and¶ enriches the soil and ensures fields are¶ free from weeds negating the needs¶ and costs of herbicides. Its value on¶ this point alone, even if no part of the¶ plant is being utilised is immense. Any¶ additional benefits. be they industrial¶ or monetary, represent a bonus.</p> </s>

Every demand is necessarily exclusionary and that is why we choose none. The only effect the ballot can ever have is to signal a participation in or refusal of the university. We can be in the University not OF it – that answers their “you are here too” argument

Why No Demands? First, because anything we might win now would be too insignificant. Countless times past student struggles have worked months and years – striking and occupying buildings and mobilizing thousands upon thousands of people – only to win back half of what they had already lost, a half that was again taken away one or two years later If we set our horizons higher we must realize that nothing short of full-scale insurrection could ever achieve this. And if we were strong enough to bring the existing order tumbling down around us, why would we stop short and settle The process of negotiation – the settlement of demands – is a dangerous one for a movement. It often signals its death We understand that, if we were to become powerful enough, and if we remained steadfast in our refusal of all negotiation or settlement, someone, some group, would step in and begin negotiating for us Once we become a threat, then the bargaining will begin Become a threat first you’ll never become a threat by determining to fight over the crumbs A demand defines those who utter it; it sets the limits of the struggle, determining who is and who is not in solidarity with a given fight. And such demands are, invariably, bound to exclude some party or group This is why we make no demands. Because we want to be in solidarity with all who are oppressed and exploited. We will not say who they are in advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us

Why No Demands? because anything we win would be too insignificant past student struggles have worked years striking and occupying only to win half of what they lost a half that was taken away later we must realize that nothing short of full-scale insurrection could ever achieve this why would we stop short and settle The process of negotiation the settlement of demands is dangerous It signals its death you’ll never become a threat by determining to fight over the crumbs demand defines those who utter it it sets the limits of the struggle determining who is and who is not in solidarity demands are bound to exclude some party or group we make no demands

Why No Demands? First, because anything we might win now would be too insignificant. Countless times past student struggles have worked months and years – striking and occupying buildings and mobilizing thousands upon thousands of people – only to win back half of what they had already lost, a half that was again taken away one or two years later. But in any case, we are as yet far too small to win anything on a scale remotely close to the mildest of demands – a reduction or freeze of student fees, an end to the layoffs and furloughs. Even these demands would mean only a return to the status quo of last year or the year before – inadequate by any but the most cowardly measure. If we set our horizons higher – free education, a maximum salary differential of, for instance, 3 or 5, a university managed by faculty and students and workers – then we must realize, immediately, that nothing short of full-scale insurrection could ever achieve this. And if we were strong enough to bring the existing order tumbling down around us, why would we stop short and settle for the foregoing list? The process of negotiation – the settlement of demands – is a dangerous one for a movement. It often signals its death. We have no illusions about this. We understand that, if we were to become powerful enough, and if we remained steadfast in our refusal of all negotiation or settlement, someone, some group, would step in and begin negotiating for us. There is no avoiding that. Once we become a threat, then the bargaining will begin. If the first or second set of demands seems a worthy terminus, then we have a piece of advice. Become a threat first. You just might win something. But you’ll never become a threat by determining to fight over the crumbs. The whole theory of demands as it currently exists seems to rest upon a fundamental misconception. The demand is never really addressed to the existing powers. They can’t hear us – everyone knows that. And, in any case, they’ve never responded to petitions or requests, only force. The real addressee of the demand is on our side, not theirs. A demand defines those who utter it; it sets the limits of the struggle, determining who is and who is not in solidarity with a given fight. And such demands are, invariably, bound to exclude some party or group. We recognize, of course, that they can be useful in this respect – useful as a means to constitute and unify body in struggle, but this body can only be partial, fragmentary, divided from further support. Some groups attempt to get around this problem by making their demands an eclectic laundry-list, but such solutions always end in absurdity. This is why we make no demands. Because we want to be in solidarity with all who are oppressed and exploited. We will not say who they are in advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us.

<h4>Every demand is necessarily exclusionary and that is why we choose none. The only effect the ballot can ever have is to signal a <u>participation in</u> or <u>refusal of</u> the university. We can be in the University not OF it – that answers their “you are here too” argument</h4><p><strong>ACP 09</strong> Anti-Capital Projects “Anti-Capital Projects: Questions & Answers” Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/</p><p><u><strong><mark>Why No Demands?</mark> First, <mark>because anything we</mark> might <mark>win</mark> now <mark>would be too insignificant</mark>. Countless times <mark>past student struggles have</mark> <mark>worked</mark> months and <mark>years</mark> – <mark>striking and occupying</mark> buildings and mobilizing thousands upon thousands of people – <mark>only to win</mark> back <mark>half of what</mark> <mark>they</mark> had already <mark>lost</mark>, <mark>a half that was</mark> again <mark>taken away</mark> one or two years <mark>later</u></strong></mark>. But in any case, we are as yet far too small to win anything on a scale remotely close to the mildest of demands – a reduction or freeze of student fees, an end to the layoffs and furloughs. Even these demands would mean only a return to the status quo of last year or the year before – inadequate by any but the most cowardly measure. <u><strong>If we set our horizons higher</u></strong> – free education, a maximum salary differential of, for instance, 3 or 5, a university managed by faculty and students and workers – then <u><strong><mark>we must realize</u></strong></mark>, immediately, <u><strong><mark>that nothing short of full-scale insurrection</mark> <mark>could ever achieve this</mark>. And if we were strong enough to bring the existing order tumbling down around us, <mark>why would we stop short and settle</u></strong></mark> for the foregoing list? <u><strong><mark>The process of negotiation</mark> – <mark>the settlement of demands</mark> – <mark>is</mark> a <mark>dangerous</mark> one for a movement. <mark>It</mark> often <mark>signals its death</u></strong></mark>. We have no illusions about this. <u><strong>We understand that, if we were to become powerful enough, and if we remained steadfast in our refusal of all negotiation or settlement, someone, some group, would step in and begin negotiating for us</u></strong>. There is no avoiding that. <u><strong>Once we become a threat, then the bargaining will begin</u></strong>. If the first or second set of demands seems a worthy terminus, then we have a piece of advice. <u><strong>Become a threat first</u></strong>. You just might win something. But <u><strong><mark>you’ll never become a threat by determining to fight over the crumbs</u></strong></mark>. The whole theory of demands as it currently exists seems to rest upon a fundamental misconception. The demand is never really addressed to the existing powers. They can’t hear us – everyone knows that. And, in any case, they’ve never responded to petitions or requests, only force. The real addressee of the demand is on our side, not theirs. <u><strong>A <mark>demand defines those who utter it</mark>; <mark>it sets the limits of the struggle</mark>, <mark>determining who is and who is not in solidarity</mark> with a given fight. And such <mark>demands are</mark>, invariably, <mark>bound to exclude some party or group</u></strong></mark>. We recognize, of course, that they can be useful in this respect – useful as a means to constitute and unify body in struggle, but this body can only be partial, fragmentary, divided from further support. Some groups attempt to get around this problem by making their demands an eclectic laundry-list, but such solutions always end in absurdity. <u><strong>This is why <mark>we make no demands</mark>. Because we want to be in solidarity with all who are oppressed and exploited. We will not say who they are in advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us</u></strong>. </p>

ACP 09 Anti-Capital Projects “Anti-Capital Projects: Questions & Answers” Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: ACP 09 Anti-Capital Projects “Anti-Capital Projects: Questions & Answers” Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/ fulltext: Why No Demands? First, because anything we might win now would be too insignificant. Countless times past student struggles have worked months and years – striking and occupying buildings and mobilizing thousands upon thousands of people – only to win back half of what they had already lost, a half that was again taken away one or two years later. But in any case, we are as yet far too small to win anything on a scale remotely close to the mildest of demands – a reduction or freeze of student fees, an end to the layoffs and furloughs. Even these demands would mean only a return to the status quo of last year or the year before – inadequate by any but the most cowardly measure. If we set our horizons higher – free education, a maximum salary differential of, for instance, 3 or 5, a university managed by faculty and students and workers – then we must realize, immediately, that nothing short of full-scale insurrection could ever achieve this. And if we were strong enough to bring the existing order tumbling down around us, why would we stop short and settle for the foregoing list? The process of negotiation – the settlement of demands – is a dangerous one for a movement. It often signals its death. We have no illusions about this. We understand that, if we were to become powerful enough, and if we remained steadfast in our refusal of all negotiation or settlement, someone, some group, would step in and begin negotiating for us. There is no avoiding that. Once we become a threat, then the bargaining will begin. If the first or second set of demands seems a worthy terminus, then we have a piece of advice. Become a threat first. You just might win something. But you’ll never become a threat by determining to fight over the crumbs. The whole theory of demands as it currently exists seems to rest upon a fundamental misconception. The demand is never really addressed to the existing powers. They can’t hear us – everyone knows that. And, in any case, they’ve never responded to petitions or requests, only force. The real addressee of the demand is on our side, not theirs. A demand defines those who utter it; it sets the limits of the struggle, determining who is and who is not in solidarity with a given fight. And such demands are, invariably, bound to exclude some party or group. We recognize, of course, that they can be useful in this respect – useful as a means to constitute and unify body in struggle, but this body can only be partial, fragmentary, divided from further support. Some groups attempt to get around this problem by making their demands an eclectic laundry-list, but such solutions always end in absurdity. This is why we make no demands. Because we want to be in solidarity with all who are oppressed and exploited. We will not say who they are in advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us. [/INST] <h4>Every demand is necessarily exclusionary and that is why we choose none. The only effect the ballot can ever have is to signal a <u>participation in</u> or <u>refusal of</u> the university. We can be in the University not OF it – that answers their “you are here too” argument</h4><p><strong>ACP 09</strong> Anti-Capital Projects “Anti-Capital Projects: Questions & Answers” Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/</p><p><u><strong><mark>Why No Demands?</mark> First, <mark>because anything we</mark> might <mark>win</mark> now <mark>would be too insignificant</mark>. Countless times <mark>past student struggles have</mark> <mark>worked</mark> months and <mark>years</mark> – <mark>striking and occupying</mark> buildings and mobilizing thousands upon thousands of people – <mark>only to win</mark> back <mark>half of what</mark> <mark>they</mark> had already <mark>lost</mark>, <mark>a half that was</mark> again <mark>taken away</mark> one or two years <mark>later</u></strong></mark>. But in any case, we are as yet far too small to win anything on a scale remotely close to the mildest of demands – a reduction or freeze of student fees, an end to the layoffs and furloughs. Even these demands would mean only a return to the status quo of last year or the year before – inadequate by any but the most cowardly measure. <u><strong>If we set our horizons higher</u></strong> – free education, a maximum salary differential of, for instance, 3 or 5, a university managed by faculty and students and workers – then <u><strong><mark>we must realize</u></strong></mark>, immediately, <u><strong><mark>that nothing short of full-scale insurrection</mark> <mark>could ever achieve this</mark>. And if we were strong enough to bring the existing order tumbling down around us, <mark>why would we stop short and settle</u></strong></mark> for the foregoing list? <u><strong><mark>The process of negotiation</mark> – <mark>the settlement of demands</mark> – <mark>is</mark> a <mark>dangerous</mark> one for a movement. <mark>It</mark> often <mark>signals its death</u></strong></mark>. We have no illusions about this. <u><strong>We understand that, if we were to become powerful enough, and if we remained steadfast in our refusal of all negotiation or settlement, someone, some group, would step in and begin negotiating for us</u></strong>. There is no avoiding that. <u><strong>Once we become a threat, then the bargaining will begin</u></strong>. If the first or second set of demands seems a worthy terminus, then we have a piece of advice. <u><strong>Become a threat first</u></strong>. You just might win something. But <u><strong><mark>you’ll never become a threat by determining to fight over the crumbs</u></strong></mark>. The whole theory of demands as it currently exists seems to rest upon a fundamental misconception. The demand is never really addressed to the existing powers. They can’t hear us – everyone knows that. And, in any case, they’ve never responded to petitions or requests, only force. The real addressee of the demand is on our side, not theirs. <u><strong>A <mark>demand defines those who utter it</mark>; <mark>it sets the limits of the struggle</mark>, <mark>determining who is and who is not in solidarity</mark> with a given fight. And such <mark>demands are</mark>, invariably, <mark>bound to exclude some party or group</u></strong></mark>. We recognize, of course, that they can be useful in this respect – useful as a means to constitute and unify body in struggle, but this body can only be partial, fragmentary, divided from further support. Some groups attempt to get around this problem by making their demands an eclectic laundry-list, but such solutions always end in absurdity. <u><strong>This is why <mark>we make no demands</mark>. Because we want to be in solidarity with all who are oppressed and exploited. We will not say who they are in advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us</u></strong>. </p> </s>

AIDS causes extinction

AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today. AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure ven its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease at present there is no feasible design for such an effective vaccine. HIV can, nly lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful.

AIDS is the greatest threat to the world today. HIV/AIDS will undermine improvements in health status and reduce economic growth HIV is evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far earth today What are the odds of airborne transmission? No one can be sure with no recovery no development of either individual or herd immunity present there is no feasible design for an effective vaccine.

The worst threat to humankind AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today." (Marc Lappé) AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." * effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and at present there is no feasible design for such an effective vaccine. The progressive increase in the pool of HIV can, in theory, only lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful."

<h4>AIDS causes extinction</h4><p>Tom<strong> Kerns 99</strong>, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html</p><p>The worst threat to humankind <u>AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet."</u> (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "<u><strong><mark>AIDS is the </mark>single <mark>greatest threat to</strong></mark> well-being facing <strong><mark>the world</mark>'s population <mark>today.</u></strong></mark>" (Marc Lappé) <u>AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors</u>." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, <u>it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the <mark>HIV/AIDS </mark>pandemic <mark>will undermine improvements in health status and</mark>, in turn, <mark>reduce</mark> the potential for <mark>economic growth</mark>. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe</u>.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that <u>it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years</u>." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "<u>Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease</u>." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" <u>"We know that <mark>HIV is </mark>still <mark>evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far</mark> more HIV on <mark>earth today</mark> than ever before in history. <mark>What are the odds of</mark> its learning the tricks of <strong><mark>airborne transmission</strong>?</mark> The short answer is "<mark>No one can be sure</u></mark>." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, gi<u>ven its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS</u>. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; <u>the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." </u>* effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[<u>T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, <mark>with no recovery</mark>, no loss of infectivity, <mark>no development of either individual or herd immunity</mark>, there</u> <u>is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease</u> unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and <u>at <mark>present there is no feasible design for</mark> such <mark>an effective vaccine.</mark> </u>The progressive increase in the pool of <u>HIV can,</u> in theory, o<u>nly lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful.</u>"</p>

Tom Kerns 99, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tom Kerns 99, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html fulltext: The worst threat to humankind AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today." (Marc Lappé) AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." * effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and at present there is no feasible design for such an effective vaccine. The progressive increase in the pool of HIV can, in theory, only lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful." [/INST] <h4>AIDS causes extinction</h4><p>Tom<strong> Kerns 99</strong>, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html</p><p>The worst threat to humankind <u>AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet."</u> (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "<u><strong><mark>AIDS is the </mark>single <mark>greatest threat to</strong></mark> well-being facing <strong><mark>the world</mark>'s population <mark>today.</u></strong></mark>" (Marc Lappé) <u>AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors</u>." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, <u>it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the <mark>HIV/AIDS </mark>pandemic <mark>will undermine improvements in health status and</mark>, in turn, <mark>reduce</mark> the potential for <mark>economic growth</mark>. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe</u>.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that <u>it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years</u>." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "<u>Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease</u>." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" <u>"We know that <mark>HIV is </mark>still <mark>evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far</mark> more HIV on <mark>earth today</mark> than ever before in history. <mark>What are the odds of</mark> its learning the tricks of <strong><mark>airborne transmission</strong>?</mark> The short answer is "<mark>No one can be sure</u></mark>." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, gi<u>ven its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS</u>. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; <u>the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." </u>* effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[<u>T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, <mark>with no recovery</mark>, no loss of infectivity, <mark>no development of either individual or herd immunity</mark>, there</u> <u>is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease</u> unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and <u>at <mark>present there is no feasible design for</mark> such <mark>an effective vaccine.</mark> </u>The progressive increase in the pool of <u>HIV can,</u> in theory, o<u>nly lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful.</u>"</p> </s>

Multiple scenarios for nuclear escalation and

underlying sources of conflict and tension will remain In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters with nuclear aspirant Iran bordering Afghanistan on one side and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India on the other Afghanistan will determine the shape of our security challenges in the region we can't afford nuclear weapons a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan will remain and may actually rise in importance The key here is to promote regional stability and cooperation, not a power vacuum maintain a stable Afghanistan

underlying sources of conflict and tension will remain In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters -- with Iran and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India Afghanistan will determine security in the region potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan -- will remain and may rise in importance The key here is to promote regional stability , not a power vacuum

The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the underlying sources of conflict and tension in South and Central Asia will remain after an American withdrawal. In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters -- with nuclear aspirant Iran bordering Afghanistan on one side and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India on the other -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in Afghanistan will determine the shape of our security challenges in the region for the foreseeable future. And we can't afford for nuclear weapons to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region -- potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan -- will remain and may actually rise in importance. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. The key here is to leave in a way that promotes regional stability and cooperation, not a power vacuum that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, maintain a stable Afghanistan, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.

<h4>Multiple scenarios for nuclear escalation and</h4><p><strong>Rubin, 11</strong> (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)</p><p>The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the <u><strong><mark>underlying sources of conflict and tension</u></strong></mark> in South and Central Asia <u><strong><mark>will remain</u></strong></mark> after an American withdrawal. <u><strong><mark>In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters</u></strong></mark> <mark>-- <u><strong>with</mark> nuclear aspirant <mark>Iran</mark> bordering Afghanistan on one side <mark>and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India</mark> on the other</u></strong> -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in <u><strong><mark>Afghanistan will determine</mark> the shape of our <mark>security</mark> challenges <mark>in the region</u></strong></mark> for the foreseeable future. And <u><strong>we can't afford</u></strong> for <u><strong>nuclear weapons</u></strong> to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, <u><strong>a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region</u></strong> -- <u><strong><mark>potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan</u></strong> -- <u><strong>will remain and may</mark> actually <mark>rise in importance</u></strong></mark>. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. <u><strong><mark>The key here is to</u></strong></mark> leave in a way that <u><strong><mark>promote</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong><mark>regional stability</mark> and cooperation<mark>, not a power vacuum</u></strong></mark> that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, <u><strong>maintain a stable Afghanistan</u></strong>, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.</p>

Rubin, 11 (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Rubin, 11 (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html) fulltext: The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the underlying sources of conflict and tension in South and Central Asia will remain after an American withdrawal. In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters -- with nuclear aspirant Iran bordering Afghanistan on one side and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India on the other -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in Afghanistan will determine the shape of our security challenges in the region for the foreseeable future. And we can't afford for nuclear weapons to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region -- potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan -- will remain and may actually rise in importance. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. The key here is to leave in a way that promotes regional stability and cooperation, not a power vacuum that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, maintain a stable Afghanistan, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world. [/INST] <h4>Multiple scenarios for nuclear escalation and</h4><p><strong>Rubin, 11</strong> (Joel, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Ploughshares Fund, former congressional aide and diplomat, fellow at the State Department in both Near Eastern Affairs and Political-Military Affairs, Master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Brandeis University, Huffington Post, 77/2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)</p><p>The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted. Any gains that we made from keeping 100,000 American soldiers in harm's way are now questionable, especially since al Qaeda has been dealt a significant blow with the killing of Osama bin Laden. President Obama's decision to end the surge by late next year only reinforces this reality. Yet many of the <u><strong><mark>underlying sources of conflict and tension</u></strong></mark> in South and Central Asia <u><strong><mark>will remain</u></strong></mark> after an American withdrawal. <u><strong><mark>In a region that has deep experience on nuclear matters</u></strong></mark> <mark>-- <u><strong>with</mark> nuclear aspirant <mark>Iran</mark> bordering Afghanistan on one side <mark>and nuclear-armed Pakistan and India</mark> on the other</u></strong> -- the United States must take into account the potential for regional nuclear insecurity caused by a poorly executed drawdown in Afghanistan. As much as we may like to, we can't just cut and run. So as the United States draws down its forces, we must take care to leave stable systems and relationships in place; failure to do so could exacerbate historic regional tensions and potentially create new national security risks. It is therefore essential that Washington policymakers create a comprehensive nuclear security strategy for the region as part of its Afghanistan withdrawal plans that lays the groundwork for regional stability. We have only to look to our recent history in the region to understand the importance of this approach. In the 1980s, the U.S. supported the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union. When that conflict ended, we withdrew, only to see the rise of al Qaeda -- and its resultant international terrorism -- in the 1990s because we didn't pull out responsibly from Afghanistan. Our choices now in <u><strong><mark>Afghanistan will determine</mark> the shape of our <mark>security</mark> challenges <mark>in the region</u></strong></mark> for the foreseeable future. And <u><strong>we can't afford</u></strong> for <u><strong>nuclear weapons</u></strong> to become to South and Central Asia in the 21st century what al Qaeda was in the 1990s to Afghanistan. To avoid such an outcome, several key objectives must be included in any Afghanistan withdrawal plan. First, current levels of regional insecurity -- which already are extremely high -- will continue to drive tensions, and quite possibly conflict, amongst the regional powers. Therefore, we must ensure the implementation of a regional approach to military withdrawal. These efforts must bring all relevant regional players to the table, particularly the nuclear and potentially nuclear states. Iran and all the countries bordering Afghanistan must be part of this discussion. Second, the United States must be mindful to not leave a governance vacuum inside Afghanistan. While it is clear that the current counter-insurgency policy being pursued in Afghanistan is not working at a pace that meets either Western or Afghan aspirations, it is still essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to implode. We do not need 100,000 troops to do this, and as the Afghanistan Study Group has recommended, credible political negotiations that emphasize power-sharing and political reconciliation must take place to keep the country intact while the United States moves out. Third, while the rationale for our presence in Afghanistan -- to defeat al Qaeda -- has dissipated, <u><strong>a major security concern justifying our continued involvement in the region</u></strong> -- <u><strong><mark>potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan</u></strong> -- <u><strong>will remain and may</mark> actually <mark>rise in importance</u></strong></mark>. It is crucial that we keep a particularly close eye on these programs to ensure that all is done to prevent the illicit transfer or ill-use of nuclear weapons. Regardless of American troop levels in Afghanistan, the U.S. must maximize its military and intelligence relationships with these countries to continue to both understand their nuclear intentions and help prevent potential conflict. We must avoid a situation where any minor misunderstanding or even terrorist act, as happened in Mumbai in 2008, does not set off escalating tensions that lead to a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, the U.S. will one day leave Afghanistan -- and it may be sooner than anyone expects. <u><strong><mark>The key here is to</u></strong></mark> leave in a way that <u><strong><mark>promote</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong><mark>regional stability</mark> and cooperation<mark>, not a power vacuum</u></strong></mark> that could foster proxy conflicts. To ensure that our security interests are protected and that the region does not get sucked in to a new level of insecurity and tension, a comprehensive strategy to enhance regional security, <u><strong>maintain a stable Afghanistan</u></strong>, and keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and India is essential. Taking such steps will help us to depart Afghanistan in a responsible manner that protects our security interests, while not exacerbating the deep strategic insecurities of a region that has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.</p> </s>

Yes turnout

A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote 68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot. Support crosses party lines, though younger and single voters -- who tend to vote for Democrats -- are more motivated

A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote 68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot. Support crosses party lines, though younger and single voters

A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote if a measure to do so is on the ballot, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll released today. The survey of 1,000 likely voters found 73 percent support allowing marijuana for legal medical purposes, 53 percent favor decriminalization and 68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot. “Marijuana legalization and marijuana decriminalization is at a tipping point” said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners and one of the two pollsters who conducted the survey. Support crosses party lines, though younger and single voters -- who tend to vote for Democrats -- are more motivated by those issues, she said. Ballot measures on legalizing pot are set for Alaska’s August primary and probably this November in Oregon, according to Allen St. Pierre, the executive director Norml, a Washington-based nonprofit pushing for more access to the drug. Florida will see a decriminalization effort, he said.

<h4>Yes turnout</h4><p><strong>Linskey 14</strong>, Annie, Bloomberg reporter, “Poll: Marijuana Legalization Measures Will Drive Voters,” March 25th, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/poll-marijuana-legalization-measures-will-drive-voters.html</p><p><u><strong><mark>A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote</u></strong></mark> if a measure to do so is on the ballot, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll released today. The survey of 1,000 likely voters found 73 percent support allowing marijuana for legal medical purposes, 53 percent favor decriminalization and <u><strong><mark>68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot.</mark> </u></strong>“Marijuana legalization and marijuana decriminalization is at a tipping point” said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners and one of the two pollsters who conducted the survey. <u><strong><mark>Support crosses party lines, though younger and single voters</mark> -- who tend to vote for Democrats -- are more motivated</u></strong> by those issues, she said. Ballot measures on legalizing pot are set for Alaska’s August primary and probably this November in Oregon, according to Allen St. Pierre, the executive director Norml, a Washington-based nonprofit pushing for more access to the drug. Florida will see a decriminalization effort, he said.</p>

Linskey 14, Annie, Bloomberg reporter, “Poll: Marijuana Legalization Measures Will Drive Voters,” March 25th, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/poll-marijuana-legalization-measures-will-drive-voters.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Linskey 14, Annie, Bloomberg reporter, “Poll: Marijuana Legalization Measures Will Drive Voters,” March 25th, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/poll-marijuana-legalization-measures-will-drive-voters.html fulltext: A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote if a measure to do so is on the ballot, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll released today. The survey of 1,000 likely voters found 73 percent support allowing marijuana for legal medical purposes, 53 percent favor decriminalization and 68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot. “Marijuana legalization and marijuana decriminalization is at a tipping point” said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners and one of the two pollsters who conducted the survey. Support crosses party lines, though younger and single voters -- who tend to vote for Democrats -- are more motivated by those issues, she said. Ballot measures on legalizing pot are set for Alaska’s August primary and probably this November in Oregon, according to Allen St. Pierre, the executive director Norml, a Washington-based nonprofit pushing for more access to the drug. Florida will see a decriminalization effort, he said. [/INST] <h4>Yes turnout</h4><p><strong>Linskey 14</strong>, Annie, Bloomberg reporter, “Poll: Marijuana Legalization Measures Will Drive Voters,” March 25th, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/poll-marijuana-legalization-measures-will-drive-voters.html</p><p><u><strong><mark>A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and would be motivated to vote</u></strong></mark> if a measure to do so is on the ballot, according to a George Washington University Battleground poll released today. The survey of 1,000 likely voters found 73 percent support allowing marijuana for legal medical purposes, 53 percent favor decriminalization and <u><strong><mark>68 percent are “more likely” to go to their polling place to weigh in on a ballot.</mark> </u></strong>“Marijuana legalization and marijuana decriminalization is at a tipping point” said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners and one of the two pollsters who conducted the survey. <u><strong><mark>Support crosses party lines, though younger and single voters</mark> -- who tend to vote for Democrats -- are more motivated</u></strong> by those issues, she said. Ballot measures on legalizing pot are set for Alaska’s August primary and probably this November in Oregon, according to Allen St. Pierre, the executive director Norml, a Washington-based nonprofit pushing for more access to the drug. Florida will see a decriminalization effort, he said.</p> </s>

Their epistemology of threat production justifies nuclear lashout to eliminate the threat -- causes extinction

Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States. preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency Preemption is not prevention. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought Prevention operates in an objectively knowable world in which uncertainty is a function of a lack of information, and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect. this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption Deterrence has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised. The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself. The quickest and most direct way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one. The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic ). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause. This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself by precipitating a "nuclear winter." the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain the enemy will follow your lead Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out. You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. You have to race foward it ever faster. You have to build more weapons, faster and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's The process soon becomes self-driving. The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling. Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life).

Preemption is not prevention Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats Prevention operates in an knowable world in uncertainty is a lack of information, The quickest way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one , the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself the enemy will follow your lead You to race foward it ever faster. build more weapons, faster The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling.

Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/ v010/10.2massumi.html, “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption” It is certain that there will be adjustments. But it should be remembered that Bush referred to a change in "tactics," not a change in "strategy." Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States. It can be argued that preemption is in any case far more than a specific military doctrine of a particular administration. It can be plausibly argued that preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age in as infinitely space-filling and insiduously infiltrating a way as the logic of "deterrence" defined the Cold War era. By an "operative" logic I mean one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency that is not in the sway of any particular existing formation but sweeps across them all and where possible sweeps them up in its own dynamic. Preemption is not prevention. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ epistemologically and ontologically. Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought to avoid their realization. Prevention operates in an objectively knowable world in which uncertainty is a function of a lack of information, and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect. As we will see, this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption, and entails a divergence from it on the ontological level as well. Prevention, in fact, has no ontology of its own because it assumes that what it must deal with has an objectively given existence prior to its own intervention. In practice, this means that its object is given to it predefined by other formations, in whose terms and on whose terrain it must then operate. A preventive approach to social conflict might analyze it, for example, as an effect of poverty, objectively quantifiable in terms of economic and health indexes. Each index is defined by a specialist formation (economics, medicine) in relation to a norm specific to that domain and against which goals may be set and success measured (annual income, mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.). The preventive measures will then operate as a political extension of the concerned specialist domains (economic analysis extended into politics as aid and development, medicine extended into vaccination programs, etc.). They will be regulated by the specialist logics proper to those fields. Prevention has no proper object, no operational sphere of its own, and no proprietary logic. It is derivative. It is a means toward a given end. Because of this, preventive measures are not self-sustaining. They must be applied. They must be leveraged from an outside source with outside force. They are not an organizing force in their own right. They run on borrowed power. Deterrence takes over at the end of this same process, when the means of prevention have failed. Deterrence makes use of the same epistemology prevention does, in that it assumes knowability and objective measurability. However, because it starts where prevention ends, it has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised. Since it would not hold the key to its own knowledge, in the urgency of the situation it would be haunted internally by the spectre of a possible incompleteness of the knowledge coming from the outside. Since its operations would be mediated by that outside domain, neither would it hold a direct key to its own actions. Since it would be responding to causes outside its specific purview, it would not be master of its own effects. The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself. The quickest and most direct way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one. The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic (deterrence). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause. Past causes are in any case already spoken for. They have been claimed as objects of knowledge and operational spheres by a crowded world of other already-functioning formations. Now for a future cause to have any palpable effect it must somehow be able act on the present. This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself by precipitating a "nuclear winter." In fact, the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain the enemy will follow your lead in acquiring the capability to annihilate you, and themselves as well. The imminent threat is then so imminent on both sides, so immediately present in its menacing futurity, that only a madman or suicidal regime would ever tip the balance and press the button. This gives rise to a unique logic of mutuality: "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out. The second certainty is dynamic, and requires maintenance. The assurance must be maintained by continuing to producing the conditions that bring the cause so vividly into the present. You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. You have to race foward it ever faster. You have to build more weapons, faster and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's, give or take a few half-lives. The process soon becomes self-driving. The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling. Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life).

<h4>Their epistemology of threat production justifies nuclear lashout to eliminate the threat -- causes extinction </h4><p><strong><mark>Massumi 07</strong></mark> </p><p>Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/ v010/10.2massumi.html, “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”</p><p>It is certain that there will be adjustments. But it should be remembered that Bush referred to a change in "tactics," not a change in "strategy." <u><strong>Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States.</u></strong> It can be argued that preemption is in any case far more than a specific military doctrine of a particular administration. It can be plausibly argued that <u><strong>preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age</u></strong> in as infinitely space-filling and insiduously infiltrating a way as the logic of "deterrence" defined the Cold War era. By an "operative" logic I mean <u><strong>one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency</u></strong> that is not in the sway of any particular existing formation but sweeps across them all and where possible sweeps them up in its own dynamic. <u><strong><mark>Preemption is not prevention</mark>. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ</u></strong> epistemologically and ontologically. <u><strong><mark>Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats </mark>empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought</u></strong> to avoid their realization. <u><strong><mark>Prevention</mark> <mark>operates</mark> <mark>in an</mark> objectively <mark>knowable world</mark> <mark>in</mark> which <mark>uncertainty</mark> <mark>is a</mark> function of a <mark>lack of information,</mark> and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect.</u></strong> As we will see, <u><strong>this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption</u></strong>, and entails a divergence from it on the ontological level as well. Prevention, in fact, has no ontology of its own because it assumes that what it must deal with has an objectively given existence prior to its own intervention. In practice, this means that its object is given to it predefined by other formations, in whose terms and on whose terrain it must then operate. A preventive approach to social conflict might analyze it, for example, as an effect of poverty, objectively quantifiable in terms of economic and health indexes. Each index is defined by a specialist formation (economics, medicine) in relation to a norm specific to that domain and against which goals may be set and success measured (annual income, mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.). The preventive measures will then operate as a political extension of the concerned specialist domains (economic analysis extended into politics as aid and development, medicine extended into vaccination programs, etc.). They will be regulated by the specialist logics proper to those fields. Prevention has no proper object, no operational sphere of its own, and no proprietary logic. It is derivative. It is a means toward a given end. Because of this, preventive measures are not self-sustaining. They must be applied. They must be leveraged from an outside source with outside force. They are not an organizing force in their own right. They run on borrowed power. Deterrence takes over at the end of this same process, when the means of prevention have failed. <u><strong>Deterrence</u></strong> makes use of the same epistemology prevention does, in that it assumes knowability and objective measurability. However, because it starts where prevention ends, it <u><strong>has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised.</u></strong> Since it would not hold the key to its own knowledge, in the urgency of the situation it would be haunted internally by the spectre of a possible incompleteness of the knowledge coming from the outside. Since its operations would be mediated by that outside domain, neither would it hold a direct key to its own actions. Since it would be responding to causes outside its specific purview, it would not be master of its own effects. <u><strong>The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The quickest</mark> and most direct <mark>way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words<mark>, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic</u></strong></mark> (deterrence<u><strong>). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause.</u></strong> Past causes are in any case already spoken for. They have been claimed as objects of knowledge and operational spheres by a crowded world of other already-functioning formations. Now for a future cause to have any palpable effect it must somehow be able act on the present. <u><strong>This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start <mark>by translating the threat into a clear and present danger.</mark> You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, <mark>you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself</mark> by precipitating a "nuclear winter." </u></strong>In fact, <u><strong>the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain <mark>the enemy will follow your lead </u></strong></mark>in acquiring the capability to annihilate you, and themselves as well. The imminent threat is then so imminent on both sides, so immediately present in its menacing futurity, that only a madman or suicidal regime would ever tip the balance and press the button. This gives rise to a unique logic of mutuality: "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). <u><strong>Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out.</u></strong> The second certainty is dynamic, and requires maintenance. The assurance must be maintained by continuing to producing the conditions that bring the cause so vividly into the present. <u><strong>You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. <mark>You</mark> have <mark>to race foward it ever faster.</mark> You have to <mark>build more weapons, faster </mark>and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's</u></strong>, give or take a few half-lives. <u><strong>The process soon becomes self-driving. <mark>The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling.</mark> Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life).</strong> </p></u>

Massumi 07

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Massumi 07 fulltext: Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/ v010/10.2massumi.html, “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption” It is certain that there will be adjustments. But it should be remembered that Bush referred to a change in "tactics," not a change in "strategy." Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States. It can be argued that preemption is in any case far more than a specific military doctrine of a particular administration. It can be plausibly argued that preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age in as infinitely space-filling and insiduously infiltrating a way as the logic of "deterrence" defined the Cold War era. By an "operative" logic I mean one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency that is not in the sway of any particular existing formation but sweeps across them all and where possible sweeps them up in its own dynamic. Preemption is not prevention. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ epistemologically and ontologically. Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought to avoid their realization. Prevention operates in an objectively knowable world in which uncertainty is a function of a lack of information, and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect. As we will see, this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption, and entails a divergence from it on the ontological level as well. Prevention, in fact, has no ontology of its own because it assumes that what it must deal with has an objectively given existence prior to its own intervention. In practice, this means that its object is given to it predefined by other formations, in whose terms and on whose terrain it must then operate. A preventive approach to social conflict might analyze it, for example, as an effect of poverty, objectively quantifiable in terms of economic and health indexes. Each index is defined by a specialist formation (economics, medicine) in relation to a norm specific to that domain and against which goals may be set and success measured (annual income, mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.). The preventive measures will then operate as a political extension of the concerned specialist domains (economic analysis extended into politics as aid and development, medicine extended into vaccination programs, etc.). They will be regulated by the specialist logics proper to those fields. Prevention has no proper object, no operational sphere of its own, and no proprietary logic. It is derivative. It is a means toward a given end. Because of this, preventive measures are not self-sustaining. They must be applied. They must be leveraged from an outside source with outside force. They are not an organizing force in their own right. They run on borrowed power. Deterrence takes over at the end of this same process, when the means of prevention have failed. Deterrence makes use of the same epistemology prevention does, in that it assumes knowability and objective measurability. However, because it starts where prevention ends, it has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised. Since it would not hold the key to its own knowledge, in the urgency of the situation it would be haunted internally by the spectre of a possible incompleteness of the knowledge coming from the outside. Since its operations would be mediated by that outside domain, neither would it hold a direct key to its own actions. Since it would be responding to causes outside its specific purview, it would not be master of its own effects. The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself. The quickest and most direct way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one. The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic (deterrence). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause. Past causes are in any case already spoken for. They have been claimed as objects of knowledge and operational spheres by a crowded world of other already-functioning formations. Now for a future cause to have any palpable effect it must somehow be able act on the present. This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself by precipitating a "nuclear winter." In fact, the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain the enemy will follow your lead in acquiring the capability to annihilate you, and themselves as well. The imminent threat is then so imminent on both sides, so immediately present in its menacing futurity, that only a madman or suicidal regime would ever tip the balance and press the button. This gives rise to a unique logic of mutuality: "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out. The second certainty is dynamic, and requires maintenance. The assurance must be maintained by continuing to producing the conditions that bring the cause so vividly into the present. You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. You have to race foward it ever faster. You have to build more weapons, faster and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's, give or take a few half-lives. The process soon becomes self-driving. The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling. Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life). [/INST] <h4>Their epistemology of threat production justifies nuclear lashout to eliminate the threat -- causes extinction </h4><p><strong><mark>Massumi 07</strong></mark> </p><p>Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/ v010/10.2massumi.html, “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”</p><p>It is certain that there will be adjustments. But it should be remembered that Bush referred to a change in "tactics," not a change in "strategy." <u><strong>Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States.</u></strong> It can be argued that preemption is in any case far more than a specific military doctrine of a particular administration. It can be plausibly argued that <u><strong>preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age</u></strong> in as infinitely space-filling and insiduously infiltrating a way as the logic of "deterrence" defined the Cold War era. By an "operative" logic I mean <u><strong>one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency</u></strong> that is not in the sway of any particular existing formation but sweeps across them all and where possible sweeps them up in its own dynamic. <u><strong><mark>Preemption is not prevention</mark>. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ</u></strong> epistemologically and ontologically. <u><strong><mark>Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats </mark>empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought</u></strong> to avoid their realization. <u><strong><mark>Prevention</mark> <mark>operates</mark> <mark>in an</mark> objectively <mark>knowable world</mark> <mark>in</mark> which <mark>uncertainty</mark> <mark>is a</mark> function of a <mark>lack of information,</mark> and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect.</u></strong> As we will see, <u><strong>this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption</u></strong>, and entails a divergence from it on the ontological level as well. Prevention, in fact, has no ontology of its own because it assumes that what it must deal with has an objectively given existence prior to its own intervention. In practice, this means that its object is given to it predefined by other formations, in whose terms and on whose terrain it must then operate. A preventive approach to social conflict might analyze it, for example, as an effect of poverty, objectively quantifiable in terms of economic and health indexes. Each index is defined by a specialist formation (economics, medicine) in relation to a norm specific to that domain and against which goals may be set and success measured (annual income, mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.). The preventive measures will then operate as a political extension of the concerned specialist domains (economic analysis extended into politics as aid and development, medicine extended into vaccination programs, etc.). They will be regulated by the specialist logics proper to those fields. Prevention has no proper object, no operational sphere of its own, and no proprietary logic. It is derivative. It is a means toward a given end. Because of this, preventive measures are not self-sustaining. They must be applied. They must be leveraged from an outside source with outside force. They are not an organizing force in their own right. They run on borrowed power. Deterrence takes over at the end of this same process, when the means of prevention have failed. <u><strong>Deterrence</u></strong> makes use of the same epistemology prevention does, in that it assumes knowability and objective measurability. However, because it starts where prevention ends, it <u><strong>has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised.</u></strong> Since it would not hold the key to its own knowledge, in the urgency of the situation it would be haunted internally by the spectre of a possible incompleteness of the knowledge coming from the outside. Since its operations would be mediated by that outside domain, neither would it hold a direct key to its own actions. Since it would be responding to causes outside its specific purview, it would not be master of its own effects. <u><strong>The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The quickest</mark> and most direct <mark>way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words<mark>, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic</u></strong></mark> (deterrence<u><strong>). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause.</u></strong> Past causes are in any case already spoken for. They have been claimed as objects of knowledge and operational spheres by a crowded world of other already-functioning formations. Now for a future cause to have any palpable effect it must somehow be able act on the present. <u><strong>This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start <mark>by translating the threat into a clear and present danger.</mark> You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, <mark>you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself</mark> by precipitating a "nuclear winter." </u></strong>In fact, <u><strong>the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain <mark>the enemy will follow your lead </u></strong></mark>in acquiring the capability to annihilate you, and themselves as well. The imminent threat is then so imminent on both sides, so immediately present in its menacing futurity, that only a madman or suicidal regime would ever tip the balance and press the button. This gives rise to a unique logic of mutuality: "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). <u><strong>Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out.</u></strong> The second certainty is dynamic, and requires maintenance. The assurance must be maintained by continuing to producing the conditions that bring the cause so vividly into the present. <u><strong>You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. <mark>You</mark> have <mark>to race foward it ever faster.</mark> You have to <mark>build more weapons, faster </mark>and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's</u></strong>, give or take a few half-lives. <u><strong>The process soon becomes self-driving. <mark>The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling.</mark> Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life).</strong> </p></u> </s>

Climate change puts deforestation on the brink – reducing human causes is key to prevent tipping points

Deforestation accounts globally for about 12% of total GHG roughly the same as transport and ag Forests are crucially important in soaking up humankind’s GHG emissions deforestation cancels this Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems Increased tree mortality has occurred as a result of high temperatures, drought n order for humans to adapt to climate change, we need forests because they provide essential “services”, such as water, food and raw materials Maintaining forests as intact increases their resilience to climate change a combination of deforestation and climate change could to lead to a “tipping point”, where the forest cover could change rapidly into savannah. This would cause not only a loss in biodiversity, but release carbon to the atmosphere, leading to additional climate change climate change alone will not cause this tipping point Reductions in deforestation rates will also navigate us away from such a tipping point. The massive decline in deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon demonstrates policy-led approaches to curb deforestation can work deforestation fragments the remaining forest, making it more vulnerable to drought-induced fires.

Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems. Maintaining forests as intact, increases their resilience to climate change deforestation and climate change could to lead to a ¶ “tipping point”, where the forest could change into savannah Reductions in deforestation will navigate us away from such a tipping point.

[Janet, 3/31. "What does the IPCC WGII report say on forests?" www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/IPCC-WGII-Forests.pdf] Deforestation accounts globally for about 12% of total man-made greenhouse gas emissions¶ (GHG). Deforestation causes roughly the same GHG emissions as both transport (13%) and ¶ agriculture (12%). ¶ • Forests are crucially important in soaking up humankind’s GHG emissions. Unfortunately,¶ deforestation largely cancels out this effect. While forests have taken up about 45% of the ¶ CO2 emissions to the atmosphere since 1750, this is roughly balanced by emissions from ¶ deforestation.¶ • Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems. Increased tree mortality has ¶ occurred in some regions, notably western and boreal North America – either as a result of ¶ high temperatures, drought, and/or changes in the distribution and abundance of insect pests ¶ and diseases which have been attributed, at least in part, to warming. In addition, the fire¶ regime in the boreal forests has intensified in recent decades.¶ What do the findings mean in practice?¶ • For forests, mitigation and adaptation go together. In order for humans to adapt to climate ¶ change, we need forests because they provide essential “services”, such as water, food and ¶ raw materials. Maintaining forests as intact, i.e. as unbroken tracts of forest landscape,¶ increases their resilience to climate change. This also enables the species living within them, ¶ to adapt to climate change and maintain these services.¶ • For the Amazon, a combination of deforestation and climate change could to lead to a ¶ “tipping point”, where the forest cover could change rapidly into savannah. This would cause ¶ not only a loss in biodiversity, but release carbon to the atmosphere, leading to additional ¶ climate change. However, climate change alone will not cause this tipping point to be ¶ reached this century, especially if warming remains below 2°C. Reductions in deforestation ¶ rates will also navigate us away from such a tipping point. The massive decline in ¶ deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon between the years 2005-2012 demonstrateshat policy-led approaches to curb deforestation can work (see IPCC WG2 Ch. 4). However, the reverse is also ¶ true as witnessed by last year’s increases in deforestation in the Amazon as a result of a severely weakened ¶ domestic forest policy.¶ What Greenpeace says about climate change and forests¶ Deforestation together with climate change makes for a vicious cocktail. Climate change is expected to increase ¶ periods of drought in tropical forests. At the same time, deforestation fragments the remaining forest, making it ¶ more vulnerable to drought-induced fires. Fires then release carbon, triggering even faster climate change. Last ¶ year’s massive forest fires in Indonesia were a stark reminder of what the future might look like if we do not end ¶ deforestation by the end of this decade.

<h4>Climate change puts deforestation on the brink – reducing human causes is key to prevent tipping points</h4><p><strong>Cotter 14 – </strong>Senior Scientist from Greenpeace International Science Unit</p><p>[Janet, 3/31. "What does the IPCC WGII report say on forests?" www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/IPCC-WGII-Forests.pdf]</p><p><u><strong>Deforestation accounts globally for about 12% of total</u></strong> man-made greenhouse gas emissions¶ (<u><strong>GHG</u></strong>). Deforestation causes <u><strong>roughly the same</u></strong> GHG emissions <u><strong>as</u></strong> both <u><strong>transport</u></strong> (13%) <u><strong>and </u>¶<u> ag</u></strong>riculture (12%). ¶ • <u><strong>Forests are crucially important in soaking up humankind’s GHG emissions</u></strong>. Unfortunately,¶ <u><strong>deforestation</u></strong> largely <u><strong>cancels</u></strong> out <u><strong>this</u></strong> effect. While forests have taken up about 45% of the ¶ CO2 emissions to the atmosphere since 1750, this is roughly balanced by emissions from ¶ deforestation.¶ • <u><strong><mark>Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems</u></strong>. <u><strong></mark>Increased tree mortality has </u>¶<u> occurred</u></strong> in some regions, notably western and boreal North America – either <u><strong>as a result of </u>¶<u> high temperatures, drought</u></strong>, and/or changes in the distribution and abundance of insect pests ¶ and diseases which have been attributed, at least in part, to warming. In addition, the fire¶ regime in the boreal forests has intensified in recent decades.¶ What do the findings mean in practice?¶ • For forests, mitigation and adaptation go together. I<u><strong>n order for humans to adapt to climate </u>¶<u> change, we need forests because they provide essential “services”, such as water, food and </u>¶<u> raw materials</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Maintaining forests as intact</u></strong>, </mark>i.e. as unbroken tracts of forest landscape,¶ <u><strong><mark>increases their resilience to climate change</u></strong></mark>. This also enables the species living within them, ¶ to adapt to climate change and maintain these services.¶ • For the Amazon, <u><strong>a combination of <mark>deforestation and climate change could to lead to a </u>¶<u> “tipping point”, where the forest </mark>cover <mark>could change </mark>rapidly <mark>into savannah</mark>. This would cause </u>¶<u> not only a loss in biodiversity, but release carbon to the atmosphere, leading to additional </u>¶<u> climate change</u></strong>. However, <u><strong>climate change alone will not cause this tipping point</u></strong> to be ¶ reached this century, especially if warming remains below 2°C. <u><strong><mark>Reductions in deforestation </u></mark>¶<u><mark> </mark>rates <mark>will </mark>also <mark>navigate us away from such a tipping point.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>The massive decline in </u>¶<u> deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon</u></strong> between the years 2005-2012 <u><strong>demonstrates</u></strong>hat <u><strong>policy-led approaches to curb deforestation can work</u></strong> (see IPCC WG2 Ch. 4). However, the reverse is also ¶ true as witnessed by last year’s increases in deforestation in the Amazon as a result of a severely weakened ¶ domestic forest policy.¶ What Greenpeace says about climate change and forests¶ Deforestation together with climate change makes for a vicious cocktail. Climate change is expected to increase ¶ periods of drought in tropical forests. At the same time, <u><strong>deforestation fragments the remaining forest, making it </u>¶<u> more vulnerable to drought-induced fires.</u></strong> Fires then release carbon, triggering even faster climate change. Last ¶ year’s massive forest fires in Indonesia were a stark reminder of what the future might look like if we do not end ¶ deforestation by the end of this decade.</p>

Cotter 14 – Senior Scientist from Greenpeace International Science Unit

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Cotter 14 – Senior Scientist from Greenpeace International Science Unit fulltext: [Janet, 3/31. "What does the IPCC WGII report say on forests?" www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/IPCC-WGII-Forests.pdf] Deforestation accounts globally for about 12% of total man-made greenhouse gas emissions¶ (GHG). Deforestation causes roughly the same GHG emissions as both transport (13%) and ¶ agriculture (12%). ¶ • Forests are crucially important in soaking up humankind’s GHG emissions. Unfortunately,¶ deforestation largely cancels out this effect. While forests have taken up about 45% of the ¶ CO2 emissions to the atmosphere since 1750, this is roughly balanced by emissions from ¶ deforestation.¶ • Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems. Increased tree mortality has ¶ occurred in some regions, notably western and boreal North America – either as a result of ¶ high temperatures, drought, and/or changes in the distribution and abundance of insect pests ¶ and diseases which have been attributed, at least in part, to warming. In addition, the fire¶ regime in the boreal forests has intensified in recent decades.¶ What do the findings mean in practice?¶ • For forests, mitigation and adaptation go together. In order for humans to adapt to climate ¶ change, we need forests because they provide essential “services”, such as water, food and ¶ raw materials. Maintaining forests as intact, i.e. as unbroken tracts of forest landscape,¶ increases their resilience to climate change. This also enables the species living within them, ¶ to adapt to climate change and maintain these services.¶ • For the Amazon, a combination of deforestation and climate change could to lead to a ¶ “tipping point”, where the forest cover could change rapidly into savannah. This would cause ¶ not only a loss in biodiversity, but release carbon to the atmosphere, leading to additional ¶ climate change. However, climate change alone will not cause this tipping point to be ¶ reached this century, especially if warming remains below 2°C. Reductions in deforestation ¶ rates will also navigate us away from such a tipping point. The massive decline in ¶ deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon between the years 2005-2012 demonstrateshat policy-led approaches to curb deforestation can work (see IPCC WG2 Ch. 4). However, the reverse is also ¶ true as witnessed by last year’s increases in deforestation in the Amazon as a result of a severely weakened ¶ domestic forest policy.¶ What Greenpeace says about climate change and forests¶ Deforestation together with climate change makes for a vicious cocktail. Climate change is expected to increase ¶ periods of drought in tropical forests. At the same time, deforestation fragments the remaining forest, making it ¶ more vulnerable to drought-induced fires. Fires then release carbon, triggering even faster climate change. Last ¶ year’s massive forest fires in Indonesia were a stark reminder of what the future might look like if we do not end ¶ deforestation by the end of this decade. [/INST] <h4>Climate change puts deforestation on the brink – reducing human causes is key to prevent tipping points</h4><p><strong>Cotter 14 – </strong>Senior Scientist from Greenpeace International Science Unit</p><p>[Janet, 3/31. "What does the IPCC WGII report say on forests?" www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/IPCC-WGII-Forests.pdf]</p><p><u><strong>Deforestation accounts globally for about 12% of total</u></strong> man-made greenhouse gas emissions¶ (<u><strong>GHG</u></strong>). Deforestation causes <u><strong>roughly the same</u></strong> GHG emissions <u><strong>as</u></strong> both <u><strong>transport</u></strong> (13%) <u><strong>and </u>¶<u> ag</u></strong>riculture (12%). ¶ • <u><strong>Forests are crucially important in soaking up humankind’s GHG emissions</u></strong>. Unfortunately,¶ <u><strong>deforestation</u></strong> largely <u><strong>cancels</u></strong> out <u><strong>this</u></strong> effect. While forests have taken up about 45% of the ¶ CO2 emissions to the atmosphere since 1750, this is roughly balanced by emissions from ¶ deforestation.¶ • <u><strong><mark>Climate change is an additional stressor for forest ecosystems</u></strong>. <u><strong></mark>Increased tree mortality has </u>¶<u> occurred</u></strong> in some regions, notably western and boreal North America – either <u><strong>as a result of </u>¶<u> high temperatures, drought</u></strong>, and/or changes in the distribution and abundance of insect pests ¶ and diseases which have been attributed, at least in part, to warming. In addition, the fire¶ regime in the boreal forests has intensified in recent decades.¶ What do the findings mean in practice?¶ • For forests, mitigation and adaptation go together. I<u><strong>n order for humans to adapt to climate </u>¶<u> change, we need forests because they provide essential “services”, such as water, food and </u>¶<u> raw materials</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Maintaining forests as intact</u></strong>, </mark>i.e. as unbroken tracts of forest landscape,¶ <u><strong><mark>increases their resilience to climate change</u></strong></mark>. This also enables the species living within them, ¶ to adapt to climate change and maintain these services.¶ • For the Amazon, <u><strong>a combination of <mark>deforestation and climate change could to lead to a </u>¶<u> “tipping point”, where the forest </mark>cover <mark>could change </mark>rapidly <mark>into savannah</mark>. This would cause </u>¶<u> not only a loss in biodiversity, but release carbon to the atmosphere, leading to additional </u>¶<u> climate change</u></strong>. However, <u><strong>climate change alone will not cause this tipping point</u></strong> to be ¶ reached this century, especially if warming remains below 2°C. <u><strong><mark>Reductions in deforestation </u></mark>¶<u><mark> </mark>rates <mark>will </mark>also <mark>navigate us away from such a tipping point.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>The massive decline in </u>¶<u> deforestation rates for the Brazilian Amazon</u></strong> between the years 2005-2012 <u><strong>demonstrates</u></strong>hat <u><strong>policy-led approaches to curb deforestation can work</u></strong> (see IPCC WG2 Ch. 4). However, the reverse is also ¶ true as witnessed by last year’s increases in deforestation in the Amazon as a result of a severely weakened ¶ domestic forest policy.¶ What Greenpeace says about climate change and forests¶ Deforestation together with climate change makes for a vicious cocktail. Climate change is expected to increase ¶ periods of drought in tropical forests. At the same time, <u><strong>deforestation fragments the remaining forest, making it </u>¶<u> more vulnerable to drought-induced fires.</u></strong> Fires then release carbon, triggering even faster climate change. Last ¶ year’s massive forest fires in Indonesia were a stark reminder of what the future might look like if we do not end ¶ deforestation by the end of this decade.</p> </s>

A. Resiliency

The reality is that the international trade regime has passed its greatest test since the Great Depression with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of protectionism sound like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that killed thousands. Three things explain this remarkable resilience : ideas, politics , and institutions Economists have been extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers Nothing reflects this better than how “protection” and “protectionists” have become terms of derision if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are painted into a corner with Smoot and Hawley economists’ ideas would not have gone very far without significant changes in the underlying configuration of political interests in favor of open trade. For every worker and firm affected adversely by import competition, there is one or more worker and firm expecting to reap the benefits of access to markets abroad. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful, often represented by large multinational corporations the relative docility of rank-and-file workers on trade issues must ultimately be attributed to the safety nets erected by the welfare state. Modern industrial societies now have a wide array of social protections that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection If the world has not fallen off the protectionist precipice during the crisis, as it did during the 1930’s, much of the credit must go the social programs

the international trade regime has remarkable resilience significant changes in the underlying political interests in favor of open trade. For every worker affected adversely by competition more expecting to reap benefits of markets abroad industrial societies have a wide array of social protections

The reality is that the international trade regime has passed its greatest test since the Great Depression with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of protectionism sound like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that killed thousands. Three things explain this remarkable resilience : ideas, politics , and institutions . Economists have been extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers – even if ordinary people still regard imports with considerable suspicion. Nothing reflects this better than how “protection” and “protectionists” have become terms of derision. After all, governments are generally expected to provide protection to its citizens. But if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are painted into a corner with Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley, authors of the infamous 1930 US tariff bill. But economists’ ideas would not have gone very far without significant changes in the underlying configuration of political interests in favor of open trade. For every worker and firm affected adversely by import competition, there is one or more worker and firm expecting to reap the benefits of access to markets abroad. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful, often represented by large multinational corporations. In his latest book, Paul Blustein recounts how a former Indian trade minister once asked his American counterpart to bring him a picture of an American farmer: “I have never actually seen one,” the minister quipped. “I have only seen US conglomerates masquerading as farmers.” But the relative docility of rank-and-file workers on trade issues must ultimately be attributed to something else altogether: the safety nets erected by the welfare state. Modern industrial societies now have a wide array of social protections – unemployment compensation, adjustment assistance, and other labor-market tools, as well as health insurance and family support – that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection. The welfare state is the flip side of the open economy. If the world has not fallen off the protectionist precipice during the crisis, as it did during the 1930’s, much of the credit must go the social programs that conservatives and market fundamentalists would like to see scrapped. The battle against trade protection has been won – so far. But, before we relax, let’s remember that we still have not addressed the central challenge the world economy will face as the crisis eases: the inevitable clash between China’s need to produce an ever-growing quantity of manufactured goods and America’s need to maintain a smaller current-account deficit. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that policymakers are yet ready to confront this genuine threat.

<h4>A. Resiliency</h4><p><u><strong>Rodrik ‘9</u></strong> Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. “The Myth of Rising Protectionism”. 2009. http://relooney.fatcow.com/0_New_5973.pdf</p><p><u><strong>The reality is that <mark>the international trade regime has </mark>passed its greatest test since the Great Depression with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of protectionism sound like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that killed thousands. Three things explain this <mark>remarkable resilience</mark> : ideas, politics , and institutions</u></strong> . <u><strong>Economists have been extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers </u></strong>– even if ordinary people still regard imports with considerable suspicion. <u><strong>Nothing reflects this better than how “protection” and “protectionists” have become terms of derision</u></strong>. After all, governments are generally expected to provide protection to its citizens. But <u><strong>if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are painted into a corner with</u></strong> Reed <u><strong>Smoot and</u></strong> Willis C. <u><strong>Hawley</u></strong>, authors of the infamous 1930 US tariff bill. But <u><strong>economists’ ideas would not have gone very far without <mark>significant changes in the underlying</mark> configuration of <mark>political interests in</mark> <mark>favor of open trade. For every worker </mark>and firm <mark>affected adversely by </mark>import <mark>competition</mark>, there is one or <mark>more </mark>worker and firm <mark>expecting to reap </mark>the <mark>benefits of </mark>access to<mark> markets abroad</mark>. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful, often represented by large multinational corporations</u></strong>. In his latest book, Paul Blustein recounts how a former Indian trade minister once asked his American counterpart to bring him a picture of an American farmer: “I have never actually seen one,” the minister quipped. “I have only seen US conglomerates masquerading as farmers.” But <u><strong>the relative docility of rank-and-file workers on trade issues must ultimately be attributed to</u></strong> something else altogether:<u><strong> the safety nets erected by the welfare state. Modern <mark>industrial societies </mark>now <mark>have a wide array of social protections</u></strong></mark> – unemployment compensation, adjustment assistance, and other labor-market tools, as well as health insurance and family support – <u><strong>that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection</u></strong>. The welfare state is the flip side of the open economy.<u><strong> If the world has not fallen off the protectionist precipice during the crisis, as it did during the 1930’s, much of the credit must go the social programs </u></strong>that conservatives and market fundamentalists would like to see scrapped. The battle against trade protection has been won – so far. But, before we relax, let’s remember that we still have not addressed the central challenge the world economy will face as the crisis eases: the inevitable clash between China’s need to produce an ever-growing quantity of manufactured goods and America’s need to maintain a smaller current-account deficit. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that policymakers are yet ready to confront this genuine threat. </p>

Rodrik ‘9 Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. “The Myth of Rising Protectionism”. 2009. http://relooney.fatcow.com/0_New_5973.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Rodrik ‘9 Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. “The Myth of Rising Protectionism”. 2009. http://relooney.fatcow.com/0_New_5973.pdf fulltext: The reality is that the international trade regime has passed its greatest test since the Great Depression with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of protectionism sound like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that killed thousands. Three things explain this remarkable resilience : ideas, politics , and institutions . Economists have been extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers – even if ordinary people still regard imports with considerable suspicion. Nothing reflects this better than how “protection” and “protectionists” have become terms of derision. After all, governments are generally expected to provide protection to its citizens. But if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are painted into a corner with Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley, authors of the infamous 1930 US tariff bill. But economists’ ideas would not have gone very far without significant changes in the underlying configuration of political interests in favor of open trade. For every worker and firm affected adversely by import competition, there is one or more worker and firm expecting to reap the benefits of access to markets abroad. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful, often represented by large multinational corporations. In his latest book, Paul Blustein recounts how a former Indian trade minister once asked his American counterpart to bring him a picture of an American farmer: “I have never actually seen one,” the minister quipped. “I have only seen US conglomerates masquerading as farmers.” But the relative docility of rank-and-file workers on trade issues must ultimately be attributed to something else altogether: the safety nets erected by the welfare state. Modern industrial societies now have a wide array of social protections – unemployment compensation, adjustment assistance, and other labor-market tools, as well as health insurance and family support – that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection. The welfare state is the flip side of the open economy. If the world has not fallen off the protectionist precipice during the crisis, as it did during the 1930’s, much of the credit must go the social programs that conservatives and market fundamentalists would like to see scrapped. The battle against trade protection has been won – so far. But, before we relax, let’s remember that we still have not addressed the central challenge the world economy will face as the crisis eases: the inevitable clash between China’s need to produce an ever-growing quantity of manufactured goods and America’s need to maintain a smaller current-account deficit. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that policymakers are yet ready to confront this genuine threat. [/INST] <h4>A. Resiliency</h4><p><u><strong>Rodrik ‘9</u></strong> Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. “The Myth of Rising Protectionism”. 2009. http://relooney.fatcow.com/0_New_5973.pdf</p><p><u><strong>The reality is that <mark>the international trade regime has </mark>passed its greatest test since the Great Depression with flying colors. Trade economists who complain about minor instances of protectionism sound like a child whining about a damaged toy in the wake of an earthquake that killed thousands. Three things explain this <mark>remarkable resilience</mark> : ideas, politics , and institutions</u></strong> . <u><strong>Economists have been extraordinarily successful in conveying their message to policymakers </u></strong>– even if ordinary people still regard imports with considerable suspicion. <u><strong>Nothing reflects this better than how “protection” and “protectionists” have become terms of derision</u></strong>. After all, governments are generally expected to provide protection to its citizens. But <u><strong>if you say that you favor protection from imports , you are painted into a corner with</u></strong> Reed <u><strong>Smoot and</u></strong> Willis C. <u><strong>Hawley</u></strong>, authors of the infamous 1930 US tariff bill. But <u><strong>economists’ ideas would not have gone very far without <mark>significant changes in the underlying</mark> configuration of <mark>political interests in</mark> <mark>favor of open trade. For every worker </mark>and firm <mark>affected adversely by </mark>import <mark>competition</mark>, there is one or <mark>more </mark>worker and firm <mark>expecting to reap </mark>the <mark>benefits of </mark>access to<mark> markets abroad</mark>. The latter have become increasingly vocal and powerful, often represented by large multinational corporations</u></strong>. In his latest book, Paul Blustein recounts how a former Indian trade minister once asked his American counterpart to bring him a picture of an American farmer: “I have never actually seen one,” the minister quipped. “I have only seen US conglomerates masquerading as farmers.” But <u><strong>the relative docility of rank-and-file workers on trade issues must ultimately be attributed to</u></strong> something else altogether:<u><strong> the safety nets erected by the welfare state. Modern <mark>industrial societies </mark>now <mark>have a wide array of social protections</u></strong></mark> – unemployment compensation, adjustment assistance, and other labor-market tools, as well as health insurance and family support – <u><strong>that mitigate demand for cruder forms of protection</u></strong>. The welfare state is the flip side of the open economy.<u><strong> If the world has not fallen off the protectionist precipice during the crisis, as it did during the 1930’s, much of the credit must go the social programs </u></strong>that conservatives and market fundamentalists would like to see scrapped. The battle against trade protection has been won – so far. But, before we relax, let’s remember that we still have not addressed the central challenge the world economy will face as the crisis eases: the inevitable clash between China’s need to produce an ever-growing quantity of manufactured goods and America’s need to maintain a smaller current-account deficit. Unfortunately, there is little to suggest that policymakers are yet ready to confront this genuine threat. </p> </s>

We must refuse the university as an act of pure negation—only this way can we prevent the reappropriation of our act and means perm can never solve.

Instead of facilitating expression of creative instincts, society created an array of imaginary needs and desires By making individuals feel part of an illusory integration the potentially great variety of modes of social expression were funneled into a one-dimensional system in which the capacity to think and act freely in manners other than those sanctioned by the system eventually disappeared. By monopolizing the means of consumption as well alternative or oppositional forms of expression, advanced societies blocked development of an eroticized society All expression of rebellion, including literature and the arts, would be turned into chips in the game of competition The efforts to recapture the Great Refusal in the language of literature suffer the fate of being absorbed by what they refute Marcuse's answer: a Great Refusal beyond what the scandalous but ineffectual vanguards had achieved, a break he called a "rupture withdrawal from the system of organized social conduct the "establishment a society that had won the basic struggle for survival and eliminated excessive domination and repression should open itself to the development of a new being, an orphic-narcissist who would reject utilitarian goals or social standing in favor of love, pleasure, play, and contemplation. This rupture must not fall into the trap of oppositional collaboration; rather it must counter the system's capacity for appropriating everything in its path with "the politically impotent form of the 'absolute negation What we refuse is not without value or importance. Precisely because of that, the refusal is necessary. There is a reason which we no longer accept, there is an appearance of wisdom which horrifies us, there is a plea for agreement and conciliation which we will no longer heed. A break has occurred. We have been reduced to that frankness which no longer tolerates complicity

By making individuals feel part of an illusory integration the variety of modes of social expression were funneled into a one-dimensional system in which the capacity to think and act freely in manners other than those sanctioned by the system disappeared All expression of rebellion, would be turned into chips in the game of competition withdrawal from the system of organized social conduct the "establishment a society that had won the basic struggle for survival and eliminated excessive domination and repression should open itself to the development of a new being who would reject social standing in favor of love, pleasure, play, and contemplation What we refuse is not without value or importance. Precisely because of that, the refusal is necessary. There is a reason which we no longer accept, A break has occurred. We have been reduced to that frankness which no longer tolerates complicity

In One-Dimensional Man, a less optimistic Marcuse analyzed the manipulation by advanced industrial societies of communication media and concepts of modernity to stifle cultural revolution, voiding any possibility of the erotic liberation of the masses. Instead of facilitating expression of creative instincts, society created an array of imaginary needs and desires, the acquisition of which—through participation in the rites of consumption—constituted a sinister, complex, and highly developed form of sublimating human sexual energy. By making individuals feel part of an illusory integration of national life, the potentially great variety of modes of social expression were funneled into a one-dimensional system in which the capacity to think and act freely in manners other than those sanctioned by the system eventually disappeared. By monopolizing the means of consumption as well alternative or oppositional forms of expression, advanced societies blocked development of an eroticized society. Marcuse warned that control mechanisms even provided outlets for eroticism that channeled its energy into merely distracting and addictive consumption. All expression of rebellion, including literature and the arts, would be turned into chips in the game of competition and economic gain. The efforts to recapture the Great Refusal in the language of literature suffer the fate of being absorbed by what they refute. As modern classics, the avant-garde and the beatniks share the function of entertaining without endangering the good conscience of the men of good will. This absorption is justified by technical progress; the refusal is refuted by the alleviation of misery in the advanced industrial society. The liquidation of high culture is a by-product of the conquest of nature, and of the progressing conquest of scarcity. (Marcuse 1991, 70) Marcuse's answer: a Great Refusal beyond what the scandalous but ineffectual vanguards had achieved, a break he called a "rupture"—especially and significantly in the chapter "The New Sensibility" in An Essay on Liberation (1969a, 33–34, 36). This rupture signaled the withdrawal from the system of organized social conduct, or in 1960s parlance, the "establishment." Borrowing elements of his analysis from Eros and Civilization, Marcuse postulated that a society that had won the basic struggle for survival and eliminated excessive domination and repression should open itself to the development of a new being, an orphic-narcissist who would reject utilitarian goals or social standing in favor of love, pleasure, play, and contemplation. This eroticized being would be a product of an essentially new human reality, able to achieve the ultimate "break, the turn of quantity into quality" (1991, 231) and establish "the realm of the irrational [that] becomes the home of the really rational—of the ideas which may 'promote the art of life'" (247). This rupture must not fall into the trap of oppositional collaboration; rather it must counter the system's capacity for appropriating everything in its path with "the politically impotent form of the 'absolute negation'" (Marcuse 1991, 255). To support his claim while simultaneously offering an example of such an act of refusal in the guise of surrendering to appropriation, Marcuse cites Maurice Blanchot, a writer whose work would also become key reading for counterculture intellectuals in their passage to postmodernity, particularly for García Ponce. [End Page 7] What we refuse is not without value or importance. Precisely because of that, the refusal is necessary. There is a reason which we no longer accept, there is an appearance of wisdom which horrifies us, there is a plea for agreement and conciliation which we will no longer heed. A break has occurred. We have been reduced to that frankness which no longer tolerates complicity. (Blanchot, quoted in Marcuse 1991, 256)

<h4>We must refuse the university as an act of pure negation—only this way can we prevent the reappropriation of our act and means perm can never solve.</h4><p>Juan Bruce-<strong>Novoa 05</strong>, Lecturer in Mexican and Latino Literature and Culture the University of California-Irvine. “Eroticism, Counterculture, and Juan García Ponce.” CR: The New Centennial Review. 5.3. pp. 1-33</p><p>In One-Dimensional Man, a less optimistic Marcuse analyzed the manipulation by advanced industrial societies of communication media and concepts of modernity to stifle cultural revolution, voiding any possibility of the erotic liberation of the masses. <u><strong>Instead of facilitating expression of creative instincts, society created an array of imaginary needs and desires</u></strong>, the acquisition of which—through participation in the rites of consumption—constituted a sinister, complex, and highly developed form of sublimating human sexual energy. <u><strong><mark>By making individuals feel part of an illusory integration</u></strong></mark> of national life, <u><strong><mark>the</mark> potentially great <mark>variety of modes of social expression were funneled into a one-dimensional system in which the capacity to think and act freely in manners other than those sanctioned by the system </mark>eventually <mark>disappeared</mark>. By monopolizing the means of consumption as well alternative or oppositional forms of expression, advanced societies blocked development of an eroticized society</u></strong>. Marcuse warned that control mechanisms even provided outlets for eroticism that channeled its energy into merely distracting and addictive consumption.<u><strong> <mark>All expression of rebellion,</mark> including literature and the arts, <mark>would be turned into chips in the game of competition</u></strong></mark> and economic gain. <u><strong>The efforts to recapture the Great Refusal in the language of literature suffer the fate of being absorbed by what they refute</u></strong>. As modern classics, the avant-garde and the beatniks share the function of entertaining without endangering the good conscience of the men of good will. This absorption is justified by technical progress; the refusal is refuted by the alleviation of misery in the advanced industrial society. The liquidation of high culture is a by-product of the conquest of nature, and of the progressing conquest of scarcity. (Marcuse 1991, 70) <u><strong>Marcuse's answer: a Great Refusal beyond what the scandalous but ineffectual vanguards had achieved, a break he called a "rupture</u></strong>"—especially and significantly in the chapter "The New Sensibility" in An Essay on Liberation (1969a, 33–34, 36). This rupture signaled the <u><strong><mark>withdrawal from the system of organized social conduct</u></strong></mark>, or in 1960s parlance, <u><strong><mark>the "establishment</u></strong></mark>." Borrowing elements of his analysis from Eros and Civilization, Marcuse postulated that <u><strong><mark>a society that had won the basic struggle for survival and eliminated excessive domination and repression should open itself to the development of a new being</mark>, an orphic-narcissist <mark>who would reject</mark> utilitarian goals or <mark>social standing in favor of love, pleasure, play, and contemplation</mark>.</u></strong> This eroticized being would be a product of an essentially new human reality, able to achieve the ultimate "break, the turn of quantity into quality" (1991, 231) and establish "the realm of the irrational [that] becomes the home of the really rational—of the ideas which may 'promote the art of life'" (247). <u><strong>This rupture must not fall into the trap of oppositional collaboration; rather it must counter the system's capacity for appropriating everything in its path with "the politically impotent form of the 'absolute negation</u></strong>'" (Marcuse 1991, 255). To support his claim while simultaneously offering an example of such an act of refusal in the guise of surrendering to appropriation, Marcuse cites Maurice Blanchot, a writer whose work would also become key reading for counterculture intellectuals in their passage to postmodernity, particularly for García Ponce. [End Page 7] <u><strong><mark>What we refuse is not without value or importance. Precisely because of that, the refusal is necessary. There is a reason which we no longer accept, </mark>there is an appearance of wisdom which horrifies us, there is a plea for agreement and conciliation which we will no longer heed. <mark>A break has occurred. We have been reduced to that frankness which no longer tolerates complicity</u></strong></mark>. (Blanchot, quoted in Marcuse 1991, 256)</p>

Juan Bruce-Novoa 05, Lecturer in Mexican and Latino Literature and Culture the University of California-Irvine. “Eroticism, Counterculture, and Juan García Ponce.” CR: The New Centennial Review. 5.3. pp. 1-33

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Juan Bruce-Novoa 05, Lecturer in Mexican and Latino Literature and Culture the University of California-Irvine. “Eroticism, Counterculture, and Juan García Ponce.” CR: The New Centennial Review. 5.3. pp. 1-33 fulltext: In One-Dimensional Man, a less optimistic Marcuse analyzed the manipulation by advanced industrial societies of communication media and concepts of modernity to stifle cultural revolution, voiding any possibility of the erotic liberation of the masses. Instead of facilitating expression of creative instincts, society created an array of imaginary needs and desires, the acquisition of which—through participation in the rites of consumption—constituted a sinister, complex, and highly developed form of sublimating human sexual energy. By making individuals feel part of an illusory integration of national life, the potentially great variety of modes of social expression were funneled into a one-dimensional system in which the capacity to think and act freely in manners other than those sanctioned by the system eventually disappeared. By monopolizing the means of consumption as well alternative or oppositional forms of expression, advanced societies blocked development of an eroticized society. Marcuse warned that control mechanisms even provided outlets for eroticism that channeled its energy into merely distracting and addictive consumption. All expression of rebellion, including literature and the arts, would be turned into chips in the game of competition and economic gain. The efforts to recapture the Great Refusal in the language of literature suffer the fate of being absorbed by what they refute. As modern classics, the avant-garde and the beatniks share the function of entertaining without endangering the good conscience of the men of good will. This absorption is justified by technical progress; the refusal is refuted by the alleviation of misery in the advanced industrial society. The liquidation of high culture is a by-product of the conquest of nature, and of the progressing conquest of scarcity. (Marcuse 1991, 70) Marcuse's answer: a Great Refusal beyond what the scandalous but ineffectual vanguards had achieved, a break he called a "rupture"—especially and significantly in the chapter "The New Sensibility" in An Essay on Liberation (1969a, 33–34, 36). This rupture signaled the withdrawal from the system of organized social conduct, or in 1960s parlance, the "establishment." Borrowing elements of his analysis from Eros and Civilization, Marcuse postulated that a society that had won the basic struggle for survival and eliminated excessive domination and repression should open itself to the development of a new being, an orphic-narcissist who would reject utilitarian goals or social standing in favor of love, pleasure, play, and contemplation. This eroticized being would be a product of an essentially new human reality, able to achieve the ultimate "break, the turn of quantity into quality" (1991, 231) and establish "the realm of the irrational [that] becomes the home of the really rational—of the ideas which may 'promote the art of life'" (247). This rupture must not fall into the trap of oppositional collaboration; rather it must counter the system's capacity for appropriating everything in its path with "the politically impotent form of the 'absolute negation'" (Marcuse 1991, 255). To support his claim while simultaneously offering an example of such an act of refusal in the guise of surrendering to appropriation, Marcuse cites Maurice Blanchot, a writer whose work would also become key reading for counterculture intellectuals in their passage to postmodernity, particularly for García Ponce. [End Page 7] What we refuse is not without value or importance. Precisely because of that, the refusal is necessary. There is a reason which we no longer accept, there is an appearance of wisdom which horrifies us, there is a plea for agreement and conciliation which we will no longer heed. A break has occurred. We have been reduced to that frankness which no longer tolerates complicity. (Blanchot, quoted in Marcuse 1991, 256) [/INST] <h4>We must refuse the university as an act of pure negation—only this way can we prevent the reappropriation of our act and means perm can never solve.</h4><p>Juan Bruce-<strong>Novoa 05</strong>, Lecturer in Mexican and Latino Literature and Culture the University of California-Irvine. “Eroticism, Counterculture, and Juan García Ponce.” CR: The New Centennial Review. 5.3. pp. 1-33</p><p>In One-Dimensional Man, a less optimistic Marcuse analyzed the manipulation by advanced industrial societies of communication media and concepts of modernity to stifle cultural revolution, voiding any possibility of the erotic liberation of the masses. <u><strong>Instead of facilitating expression of creative instincts, society created an array of imaginary needs and desires</u></strong>, the acquisition of which—through participation in the rites of consumption—constituted a sinister, complex, and highly developed form of sublimating human sexual energy. <u><strong><mark>By making individuals feel part of an illusory integration</u></strong></mark> of national life, <u><strong><mark>the</mark> potentially great <mark>variety of modes of social expression were funneled into a one-dimensional system in which the capacity to think and act freely in manners other than those sanctioned by the system </mark>eventually <mark>disappeared</mark>. By monopolizing the means of consumption as well alternative or oppositional forms of expression, advanced societies blocked development of an eroticized society</u></strong>. Marcuse warned that control mechanisms even provided outlets for eroticism that channeled its energy into merely distracting and addictive consumption.<u><strong> <mark>All expression of rebellion,</mark> including literature and the arts, <mark>would be turned into chips in the game of competition</u></strong></mark> and economic gain. <u><strong>The efforts to recapture the Great Refusal in the language of literature suffer the fate of being absorbed by what they refute</u></strong>. As modern classics, the avant-garde and the beatniks share the function of entertaining without endangering the good conscience of the men of good will. This absorption is justified by technical progress; the refusal is refuted by the alleviation of misery in the advanced industrial society. The liquidation of high culture is a by-product of the conquest of nature, and of the progressing conquest of scarcity. (Marcuse 1991, 70) <u><strong>Marcuse's answer: a Great Refusal beyond what the scandalous but ineffectual vanguards had achieved, a break he called a "rupture</u></strong>"—especially and significantly in the chapter "The New Sensibility" in An Essay on Liberation (1969a, 33–34, 36). This rupture signaled the <u><strong><mark>withdrawal from the system of organized social conduct</u></strong></mark>, or in 1960s parlance, <u><strong><mark>the "establishment</u></strong></mark>." Borrowing elements of his analysis from Eros and Civilization, Marcuse postulated that <u><strong><mark>a society that had won the basic struggle for survival and eliminated excessive domination and repression should open itself to the development of a new being</mark>, an orphic-narcissist <mark>who would reject</mark> utilitarian goals or <mark>social standing in favor of love, pleasure, play, and contemplation</mark>.</u></strong> This eroticized being would be a product of an essentially new human reality, able to achieve the ultimate "break, the turn of quantity into quality" (1991, 231) and establish "the realm of the irrational [that] becomes the home of the really rational—of the ideas which may 'promote the art of life'" (247). <u><strong>This rupture must not fall into the trap of oppositional collaboration; rather it must counter the system's capacity for appropriating everything in its path with "the politically impotent form of the 'absolute negation</u></strong>'" (Marcuse 1991, 255). To support his claim while simultaneously offering an example of such an act of refusal in the guise of surrendering to appropriation, Marcuse cites Maurice Blanchot, a writer whose work would also become key reading for counterculture intellectuals in their passage to postmodernity, particularly for García Ponce. [End Page 7] <u><strong><mark>What we refuse is not without value or importance. Precisely because of that, the refusal is necessary. There is a reason which we no longer accept, </mark>there is an appearance of wisdom which horrifies us, there is a plea for agreement and conciliation which we will no longer heed. <mark>A break has occurred. We have been reduced to that frankness which no longer tolerates complicity</u></strong></mark>. (Blanchot, quoted in Marcuse 1991, 256)</p> </s>

Independently, HIV spread causes Russian collapse—demographic hollowing out threatens the Russian military, results in overreliance on nukes

several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will soon threaten their stability and in turn cause global instability. AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than in any other country in the world It is aggravating Russia’s projected population decrease, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and if the AIDS trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant through 2025 This will in turn lead to regional volatility and further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties “AIDS could further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and potentially lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force to maintain its great power status In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the rest of the world the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers.

several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will threaten their stability and global instability AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than any other country It is aggravating Russia’s population decrease if the trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant This will lead to regional volatility and further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the world

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will soon threaten their stability and in turn cause global instability. A little known fact is that ¶ AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than in any other country in the world, including many of the ¶ African nations. It is aggravating Russia’s projected population decrease, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and if the AIDS trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant through 2025” (Peterson 66). This will in turn lead to regional volatility and further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, “AIDS could further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and potentially lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force to maintain its great power status” (Peterson 66). In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the rest of the world. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers.

<h4>Independently, HIV spread causes Russian collapse—demographic hollowing out threatens the Russian military, results in overreliance on nukes </h4><p>Jane <strong>Evans 10,</strong> Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring<strong> 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf</p><p></strong>Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., <u><mark>several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will</mark> soon <mark>threaten their stability and</mark> in turn cause <mark>global instability</mark>.</u> A little known fact is that ¶ <u><mark>AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than</mark> in <mark>any other country</mark> in the world</u>, including many of the ¶ African nations. <u><mark>It is <strong>aggravating Russia’s</mark> projected <mark>population decrease</strong></mark>, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and <mark>if the</mark> AIDS <mark>trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant</mark> through 2025</u>” (Peterson 66). <u><mark>This will</mark> in turn <mark>lead to regional volatility and</mark> further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties</u>. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, <u>“<strong>AIDS could <mark>further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and</mark> potentially <mark>lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force</strong></mark> to maintain its great power status</u>” (Peterson 66). <u>In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the <mark>collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the</mark> rest of the <mark>world</u></mark>. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, <u>the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers. </p></u>

Jane Evans 10, Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jane Evans 10, Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf fulltext: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will soon threaten their stability and in turn cause global instability. A little known fact is that ¶ AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than in any other country in the world, including many of the ¶ African nations. It is aggravating Russia’s projected population decrease, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and if the AIDS trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant through 2025” (Peterson 66). This will in turn lead to regional volatility and further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, “AIDS could further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and potentially lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force to maintain its great power status” (Peterson 66). In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the rest of the world. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers. [/INST] <h4>Independently, HIV spread causes Russian collapse—demographic hollowing out threatens the Russian military, results in overreliance on nukes </h4><p>Jane <strong>Evans 10,</strong> Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring<strong> 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf</p><p></strong>Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., <u><mark>several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will</mark> soon <mark>threaten their stability and</mark> in turn cause <mark>global instability</mark>.</u> A little known fact is that ¶ <u><mark>AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than</mark> in <mark>any other country</mark> in the world</u>, including many of the ¶ African nations. <u><mark>It is <strong>aggravating Russia’s</mark> projected <mark>population decrease</strong></mark>, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and <mark>if the</mark> AIDS <mark>trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant</mark> through 2025</u>” (Peterson 66). <u><mark>This will</mark> in turn <mark>lead to regional volatility and</mark> further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties</u>. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, <u>“<strong>AIDS could <mark>further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and</mark> potentially <mark>lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force</strong></mark> to maintain its great power status</u>” (Peterson 66). <u>In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the <mark>collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the</mark> rest of the <mark>world</u></mark>. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, <u>the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers. </p></u> </s>

Academic studies prove---relevant ballot issues massively increase turn out in the midterm.

Stressing the importance of issue content this study finds social issue ballot measures have a significant impact on increasing the likelihood of turning out for all midterm elections by looking at all propositions on the ballot, instead of just initiatives the results demonstrate that an increase in the total number of propositions is only rarely associated with an increase in turnout for midterm elections social issues are able to increase turnout because they are well known and of significant importance to some citizens, the average measure on the ballot, possesses little ability to raise turnout.

social issue ballot measures have a significant impact n increasing the likelihood of turning out for all midterm social issues are able to increase turnout because they are well known and of significant importance to some citizens, the average measure on the ballot possesses little ability to raise turnout.

Stressing the importance of issue content, this study finds that social issue ballot measures have a significant impact on increasing the likelihood of turning out for all midterm and some presidential elections. In contrast, by looking at all propositions on the ballot, instead of just initiatives (as other studies have done), the results demonstrate that an increase in the total number of propositions is only rarely associated with an increase in turnout for midterm elections, and not at all for presidential elections. These empirical analyses confirm the theoretical expectations: while social issues are able to increase turnout because they are well known and of significant importance to some citizens, the average measure on the ballot, which does not meet either or both of these requirements, possesses little ability to raise turnout.

<h4>Academic studies prove---relevant ballot issues massively increase turn out in the midterm. </h4><p>Daniel R. <strong>Biggers</strong>, Professor of Government in Maryland, “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout,” © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC <u><strong>‘10</p><p>Stressing the importance of issue content</u></strong>, <u><strong>this study finds</u></strong> that <u><strong><mark>social issue ballot measures</u></strong> <u><strong>have a significant impact</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>o<mark>n increasing the likelihood of turning out for all midterm</u></strong></mark> and some presidential <u><strong>elections</u></strong>. In contrast, <u><strong>by looking at all propositions on the ballot, instead of just initiatives</u></strong> (as other studies have done), <u><strong>the results demonstrate that an increase in the total number of propositions is only rarely associated with an increase in turnout for midterm elections</u></strong>, and not at all for presidential elections. These empirical analyses confirm the theoretical expectations: while <u><strong><mark>social issues are able to increase turnout because they are well known and of significant importance to some citizens, the average measure on the ballot</mark>,</u></strong> which does not meet either or both of these requirements, <u><strong><mark>possesses little ability to raise turnout.</p></u></strong></mark>

Daniel R. Biggers, Professor of Government in Maryland, “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout,” © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC ‘10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Daniel R. Biggers, Professor of Government in Maryland, “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout,” © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC ‘10 fulltext: Stressing the importance of issue content, this study finds that social issue ballot measures have a significant impact on increasing the likelihood of turning out for all midterm and some presidential elections. In contrast, by looking at all propositions on the ballot, instead of just initiatives (as other studies have done), the results demonstrate that an increase in the total number of propositions is only rarely associated with an increase in turnout for midterm elections, and not at all for presidential elections. These empirical analyses confirm the theoretical expectations: while social issues are able to increase turnout because they are well known and of significant importance to some citizens, the average measure on the ballot, which does not meet either or both of these requirements, possesses little ability to raise turnout. [/INST] <h4>Academic studies prove---relevant ballot issues massively increase turn out in the midterm. </h4><p>Daniel R. <strong>Biggers</strong>, Professor of Government in Maryland, “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout,” © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC <u><strong>‘10</p><p>Stressing the importance of issue content</u></strong>, <u><strong>this study finds</u></strong> that <u><strong><mark>social issue ballot measures</u></strong> <u><strong>have a significant impact</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>o<mark>n increasing the likelihood of turning out for all midterm</u></strong></mark> and some presidential <u><strong>elections</u></strong>. In contrast, <u><strong>by looking at all propositions on the ballot, instead of just initiatives</u></strong> (as other studies have done), <u><strong>the results demonstrate that an increase in the total number of propositions is only rarely associated with an increase in turnout for midterm elections</u></strong>, and not at all for presidential elections. These empirical analyses confirm the theoretical expectations: while <u><strong><mark>social issues are able to increase turnout because they are well known and of significant importance to some citizens, the average measure on the ballot</mark>,</u></strong> which does not meet either or both of these requirements, <u><strong><mark>possesses little ability to raise turnout.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Specifically, US prohibition undermines global implementation of AIDS harm-reduction policies

with the emergence of the HIV epidemic¶ health experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to the¶ problem of drug dependency. social and behavioral research provided an unprecedented level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction services it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous In 2003, at the mid-term review of¶ the UNGASS on drugs, the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition, nothing has been more important than the policy positions promoted and defended internationally by the US government all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy and US policies related to drugs have largely determined drug control practices globally. Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, US commitment to the war on drugs has been one of the central factors underlying resistance to the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ public health approaches to disease prevention There can be no doubt that the policies pursued by Bush are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade

with the emergence of HIV epidemic experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to drug dependency research provided an unprecedented level of evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction In 2003, at the UNGASS the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition nothing has been more important than the positions promoted by the US US policies have determined practices globally US commitment to the war on drugs has been the central factor underlying resistance to health approaches to disease

During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly with the emergence of the HIV epidemic¶ and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ health experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to the¶ problem of drug dependency. A significant increase in¶ social and behavioral research carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ provided an unprecedented level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction services, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches grounded in public¶ health principles would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7 In 2003, at the mid-term review of¶ the UNGASS on drugs, the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition, with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably nothing has been more important than the policy positions promoted and defended internationally by the US government. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy since its inception more than a century ago, and US policies related to drugs have largely determined drug control practices globally. Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, US commitment to the war on drugs has been one of the central factors underlying resistance to the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ contemporary public health approaches to health promotion and disease prevention.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. There can be no doubt, for example,¶ that the policies pursued by the Bush administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century.

<h4>Specifically, US prohibition undermines global implementation of AIDS harm-reduction policies</h4><p>Joanne <strong>Csete 10<u></strong>, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf</p><p></u>During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly <u><strong><mark>with the emergence of</mark> the <mark>HIV epidemic</mark>¶ </u></strong>and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ <u><strong>health <mark>experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to</mark> the¶ problem of <mark>drug dependency</mark>. </u></strong>A significant increase in¶ <u><strong>social and behavioral <mark>research</u></strong></mark> carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ <u><strong><mark>provided an unprecedented level of</mark> scientific <mark>evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction</mark> services</u></strong>, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, <u><strong>it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches</u></strong> grounded in public¶ health principles <u><strong>would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services</u></strong> <u><strong>and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous</u></strong> than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7<u><strong> <mark>In 2003, at the</mark> mid-term review of¶ the <mark>UNGASS</mark> on drugs, <mark>the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition</mark>,</u></strong> with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably <u><strong><mark>nothing has been more important than the</mark> policy <mark>positions promoted</mark> and defended internationally <mark>by the US</mark> government</u></strong>. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, <u><strong>all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy </u></strong>since its inception more than a century ago, <u><strong>and <mark>US policies</mark> related to drugs <mark>have</mark> largely <mark>determined</mark> drug control <mark>practices globally</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, <mark>US commitment to the war on drugs has been</mark> one of <mark>the central factor</mark>s <mark>underlying resistance to</mark> the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ </u></strong>contemporary <u><strong>public <mark>health approaches to</mark> </u></strong>health promotion and <u><strong><mark>disease</mark> prevention</u></strong>.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. <u><strong>There can be no doubt</u></strong>, for example,¶ <u><strong>that the policies pursued by</u></strong> the <u><strong>Bush</u></strong> administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, <u><strong>are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade</u></strong>. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century.</p>

Joanne Csete 10, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Joanne Csete 10, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf fulltext: During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly with the emergence of the HIV epidemic¶ and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ health experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to the¶ problem of drug dependency. A significant increase in¶ social and behavioral research carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ provided an unprecedented level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction services, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches grounded in public¶ health principles would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7 In 2003, at the mid-term review of¶ the UNGASS on drugs, the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition, with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably nothing has been more important than the policy positions promoted and defended internationally by the US government. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy since its inception more than a century ago, and US policies related to drugs have largely determined drug control practices globally. Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, US commitment to the war on drugs has been one of the central factors underlying resistance to the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ contemporary public health approaches to health promotion and disease prevention.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. There can be no doubt, for example,¶ that the policies pursued by the Bush administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century. [/INST] <h4>Specifically, US prohibition undermines global implementation of AIDS harm-reduction policies</h4><p>Joanne <strong>Csete 10<u></strong>, professor of Clinic Population and Family Health at Columbia University’s Mailman Public Health School, with Richard Parker and Nancy Worthington, Rethinking the War on Drugs: The Impact of US Drug Control Policy on Global Public Health, March, http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/rethinking-the-war-on-drugs.pdf</p><p></u>During the closing years of the 20th century,¶ particularly <u><strong><mark>with the emergence of</mark> the <mark>HIV epidemic</mark>¶ </u></strong>and a growing awareness of the role of injection drug¶ use and needle sharing in driving this epidemic in¶ many countries outside sub-Saharan Africa public¶ <u><strong>health <mark>experts highlighted the need for risk-reduction to take precedence over criminal approaches to</mark> the¶ problem of <mark>drug dependency</mark>. </u></strong>A significant increase in¶ <u><strong>social and behavioral <mark>research</u></strong></mark> carried out in response¶ to HIV and AIDS in the late 1980s and the early 1990s¶ <u><strong><mark>provided an unprecedented level of</mark> scientific <mark>evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction</mark> services</u></strong>, such¶ as medication-assisted drug dependence treatment,¶ needle exchange, and safer injection facilities, in¶ improving the health of drug users without increasing¶ levels of drug use,* As evidence for the effectiveness of¶ such measures in preventing injection-driven HIV¶ infection grew during the late 1990s and into the¶ present decade, <u><strong>it seemed reasonable to assume that¶ the harm reduction approaches</u></strong> grounded in public¶ health principles <u><strong>would be adopted, and that the¶ unprecedented scale-up of HIV services would, in turn,¶ force a rethinking of the global war on drugs that¶ impeded access to HIV services</u></strong> <u><strong>and pressed hundreds¶ of thousands into institutions where no such services¶ were available. ¶ Yet any review of global policy debates over the course¶ of the past decade would have to conclude that the¶ results have been far more ambiguous</u></strong> than might have¶ been expected. At best, the international community¶ seems to have oscillated between reaffirmation of the¶ drug war mentality and relatively timid steps in the¶ direction of public health approaches. If we open the¶ timeframe of our analysis to include the 1998 20a¶ United Nations General Assembly Special Session¶ (UNGASS) on illicit drugs, we find the UN General¶ Assembly committing member states to achieving "a¶ drug-free world."5 The 1998 UNGASS Declaration¶ outlined what it described as a comprehensive global¶ strategy for simultaneously reducing both the supply of¶ and demand for illicit drugs and developed a mandate¶ for the UN International Drug Control Programme¶ (UNDCP) to "develop strategies with a view to¶ eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit¶ cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."6 Disappointing those¶ who had hoped for meaningful drug policy reform, it¶ basically reasserted the same goals that had driven the¶ global war on drugs for decades. HIV was¶ unmentioned.¶ Just a few years later, however, at the 2001 UNGASS on¶ HIV and AIDS, an assembly of the same nations seemed¶ to signal a possible shift of emphasis, including harm¶ reduction efforts and access to sterile injecting¶ equipment as part of the stated goals in its Declaration¶ of Commitment.7<u><strong> <mark>In 2003, at the</mark> mid-term review of¶ the <mark>UNGASS</mark> on drugs, <mark>the focus seemed to have reverted back to prohibition</mark>,</u></strong> with UNODC arguing that¶ important progress had been made on reaching the¶ goals and targets that had been established in 1998 and¶ citing long lists of drug control measures undertaken ¶ by member states in the five years that had passed.8 In¶ June of 2005, the Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which governs the Joint United Nations¶ Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS), pushed back in the¶ opposite direction, approving a UNAIDS policy position¶ paper, "Intensifying HIV Prevention," that officially¶ affirmed support for needle exchange programs as a¶ key part of the global fight against the epidemic; both¶ the paper and the PCB report approving it, however,¶ explicitly noted that the USA (the largest donor to UNAIDS) could not support needle exchange because it¶ contradicts its domestic drug policies.9 And in 2008, at¶ the ten-year review point for the 1998 UNGASS, which¶ was initiated at the 2008 meeting of the Commission on¶ Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, the debate seemed to¶ veer back yet again, with the UNODC claiming major¶ successes in the control of coca and opium production¶ and reaffirming the need to place greater emphasis on¶ demand reduction in resource- rich consumer¶ countries.10¶ While a range of complex factors have surely affected¶ the development of these contradictory policy debates,¶ probably <u><strong><mark>nothing has been more important than the</mark> policy <mark>positions promoted</mark> and defended internationally <mark>by the US</mark> government</u></strong>. Indeed, no¶ matter which side of the debate one comes down on,¶ for or against the war on drugs, <u><strong>all observers agree that ¶ the US has been at the center of most of the major decisions and activities driving international drug policy </u></strong>since its inception more than a century ago, <u><strong>and <mark>US policies</mark> related to drugs <mark>have</mark> largely <mark>determined</mark> drug control <mark>practices globally</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Even in the wake of the¶ global HIV and AIDS epidemic, <mark>US commitment to the war on drugs has been</mark> one of <mark>the central factor</mark>s <mark>underlying resistance to</mark> the adoption of more¶ scientifically-informed policies grounded in¶ </u></strong>contemporary <u><strong>public <mark>health approaches to</mark> </u></strong>health promotion and <u><strong><mark>disease</mark> prevention</u></strong>.¶ The history of US policy in relation to these issues has¶ also been marked by changes over time, as well as by¶ conflicts and differences of opinion that have shifted¶ policy emphasis both within and between different¶ administrations. <u><strong>There can be no doubt</u></strong>, for example,¶ <u><strong>that the policies pursued by</u></strong> the <u><strong>Bush</u></strong> administration,¶ from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush administration's¶ commitment to promoting those policies globally, <u><strong>are¶ among the most important factors that have shaped the¶ development of international drug policy debates over¶ the course of the past decade</u></strong>. Recognizing the¶ importance that US policies have had in shaping¶ responses to drug use globally, and the likelihood that¶ this will continue to be the case in the future, this paper¶ seeks to review the development of US policy on drugs over the course of the past decade, with a primary¶ focus on its relevance for the politics of global public¶ health more broadly. We are particularly interested in¶ looking at the consequences of US policy during the¶ eight years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to¶ 2009, as well as the initial steps taken by the Obama¶ administration, since its inauguration at the start of¶ 2009, in order to assess the potential policy impact of¶ both administrations in relation to the broader context¶ of global public health in the early 21st century.</p> </s>

Legalization of PAS is an affirmation of the act by official state sanction within regulation

the only real difference between assisted dying and assisted suicide is that the former has been officially sanctioned by doctors and by legality Someone in Oregon with, according to two doctors, five months left to live who ingests poison is is an assisted death Someone who is dying but has seven months to live who ingests the same poison is, according to the same sources, an assisted suicide. change in terminology is not simply political correctness but an indication of a new role that proponents envisage for doctors the rejection of the term ‘suicide’ implies that the moral taint of suicide are determined by officials, lawmakers and doctors is to be removed courts where individuals are tried to determine the degree of their responsibility for a crime are less appropriate than professional regulatory tribunals, where the question becomes whether or not a set of regulations has been followed properly Rather than self-determining actors who choose our own fates there is little clarity and great scope for regulations at every step of the process The real issue at the heart of the debate – one which is obscured by the term assisted dying – is suicide, not dying. The question at the heart of this debate is whether we wish to pre-approve suicide in certain circumstances

the only difference between assisted dying and suicide is that the former has been officially sanctioned by legality ‘suicide’ implies that the moral taint determined by law is to be removed courts, are less appropriate than regulatory tribunals, where the question becomes whether or not regulations has been followed Rather than self-determining actors there is little clarity and great scope for regulations at every step of the process The real issue which is obscured by the term assisted dying – is suicide The question is whether we wish to pre-approve suicide

Senior Lecturer in American History at the University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal Humanist Case Against Legalization) Kevin https://kevinyuill.wordpress.com/tag/assisted-suicide/ Second, and much more importantly, the only real difference between assisted dying and assisted suicide is that the former has been officially sanctioned by doctors and by legality. Someone in Oregon with, according to two doctors, five months left to live who ingests poison is, according to Compassion and Choices, Dignity in Dying, other proponents of a change in the law and, since 2006, the Oregon Department of Human Services, is an assisted death. Someone who is dying but has seven months to live who ingests the same poison is, according to the same sources, an assisted suicide. The change in terminology, then, is not simply political correctness but an indication of a new role that proponents envisage for doctors. Importantly, the rejection of the term ‘suicide’ implies that the moral taint of suicide in particular circumstances that are determined by officials, lawmakers and doctors is to be removed. The action of taking one’s life is no different in the two scenarios. But the former is given official imprimatur and is therefore an assisted death (good) instead of a suicide (bad). Such a change has important implications. The obvious one is that, as priests and other religious officials have departed the deathbed scene, their place has been filled by doctors. For it would be difficult to deny that, in the scenarios outlined in the introduction, doctors play a spiritual role only. As we shall explore in future chapters, suicide may be accomplished without the aid of official medicine so they play only an officiating role whereby they dispense deadly drugs that the patient might have bought herself, like a priest placing wafers on the tongues of his flock. The fact that the doctor gives the poison ritualizes the action within a set of bureaucratic guidelines. The implication for the patient, similarly, is validation of their suffering. In the past, religious figures comforted the dying by rationalizing suffering as part of God’s plan. Now, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, physicians will provide an end to depression and mental suffering (as we shall see, physical suffering plays very little role in requests for assisted suicide) by offering death as a medical treatment. The change in terminology reflects an important shift away from moral responsibility for the act. Whereas the right to die, self-determination and assisted suicide all imply that the individual involved takes full responsibility for the act, assignation of moral responsibility for ‘assisted dying’ is more diffuse. Importantly, such an apparently facile change lumps together very different things in moral terms – killing another person and suicide. Suppose I make a pact with my friend that, should I ever support a soccer team other than Arsenal, he should kill me and, twenty years later, I arrive to meet him with a Tottenham Hotspur shirt and he kills me. Alternately, suppose I agreed, upon meeting him with the offending shirt, that I should be killed for my lack of loyalty and for now supporting such a ridiculous football team. Suppose I then asked him for his gun and shot myself. These two very different acts might be construed as assisted dying (to satisfy Dignity in Dying criteria, let us also say that, at the time, I had less than six months to live), though, in a court of law, the former would be murder and the latter suicide. Though the effect would be the same for me (and, being dead, the question of my responsibility moot) and though my friend might bear some responsibility even if I pulled the trigger, the two acts are profoundly different for him. Yet the concept of assisted dying essentially equates these two different acts. In fact, as we shall discuss in Chapter 6, negating moral responsibility means that courts, where individuals are tried to determine the degree of their responsibility for a crime, are less appropriate than professional regulatory tribunals, where the question becomes whether or not a set of regulations has been followed properly. Rather than self-determining actors who choose our own fates, we become points on an increasingly complex flow chart, requiring a huge apparatus of bureaucratic experts. If we accept Dignity in Dying’s suggestion that assisted dying involves only those who are considered to be dying, an essentially philosophical question is determined by a professional regulatory body. There is little agreement on this issue even between advocates. Oregon’s and Washington’s legislation (and that contained in proposed UK legislation) define the dying as those with a terminal illness and six months to live whereas the UK Commission on Assisted Dying recommended that the subject be terminally ill and have 12 months or less to live. If the phrase ‘suffering unbearably’ is employed as it was in the proposed UK legislation, how will that be determined? Again, there is little clarity and great scope for regulations at every step of the process.[18] The assisted suicide legislation and proposed legislation has created a new identity in the ‘dying’. But the division between ‘the dying’ – whether they have six or 12 months to live – and the rest of us is false. Who is not dying one day at a time? We are all ‘terminal’, and the worth of our lives should not be crudely measured by the time we have left. Nor is dying a medical act; long before any medical intervention occurred, people were dying without any intervention at all. As Daniel Callahan has noted, there is now a tendency to view death as something that is done to us rather than something that occurs, ‘as if death were now our fault, the result of human choices, not the independent workings of nature’. As the old joke has it, life itself is a sexually transmitted disease that is always fatal. The difference between someone with less than six months to live and someone with many years is quantitative rather than qualitative. The ‘dying’ as a category are, in actuality, those who have little time left or, more controversially, as we shall explore in the next chapter, the elderly.[19] Such a term also obscures the historically different motivations behind the campaign. Autonomy, in the classical sense, implies the freedom to terminate one’s own life with no intrusion by the state or anyone else. Compassion might (mistakenly) motivate people to support a campaign for the dying to be put out of their misery. As expressed in the example above, if we support legalization of assisted dying, either we support selective suicides or selective killings. As we shall see in the next chapter, the movement for assisted dying builds upon distrust of medical personnel; none of the campaigns in the English-speaking world call for more power for doctors. As Professor Ray Tallis, prominent patron of the English proponent of a change in the law Dignity in Dying, notes, ‘It is one of the fundamental principles of medicine that you should be allowed to determine what is in your own best interest when you are of sound mind. Nobody else’s views should be able to over-ride this right.’[20] Yet the voices of doctors, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, will, as we will see in Chapter 6, will be the loudest in these decisions. Criticisms of this re-branding of suicide are not all from the anti-assisted suicide side. Such seasoned advocates of assisted suicide/dying as Derek Humphry have also questioned it. Reacting to news that the Oregon Department of Human Services chose in 2006 to replace references to ‘assisted suicide’ with ‘assisted dying’, Humphrey noted: ‘To wrap up our support for physician-assisted suicide in fancy language invites our critics to say that we are trying to change the law covertly and that we are ashamed of being frank about what we really want, neither of which is true.’ The Commission on Dying also refused to jettison the term ‘assisted suicide’, referring to ‘assisted dying’ as both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.[21] The real issue at the heart of the debate – one which is obscured by the term assisted dying – is suicide, not dying. The question at the heart of this debate is whether we wish to pre-approve suicide in certain circumstances.

<h4>Legalization of PAS is an affirmation of the act by official state sanction within regulation </h4><p><strong>Yuill 13</strong> </p><p>Senior Lecturer in American History at the University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal Humanist Case Against Legalization) Kevin https://kevinyuill.wordpress.com/tag/assisted-suicide/</p><p>Second, and much more importantly, <u><strong><mark>the only</mark> real <mark>difference between assisted dying and</mark> assisted <mark>suicide is that the former has been officially sanctioned </mark>by doctors and <mark>by legality</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Someone in Oregon with, according to two doctors, five months left to live who ingests poison is</u></strong>, according to Compassion and Choices, Dignity in Dying, other proponents of a change in the law and, since 2006, the Oregon Department of Human Services, <u><strong>is an assisted death</u></strong>. <u><strong>Someone who is dying but has seven months to live who ingests the same poison is, according to the same sources, an assisted suicide. </u></strong>The <u><strong>change in terminology</u></strong>, then, <u><strong>is not simply political correctness but an indication of a new role that proponents envisage for doctors</u></strong>. Importantly, <u><strong>the rejection of the term <mark>‘suicide’ implies that the moral</u></strong> <u><strong>taint </mark>of suicide</u></strong> in particular circumstances that <u><strong>are <mark>determined by</mark> officials, <mark>law</mark>makers and doctors <mark>is to be removed</u></strong></mark>. The action of taking one’s life is no different in the two scenarios. But the former is given official imprimatur and is therefore an assisted death (good) instead of a suicide (bad). Such a change has important implications. The obvious one is that, as priests and other religious officials have departed the deathbed scene, their place has been filled by doctors. For it would be difficult to deny that, in the scenarios outlined in the introduction, doctors play a spiritual role only. As we shall explore in future chapters, suicide may be accomplished without the aid of official medicine so they play only an officiating role whereby they dispense deadly drugs that the patient might have bought herself, like a priest placing wafers on the tongues of his flock. The fact that the doctor gives the poison ritualizes the action within a set of bureaucratic guidelines. The implication for the patient, similarly, is validation of their suffering. In the past, religious figures comforted the dying by rationalizing suffering as part of God’s plan. Now, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, physicians will provide an end to depression and mental suffering (as we shall see, physical suffering plays very little role in requests for assisted suicide) by offering death as a medical treatment. The change in terminology reflects an important shift away from moral responsibility for the act. Whereas the right to die, self-determination and assisted suicide all imply that the individual involved takes full responsibility for the act, assignation of moral responsibility for ‘assisted dying’ is more diffuse. Importantly, such an apparently facile change lumps together very different things in moral terms – killing another person and suicide. Suppose I make a pact with my friend that, should I ever support a soccer team other than Arsenal, he should kill me and, twenty years later, I arrive to meet him with a Tottenham Hotspur shirt and he kills me. Alternately, suppose I agreed, upon meeting him with the offending shirt, that I should be killed for my lack of loyalty and for now supporting such a ridiculous football team. Suppose I then asked him for his gun and shot myself. These two very different acts might be construed as assisted dying (to satisfy Dignity in Dying criteria, let us also say that, at the time, I had less than six months to live), though, in a court of law, the former would be murder and the latter suicide. Though the effect would be the same for me (and, being dead, the question of my responsibility moot) and though my friend might bear some responsibility even if I pulled the trigger, the two acts are profoundly different for him. Yet the concept of assisted dying essentially equates these two different acts. In fact, as we shall discuss in Chapter 6, negating moral responsibility means that <u><strong><mark>courts</u></strong>, <u><strong></mark>where individuals are tried to determine the degree of their responsibility for a crime</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>are</u></strong> <u><strong>less appropriate than </mark>professional <mark>regulatory tribunals,</u></strong> <u><strong>where the question becomes whether or not </mark>a set of <mark>regulations has been followed </mark>properly</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Rather than</mark> <mark>self-determining actors</mark> who choose our own fates</u></strong>, we become points on an increasingly complex flow chart, requiring a huge apparatus of bureaucratic experts. If we accept Dignity in Dying’s suggestion that assisted dying involves only those who are considered to be dying, an essentially philosophical question is determined by a professional regulatory body. There is little agreement on this issue even between advocates. Oregon’s and Washington’s legislation (and that contained in proposed UK legislation) define the dying as those with a terminal illness and six months to live whereas the UK Commission on Assisted Dying recommended that the subject be terminally ill and have 12 months or less to live. If the phrase ‘suffering unbearably’ is employed as it was in the proposed UK legislation, how will that be determined? Again, <u><strong><mark>there is little clarity and great scope for regulations at every step of the process</u></strong></mark>.[18] The assisted suicide legislation and proposed legislation has created a new identity in the ‘dying’. But the division between ‘the dying’ – whether they have six or 12 months to live – and the rest of us is false. Who is not dying one day at a time? We are all ‘terminal’, and the worth of our lives should not be crudely measured by the time we have left. Nor is dying a medical act; long before any medical intervention occurred, people were dying without any intervention at all. As Daniel Callahan has noted, there is now a tendency to view death as something that is done to us rather than something that occurs, ‘as if death were now our fault, the result of human choices, not the independent workings of nature’. As the old joke has it, life itself is a sexually transmitted disease that is always fatal. The difference between someone with less than six months to live and someone with many years is quantitative rather than qualitative. The ‘dying’ as a category are, in actuality, those who have little time left or, more controversially, as we shall explore in the next chapter, the elderly.[19] Such a term also obscures the historically different motivations behind the campaign. Autonomy, in the classical sense, implies the freedom to terminate one’s own life with no intrusion by the state or anyone else. Compassion might (mistakenly) motivate people to support a campaign for the dying to be put out of their misery. As expressed in the example above, if we support legalization of assisted dying, either we support selective suicides or selective killings. As we shall see in the next chapter, the movement for assisted dying builds upon distrust of medical personnel; none of the campaigns in the English-speaking world call for more power for doctors. As Professor Ray Tallis, prominent patron of the English proponent of a change in the law Dignity in Dying, notes, ‘It is one of the fundamental principles of medicine that you should be allowed to determine what is in your own best interest when you are of sound mind. Nobody else’s views should be able to over-ride this right.’[20] Yet the voices of doctors, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, will, as we will see in Chapter 6, will be the loudest in these decisions. Criticisms of this re-branding of suicide are not all from the anti-assisted suicide side. Such seasoned advocates of assisted suicide/dying as Derek Humphry have also questioned it. Reacting to news that the Oregon Department of Human Services chose in 2006 to replace references to ‘assisted suicide’ with ‘assisted dying’, Humphrey noted: ‘To wrap up our support for physician-assisted suicide in fancy language invites our critics to say that we are trying to change the law covertly and that we are ashamed of being frank about what we really want, neither of which is true.’ The Commission on Dying also refused to jettison the term ‘assisted suicide’, referring to ‘assisted dying’ as both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.[21] <u><strong><mark>The real issue</mark> at the heart of the debate – one <mark>which is obscured by the term assisted dying – is suicide</mark>, not dying.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The question </mark>at the heart of this debate <mark>is whether we wish to pre-approve suicide </mark>in certain circumstances</u></strong>. </p>

Yuill 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Yuill 13 fulltext: Senior Lecturer in American History at the University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal Humanist Case Against Legalization) Kevin https://kevinyuill.wordpress.com/tag/assisted-suicide/ Second, and much more importantly, the only real difference between assisted dying and assisted suicide is that the former has been officially sanctioned by doctors and by legality. Someone in Oregon with, according to two doctors, five months left to live who ingests poison is, according to Compassion and Choices, Dignity in Dying, other proponents of a change in the law and, since 2006, the Oregon Department of Human Services, is an assisted death. Someone who is dying but has seven months to live who ingests the same poison is, according to the same sources, an assisted suicide. The change in terminology, then, is not simply political correctness but an indication of a new role that proponents envisage for doctors. Importantly, the rejection of the term ‘suicide’ implies that the moral taint of suicide in particular circumstances that are determined by officials, lawmakers and doctors is to be removed. The action of taking one’s life is no different in the two scenarios. But the former is given official imprimatur and is therefore an assisted death (good) instead of a suicide (bad). Such a change has important implications. The obvious one is that, as priests and other religious officials have departed the deathbed scene, their place has been filled by doctors. For it would be difficult to deny that, in the scenarios outlined in the introduction, doctors play a spiritual role only. As we shall explore in future chapters, suicide may be accomplished without the aid of official medicine so they play only an officiating role whereby they dispense deadly drugs that the patient might have bought herself, like a priest placing wafers on the tongues of his flock. The fact that the doctor gives the poison ritualizes the action within a set of bureaucratic guidelines. The implication for the patient, similarly, is validation of their suffering. In the past, religious figures comforted the dying by rationalizing suffering as part of God’s plan. Now, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, physicians will provide an end to depression and mental suffering (as we shall see, physical suffering plays very little role in requests for assisted suicide) by offering death as a medical treatment. The change in terminology reflects an important shift away from moral responsibility for the act. Whereas the right to die, self-determination and assisted suicide all imply that the individual involved takes full responsibility for the act, assignation of moral responsibility for ‘assisted dying’ is more diffuse. Importantly, such an apparently facile change lumps together very different things in moral terms – killing another person and suicide. Suppose I make a pact with my friend that, should I ever support a soccer team other than Arsenal, he should kill me and, twenty years later, I arrive to meet him with a Tottenham Hotspur shirt and he kills me. Alternately, suppose I agreed, upon meeting him with the offending shirt, that I should be killed for my lack of loyalty and for now supporting such a ridiculous football team. Suppose I then asked him for his gun and shot myself. These two very different acts might be construed as assisted dying (to satisfy Dignity in Dying criteria, let us also say that, at the time, I had less than six months to live), though, in a court of law, the former would be murder and the latter suicide. Though the effect would be the same for me (and, being dead, the question of my responsibility moot) and though my friend might bear some responsibility even if I pulled the trigger, the two acts are profoundly different for him. Yet the concept of assisted dying essentially equates these two different acts. In fact, as we shall discuss in Chapter 6, negating moral responsibility means that courts, where individuals are tried to determine the degree of their responsibility for a crime, are less appropriate than professional regulatory tribunals, where the question becomes whether or not a set of regulations has been followed properly. Rather than self-determining actors who choose our own fates, we become points on an increasingly complex flow chart, requiring a huge apparatus of bureaucratic experts. If we accept Dignity in Dying’s suggestion that assisted dying involves only those who are considered to be dying, an essentially philosophical question is determined by a professional regulatory body. There is little agreement on this issue even between advocates. Oregon’s and Washington’s legislation (and that contained in proposed UK legislation) define the dying as those with a terminal illness and six months to live whereas the UK Commission on Assisted Dying recommended that the subject be terminally ill and have 12 months or less to live. If the phrase ‘suffering unbearably’ is employed as it was in the proposed UK legislation, how will that be determined? Again, there is little clarity and great scope for regulations at every step of the process.[18] The assisted suicide legislation and proposed legislation has created a new identity in the ‘dying’. But the division between ‘the dying’ – whether they have six or 12 months to live – and the rest of us is false. Who is not dying one day at a time? We are all ‘terminal’, and the worth of our lives should not be crudely measured by the time we have left. Nor is dying a medical act; long before any medical intervention occurred, people were dying without any intervention at all. As Daniel Callahan has noted, there is now a tendency to view death as something that is done to us rather than something that occurs, ‘as if death were now our fault, the result of human choices, not the independent workings of nature’. As the old joke has it, life itself is a sexually transmitted disease that is always fatal. The difference between someone with less than six months to live and someone with many years is quantitative rather than qualitative. The ‘dying’ as a category are, in actuality, those who have little time left or, more controversially, as we shall explore in the next chapter, the elderly.[19] Such a term also obscures the historically different motivations behind the campaign. Autonomy, in the classical sense, implies the freedom to terminate one’s own life with no intrusion by the state or anyone else. Compassion might (mistakenly) motivate people to support a campaign for the dying to be put out of their misery. As expressed in the example above, if we support legalization of assisted dying, either we support selective suicides or selective killings. As we shall see in the next chapter, the movement for assisted dying builds upon distrust of medical personnel; none of the campaigns in the English-speaking world call for more power for doctors. As Professor Ray Tallis, prominent patron of the English proponent of a change in the law Dignity in Dying, notes, ‘It is one of the fundamental principles of medicine that you should be allowed to determine what is in your own best interest when you are of sound mind. Nobody else’s views should be able to over-ride this right.’[20] Yet the voices of doctors, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, will, as we will see in Chapter 6, will be the loudest in these decisions. Criticisms of this re-branding of suicide are not all from the anti-assisted suicide side. Such seasoned advocates of assisted suicide/dying as Derek Humphry have also questioned it. Reacting to news that the Oregon Department of Human Services chose in 2006 to replace references to ‘assisted suicide’ with ‘assisted dying’, Humphrey noted: ‘To wrap up our support for physician-assisted suicide in fancy language invites our critics to say that we are trying to change the law covertly and that we are ashamed of being frank about what we really want, neither of which is true.’ The Commission on Dying also refused to jettison the term ‘assisted suicide’, referring to ‘assisted dying’ as both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.[21] The real issue at the heart of the debate – one which is obscured by the term assisted dying – is suicide, not dying. The question at the heart of this debate is whether we wish to pre-approve suicide in certain circumstances. [/INST] <h4>Legalization of PAS is an affirmation of the act by official state sanction within regulation </h4><p><strong>Yuill 13</strong> </p><p>Senior Lecturer in American History at the University of Sunderland; author, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal Humanist Case Against Legalization) Kevin https://kevinyuill.wordpress.com/tag/assisted-suicide/</p><p>Second, and much more importantly, <u><strong><mark>the only</mark> real <mark>difference between assisted dying and</mark> assisted <mark>suicide is that the former has been officially sanctioned </mark>by doctors and <mark>by legality</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Someone in Oregon with, according to two doctors, five months left to live who ingests poison is</u></strong>, according to Compassion and Choices, Dignity in Dying, other proponents of a change in the law and, since 2006, the Oregon Department of Human Services, <u><strong>is an assisted death</u></strong>. <u><strong>Someone who is dying but has seven months to live who ingests the same poison is, according to the same sources, an assisted suicide. </u></strong>The <u><strong>change in terminology</u></strong>, then, <u><strong>is not simply political correctness but an indication of a new role that proponents envisage for doctors</u></strong>. Importantly, <u><strong>the rejection of the term <mark>‘suicide’ implies that the moral</u></strong> <u><strong>taint </mark>of suicide</u></strong> in particular circumstances that <u><strong>are <mark>determined by</mark> officials, <mark>law</mark>makers and doctors <mark>is to be removed</u></strong></mark>. The action of taking one’s life is no different in the two scenarios. But the former is given official imprimatur and is therefore an assisted death (good) instead of a suicide (bad). Such a change has important implications. The obvious one is that, as priests and other religious officials have departed the deathbed scene, their place has been filled by doctors. For it would be difficult to deny that, in the scenarios outlined in the introduction, doctors play a spiritual role only. As we shall explore in future chapters, suicide may be accomplished without the aid of official medicine so they play only an officiating role whereby they dispense deadly drugs that the patient might have bought herself, like a priest placing wafers on the tongues of his flock. The fact that the doctor gives the poison ritualizes the action within a set of bureaucratic guidelines. The implication for the patient, similarly, is validation of their suffering. In the past, religious figures comforted the dying by rationalizing suffering as part of God’s plan. Now, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, physicians will provide an end to depression and mental suffering (as we shall see, physical suffering plays very little role in requests for assisted suicide) by offering death as a medical treatment. The change in terminology reflects an important shift away from moral responsibility for the act. Whereas the right to die, self-determination and assisted suicide all imply that the individual involved takes full responsibility for the act, assignation of moral responsibility for ‘assisted dying’ is more diffuse. Importantly, such an apparently facile change lumps together very different things in moral terms – killing another person and suicide. Suppose I make a pact with my friend that, should I ever support a soccer team other than Arsenal, he should kill me and, twenty years later, I arrive to meet him with a Tottenham Hotspur shirt and he kills me. Alternately, suppose I agreed, upon meeting him with the offending shirt, that I should be killed for my lack of loyalty and for now supporting such a ridiculous football team. Suppose I then asked him for his gun and shot myself. These two very different acts might be construed as assisted dying (to satisfy Dignity in Dying criteria, let us also say that, at the time, I had less than six months to live), though, in a court of law, the former would be murder and the latter suicide. Though the effect would be the same for me (and, being dead, the question of my responsibility moot) and though my friend might bear some responsibility even if I pulled the trigger, the two acts are profoundly different for him. Yet the concept of assisted dying essentially equates these two different acts. In fact, as we shall discuss in Chapter 6, negating moral responsibility means that <u><strong><mark>courts</u></strong>, <u><strong></mark>where individuals are tried to determine the degree of their responsibility for a crime</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>are</u></strong> <u><strong>less appropriate than </mark>professional <mark>regulatory tribunals,</u></strong> <u><strong>where the question becomes whether or not </mark>a set of <mark>regulations has been followed </mark>properly</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Rather than</mark> <mark>self-determining actors</mark> who choose our own fates</u></strong>, we become points on an increasingly complex flow chart, requiring a huge apparatus of bureaucratic experts. If we accept Dignity in Dying’s suggestion that assisted dying involves only those who are considered to be dying, an essentially philosophical question is determined by a professional regulatory body. There is little agreement on this issue even between advocates. Oregon’s and Washington’s legislation (and that contained in proposed UK legislation) define the dying as those with a terminal illness and six months to live whereas the UK Commission on Assisted Dying recommended that the subject be terminally ill and have 12 months or less to live. If the phrase ‘suffering unbearably’ is employed as it was in the proposed UK legislation, how will that be determined? Again, <u><strong><mark>there is little clarity and great scope for regulations at every step of the process</u></strong></mark>.[18] The assisted suicide legislation and proposed legislation has created a new identity in the ‘dying’. But the division between ‘the dying’ – whether they have six or 12 months to live – and the rest of us is false. Who is not dying one day at a time? We are all ‘terminal’, and the worth of our lives should not be crudely measured by the time we have left. Nor is dying a medical act; long before any medical intervention occurred, people were dying without any intervention at all. As Daniel Callahan has noted, there is now a tendency to view death as something that is done to us rather than something that occurs, ‘as if death were now our fault, the result of human choices, not the independent workings of nature’. As the old joke has it, life itself is a sexually transmitted disease that is always fatal. The difference between someone with less than six months to live and someone with many years is quantitative rather than qualitative. The ‘dying’ as a category are, in actuality, those who have little time left or, more controversially, as we shall explore in the next chapter, the elderly.[19] Such a term also obscures the historically different motivations behind the campaign. Autonomy, in the classical sense, implies the freedom to terminate one’s own life with no intrusion by the state or anyone else. Compassion might (mistakenly) motivate people to support a campaign for the dying to be put out of their misery. As expressed in the example above, if we support legalization of assisted dying, either we support selective suicides or selective killings. As we shall see in the next chapter, the movement for assisted dying builds upon distrust of medical personnel; none of the campaigns in the English-speaking world call for more power for doctors. As Professor Ray Tallis, prominent patron of the English proponent of a change in the law Dignity in Dying, notes, ‘It is one of the fundamental principles of medicine that you should be allowed to determine what is in your own best interest when you are of sound mind. Nobody else’s views should be able to over-ride this right.’[20] Yet the voices of doctors, should assisted suicide be institutionalized, will, as we will see in Chapter 6, will be the loudest in these decisions. Criticisms of this re-branding of suicide are not all from the anti-assisted suicide side. Such seasoned advocates of assisted suicide/dying as Derek Humphry have also questioned it. Reacting to news that the Oregon Department of Human Services chose in 2006 to replace references to ‘assisted suicide’ with ‘assisted dying’, Humphrey noted: ‘To wrap up our support for physician-assisted suicide in fancy language invites our critics to say that we are trying to change the law covertly and that we are ashamed of being frank about what we really want, neither of which is true.’ The Commission on Dying also refused to jettison the term ‘assisted suicide’, referring to ‘assisted dying’ as both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.[21] <u><strong><mark>The real issue</mark> at the heart of the debate – one <mark>which is obscured by the term assisted dying – is suicide</mark>, not dying.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The question </mark>at the heart of this debate <mark>is whether we wish to pre-approve suicide </mark>in certain circumstances</u></strong>. </p> </s>

Alternative – Reject the affirmative’s security logic

Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6] Security politics is, , an anti-politics,"' 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 you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe 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 civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever 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 does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language 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 forge another kind of politics centred on a different conception of the good. ; it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, learning to tolerate the uncertainties, that come with being human; '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."'

Security politics is anti-politics," We need to get beyond security politics not add more 'sectors' to it The task is not to fill the hole with another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which does not throw us into the arms of the state. demanding 'more security' while hoping this increased security doesn't damage our liberty is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives To situate ourselves against security politics would allow us to forge another kind of politics it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition

Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6] could be told - what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this sewnse, 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 legitimises 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: maybe 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 civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming 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 securitising 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 centred 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 emancipatory in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising= 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."'

<h4>Alternative – Reject the affirmative’s security logic </h4><p><strong><mark>Neocleous 08</strong></mark> </p><p><u><strong>Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6]</p><p></u></strong>could be told - what might count as having achieved it. <u><strong><mark>Security politics is</mark>,</u></strong> in this sewnse<u><strong>, an <mark>anti-politics,"</mark>'</u></strong> dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, <u><strong>reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. <mark>We</mark> therefore <mark>need to get beyond security politics</mark>, <mark>not add</mark> yet <mark>more 'sectors' to it</u></strong></mark> in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises 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 <u><strong>you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe 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 civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever</u></strong>. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. <u><strong><mark>The</mark> real <mark>task is</mark> <mark>not to fill the</mark> supposed <mark>hole with</mark> yet <mark>another vision of security, but</mark> <mark>to fight for an alternative political language which</mark> </u></strong>takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore <u><strong><mark>does not</mark> constantly <mark>throw us into the arms of the state.</mark> That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language</u></strong> 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 <u><strong>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 <mark>demanding 'more security'</mark> (<mark>while</mark> meekly <mark>hoping</mark> that <mark>this increased security doesn't damage our liberty</mark>) <mark>is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives</mark> to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. <mark>To situate ourselves against security politics would</mark> </u></strong>allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitising 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<u><strong> <mark>allow us to forge another kind of politics </mark>centred on a different conception of the good. </u></strong>We need a new way of thinking and talking about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising= that security is not the same as solidarity<u><strong>; <mark>it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition</mark>, </u></strong>and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and instead <u><strong>learning to tolerate the uncertainties, </u></strong>ambiguities and 'insecurities'<u><strong> that come with being human;</u></strong> it requires accepting that <u><strong>'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."'</p></u></strong>

Neocleous 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Neocleous 08 fulltext: Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6] could be told - what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this sewnse, 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 legitimises 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: maybe 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 civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming 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 securitising 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 centred 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 emancipatory in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising= 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."' [/INST] <h4>Alternative – Reject the affirmative’s security logic </h4><p><strong><mark>Neocleous 08</strong></mark> </p><p><u><strong>Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6]</p><p></u></strong>could be told - what might count as having achieved it. <u><strong><mark>Security politics is</mark>,</u></strong> in this sewnse<u><strong>, an <mark>anti-politics,"</mark>'</u></strong> dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, <u><strong>reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. <mark>We</mark> therefore <mark>need to get beyond security politics</mark>, <mark>not add</mark> yet <mark>more 'sectors' to it</u></strong></mark> in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises 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 <u><strong>you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe 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 civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever</u></strong>. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. <u><strong><mark>The</mark> real <mark>task is</mark> <mark>not to fill the</mark> supposed <mark>hole with</mark> yet <mark>another vision of security, but</mark> <mark>to fight for an alternative political language which</mark> </u></strong>takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore <u><strong><mark>does not</mark> constantly <mark>throw us into the arms of the state.</mark> That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language</u></strong> 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 <u><strong>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 <mark>demanding 'more security'</mark> (<mark>while</mark> meekly <mark>hoping</mark> that <mark>this increased security doesn't damage our liberty</mark>) <mark>is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives</mark> to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. <mark>To situate ourselves against security politics would</mark> </u></strong>allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitising 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<u><strong> <mark>allow us to forge another kind of politics </mark>centred on a different conception of the good. </u></strong>We need a new way of thinking and talking about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising= that security is not the same as solidarity<u><strong>; <mark>it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition</mark>, </u></strong>and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and instead <u><strong>learning to tolerate the uncertainties, </u></strong>ambiguities and 'insecurities'<u><strong> that come with being human;</u></strong> it requires accepting that <u><strong>'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."'</p></u></strong> </s>

Deforestation leads to extinction

The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated More importantly, the resurrection of bio diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon. it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.

plants demise will carry the extinction of a greater number of animal species the resurrection of bio diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. civilization is speeding towards extinction it will not be long until the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain a

The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower. Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon. It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command, it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.

<h4><strong>Deforestation leads to extinction</h4><p>Watson 6</p><p></strong>Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, ìThe Politics of Extinction.î<u><strong> http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html</p><p>The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because <mark>plants </mark>form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their <mark>demise will carry </mark>with it <mark>the extinction of a</mark>n exponentially <mark>greater number of animal species</mark> -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated</u></strong>. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. <u><strong>More importantly, <mark>the resurrection of bio</u></strong></mark>logical<mark> <u><strong>diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction.</mark> Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans</u></strong>, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. <u><strong>Like a run-a-way train, <mark>civilization is speeding </mark>along tracks of our own manufacture<mark> towards </mark>the stone wall of <mark>extinction</mark>.</u></strong> The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower. <u><strong>Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon.</u></strong> It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command, <u><strong><mark>it will not be long until the </mark>biospheric integrity of the <mark>Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain a</mark>nd tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.</p></u></strong>

Watson 6 Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, ìThe Politics of Extinction.î http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Watson 6 Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, ìThe Politics of Extinction.î http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html fulltext: The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower. Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon. It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command, it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction. [/INST] <h4><strong>Deforestation leads to extinction</h4><p>Watson 6</p><p></strong>Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, ìThe Politics of Extinction.î<u><strong> http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html</p><p>The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because <mark>plants </mark>form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their <mark>demise will carry </mark>with it <mark>the extinction of a</mark>n exponentially <mark>greater number of animal species</mark> -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated</u></strong>. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. <u><strong>More importantly, <mark>the resurrection of bio</u></strong></mark>logical<mark> <u><strong>diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction.</mark> Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans</u></strong>, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. <u><strong>Like a run-a-way train, <mark>civilization is speeding </mark>along tracks of our own manufacture<mark> towards </mark>the stone wall of <mark>extinction</mark>.</u></strong> The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower. <u><strong>Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon.</u></strong> It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command, <u><strong><mark>it will not be long until the </mark>biospheric integrity of the <mark>Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain a</mark>nd tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.</p></u></strong> </s>

B. Statistics

conflict does not explain trade and trade does not explain current level of conflicts Meaning there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations. the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all.

trade does not explain current level of conflicts there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all

The regression results for the unrestricted bivariate VAR-model including one lag are presented in table 5. The main result is that conflict does not explain trade and trade does not explain current level of conflicts. Meaning there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables using the sample chosen here. Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations. Furthermore the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model (very low R2 and F-value). The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all. There is no comparable approach so far in the literature which means we need further research to con_rm these results. Furthermore a longer time pe- riod is needed and maybe more variables for the VAR-model e.g. GDP as a measurement for economic size. A problem with adding more variables to a VAR-system is that it gets less tractable and needs some structure to make useful interpretations of the parameter estimates.

<h4>B. Statistics</h4><p><u><strong>Parlow and Chakrabati 9 </u></strong>Does trade promote peace? A new window in Economics Anton Parlow and Prof. Avik Chakrabati University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Economics November 24, 2009 https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aparlow/www/papers/conflict_2.pdf</p><p>The regression results for the unrestricted bivariate VAR-model including one lag are presented in table 5. The main result is that <u><strong>conflict does not explain trade and <mark>trade does not explain current level of conflicts</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Meaning <mark>there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables</u></strong></mark> using the sample chosen here. <u><strong>Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations.</u></strong> Furthermore <u><strong>the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model </u></strong>(very low R2 and F-value). <u><strong><mark>The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all</mark>.</u></strong> There is no comparable approach so far in the literature which means we need further research to con_rm these results. Furthermore a longer time pe- riod is needed and maybe more variables for the VAR-model e.g. GDP as a measurement for economic size. A problem with adding more variables to a VAR-system is that it gets less tractable and needs some structure to make useful interpretations of the parameter estimates.</p>

Parlow and Chakrabati 9 Does trade promote peace? A new window in Economics Anton Parlow and Prof. Avik Chakrabati University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Economics November 24, 2009 https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aparlow/www/papers/conflict_2.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Parlow and Chakrabati 9 Does trade promote peace? A new window in Economics Anton Parlow and Prof. Avik Chakrabati University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Economics November 24, 2009 https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aparlow/www/papers/conflict_2.pdf fulltext: The regression results for the unrestricted bivariate VAR-model including one lag are presented in table 5. The main result is that conflict does not explain trade and trade does not explain current level of conflicts. Meaning there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables using the sample chosen here. Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations. Furthermore the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model (very low R2 and F-value). The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all. There is no comparable approach so far in the literature which means we need further research to con_rm these results. Furthermore a longer time pe- riod is needed and maybe more variables for the VAR-model e.g. GDP as a measurement for economic size. A problem with adding more variables to a VAR-system is that it gets less tractable and needs some structure to make useful interpretations of the parameter estimates. [/INST] <h4>B. Statistics</h4><p><u><strong>Parlow and Chakrabati 9 </u></strong>Does trade promote peace? A new window in Economics Anton Parlow and Prof. Avik Chakrabati University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Economics November 24, 2009 https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aparlow/www/papers/conflict_2.pdf</p><p>The regression results for the unrestricted bivariate VAR-model including one lag are presented in table 5. The main result is that <u><strong>conflict does not explain trade and <mark>trade does not explain current level of conflicts</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Meaning <mark>there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables</u></strong></mark> using the sample chosen here. <u><strong>Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations.</u></strong> Furthermore <u><strong>the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model </u></strong>(very low R2 and F-value). <u><strong><mark>The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all</mark>.</u></strong> There is no comparable approach so far in the literature which means we need further research to con_rm these results. Furthermore a longer time pe- riod is needed and maybe more variables for the VAR-model e.g. GDP as a measurement for economic size. A problem with adding more variables to a VAR-system is that it gets less tractable and needs some structure to make useful interpretations of the parameter estimates.</p> </s>

Makes nuclear miscalculation inevitable

security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing,¶ actor on the world stage. the decline could lead Russia’s military leaders, to lower the threshold at which they might consider using nuclear weapons in moments of crisis. The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy Russia’s political leaders could very well become more alarmist, mercurial, and confrontational in their international posture. And in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalculation when it comes to relations with both allies and rivals If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.

it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing on the world stage the decline could lead Russia’s leaders to lower the threshold at which they might us nuclear weapons Russia’s leaders could become alarmist and confrontational in posture in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalc with both allies and rivals

Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing,¶ actor on the world stage.¶ Most immediately and dramatically, the decline could lead Russia’s military leaders, aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, to lower the threshold at which they might consider using nuclear weapons in moments of crisis. Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, Russia’s political leaders could very well become more alarmist, mercurial, and confrontational in their international posture. And in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalculation when it comes to relations with both allies and rivals. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶ stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.

<h4>Makes nuclear miscalculation inevitable</h4><p>Nicholas <strong>Eberstadt 11<u>, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf </p><p></u></strong>Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential <u>security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders</u>. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ <u>this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: <mark>it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing</mark>,¶ actor <mark>on the world stage</mark>.</u>¶ Most immediately and dramatically, <u><mark>the decline could lead Russia’s</mark> military <mark>leaders</mark>, </u>aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, <u><mark>to <strong>lower the threshold at which they might</mark> consider <mark>us</mark>ing <mark>nuclear weapons</strong></mark> in moments of crisis.</u> Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ <u>The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy</u>. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, <u><mark>Russia’s</mark> political <mark>leaders could</mark> very well <mark>become</mark> more <mark>alarmist</mark>, mercurial, <mark>and confrontational in</mark> their international <mark>posture</mark>.</u> <u>And <mark>in the process, Moscow might become <strong>more prone to miscalc</mark>ulation</strong> when it comes to relations <mark>with both allies and rivals</u></mark>. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶<u><strong> </u></strong>stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. <u>If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.</p></u>

Nicholas Eberstadt 11, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nicholas Eberstadt 11, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf fulltext: Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing,¶ actor on the world stage.¶ Most immediately and dramatically, the decline could lead Russia’s military leaders, aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, to lower the threshold at which they might consider using nuclear weapons in moments of crisis. Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, Russia’s political leaders could very well become more alarmist, mercurial, and confrontational in their international posture. And in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalculation when it comes to relations with both allies and rivals. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶ stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky. [/INST] <h4>Makes nuclear miscalculation inevitable</h4><p>Nicholas <strong>Eberstadt 11<u>, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf </p><p></u></strong>Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential <u>security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders</u>. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ <u>this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: <mark>it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing</mark>,¶ actor <mark>on the world stage</mark>.</u>¶ Most immediately and dramatically, <u><mark>the decline could lead Russia’s</mark> military <mark>leaders</mark>, </u>aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, <u><mark>to <strong>lower the threshold at which they might</mark> consider <mark>us</mark>ing <mark>nuclear weapons</strong></mark> in moments of crisis.</u> Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ <u>The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy</u>. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, <u><mark>Russia’s</mark> political <mark>leaders could</mark> very well <mark>become</mark> more <mark>alarmist</mark>, mercurial, <mark>and confrontational in</mark> their international <mark>posture</mark>.</u> <u>And <mark>in the process, Moscow might become <strong>more prone to miscalc</mark>ulation</strong> when it comes to relations <mark>with both allies and rivals</u></mark>. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶<u><strong> </u></strong>stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. <u>If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.</p></u> </s>

AIDS causes extinction

AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today. AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure ven its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease at present there is no feasible design for such an effective vaccine. HIV can, nly lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful.

AIDS is the greatest threat to the world today. HIV/AIDS will undermine improvements in health status and reduce economic growth HIV is evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far earth today What are the odds of airborne transmission? No one can be sure with no recovery no development of either individual or herd immunity present there is no feasible design for an effective vaccine.

The worst threat to humankind AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today." (Marc Lappé) AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." * effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and at present there is no feasible design for such an effective vaccine. The progressive increase in the pool of HIV can, in theory, only lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful."

<h4>AIDS causes extinction</h4><p>Tom<strong> Kerns 99</strong>, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html</p><p>The worst threat to humankind <u><strong>AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet."</u></strong> (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "<u><strong><mark>AIDS is the </mark>single <mark>greatest threat to</mark> well-being facing <mark>the world</mark>'s population <mark>today.</u></strong></mark>" (Marc Lappé) <u><strong>AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors</u></strong>." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, <u><strong>it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the <mark>HIV/AIDS </mark>pandemic <mark>will undermine improvements in health status and</mark>, in turn, <mark>reduce</mark> the potential for <mark>economic growth</mark>. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe</u></strong>.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that <u><strong>it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years</u></strong>." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "<u><strong>Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease</u></strong>." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" <u><strong>"We know that <mark>HIV is </mark>still <mark>evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far</mark> more HIV on <mark>earth today</mark> than ever before in history. <mark>What are the odds of</mark> its learning the tricks of <mark>airborne transmission?</mark> The short answer is "<mark>No one can be sure</u></strong></mark>." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, gi<u><strong>ven its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS</u></strong>. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; <u><strong>the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." </u></strong>* effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[<u><strong>T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, <mark>with no recovery</mark>, no loss of infectivity, <mark>no development of either individual or herd immunity</mark>, there</u></strong> <u><strong>is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease</u></strong> unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and <u><strong>at <mark>present there is no feasible design for</mark> such <mark>an effective vaccine.</mark> </u></strong>The progressive increase in the pool of <u><strong>HIV can,</u></strong> in theory, o<u><strong>nly lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful.</u></strong>"</p>

Tom Kerns 99, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tom Kerns 99, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html fulltext: The worst threat to humankind AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today." (Marc Lappé) AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." * effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and at present there is no feasible design for such an effective vaccine. The progressive increase in the pool of HIV can, in theory, only lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful." [/INST] <h4>AIDS causes extinction</h4><p>Tom<strong> Kerns 99</strong>, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html</p><p>The worst threat to humankind <u><strong>AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet."</u></strong> (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General) "<u><strong><mark>AIDS is the </mark>single <mark>greatest threat to</mark> well-being facing <mark>the world</mark>'s population <mark>today.</u></strong></mark>" (Marc Lappé) <u><strong>AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors</u></strong>." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, <u><strong>it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the <mark>HIV/AIDS </mark>pandemic <mark>will undermine improvements in health status and</mark>, in turn, <mark>reduce</mark> the potential for <mark>economic growth</mark>. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be quite severe</u></strong>.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that <u><strong>it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years</u></strong>." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "<u><strong>Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease</u></strong>." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:" <u><strong>"We know that <mark>HIV is </mark>still <mark>evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far</mark> more HIV on <mark>earth today</mark> than ever before in history. <mark>What are the odds of</mark> its learning the tricks of <mark>airborne transmission?</mark> The short answer is "<mark>No one can be sure</u></strong></mark>." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, gi<u><strong>ven its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS</u></strong>. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; <u><strong>the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." </u></strong>* effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[<u><strong>T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease. Thus, <mark>with no recovery</mark>, no loss of infectivity, <mark>no development of either individual or herd immunity</mark>, there</u></strong> <u><strong>is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion of the disease</u></strong> unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and <u><strong>at <mark>present there is no feasible design for</mark> such <mark>an effective vaccine.</mark> </u></strong>The progressive increase in the pool of <u><strong>HIV can,</u></strong> in theory, o<u><strong>nly lead to an exponential increase in the number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful.</u></strong>"</p> </s>

The aff’s approach to marijuana legalization is a redefinition of the law to a tolerant liberally regulated market which can only mystify the inner workings of disciplinary power. This is the foundation for violence, otherness becomes tolerated insofar as it takes on the form of a proper subject which creates the conditions for extermination based on notions of bare life.

The university discourse is enunciated from the position of "neutral" Knowledge in the case of pedagogical knowledge, the "raw, uncultivated child"), turning it into the subject The "truth" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the bar, of course, is power it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things. the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power. "Production" does not stand simply for the result of the discursive operation, but rather for its "indivisible remainder," for the excess which resists being included in the discursive network, i.e. for what the discourse itself produces as the foreign body in its very heart. medical discourse functions in our everyday lives: at the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge which desubjectivizes the subject-patient, reducing [them] to an object of research, of diagnosis and treatment; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing the doctor as his [or her] Master and asking for reassurance from him [or her]. At a more common level, suffice it to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures as a necessity imposed by his neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases: what he conceals is the series of power-relations the "neutral" functioning of the market mechanism. In the University discourse, is not the upper level that of biopolitics Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is a - not subjects, but individuals reduced to bare life the expert rule of "biopolitics" is grounded in and conditioned by the crisis of investiture; this crisis generated the "post-metaphysical" survivalist [position] of the Last Men, which ends up in an anemic spectacle of life dragging on as its own shadow. It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden "biopolitics" which sustains this rejection. Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers which parasitize on it, end up in a world in which, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking, drugs, food…) "demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter which nothing can really justify - as such, it provides the best possible justification for "no-casualties-on-our-side" military doctrine. On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking…) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium." The structure of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly present in how we relate to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy… And the same goes for war, for the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help. for democracy: it is OK if it is "rethought" to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of its populist "excesses," and if the people are "mature" enough to live by it… However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to homo sacer as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge? these two rely on the same root, to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites ultimate goal of our lives is life itself. death is, quite logically, the ultimate traumatic point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life. the notion of the morally/legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life. the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself. Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the time: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is impossible not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that the discourse of the University is thoroughly mystifying, concealing its true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.

university discourse is neutral" Knowledge turning it into the subject "Production" included in the discursive network reducing [them] to an object of research, and treatment neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases conceals the series of power-relations University discourse, is that of biopolitics this crisis generated the "post-metaphysical" survivalist [position] ends up spectacle of life dragging on as its own shadow. biopolitics" sustains this rejection. Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers end up in a world in which pleasures are prohibited smoking, drugs demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter provides the best possible justification for military doctrine. Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint Solutions reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium." a product containing the agent of its own containment Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive present in to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — the same goes for war war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy it is "rethought" to include a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of "excess these rely on the same root, ultimate goal of our lives is life itself the notion of the legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life the discourse of the University mystifying true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.

The university discourse is enunciated from the position of "neutral" Knowledge; it addresses the remainder of the real (say, in the case of pedagogical knowledge, the "raw, uncultivated child"), turning it into the subject ($). The "truth" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the bar, of course, is power, i.e. the Master-Signifier: the constitutive lie of the university discourse is that it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things. What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power. "Production" (the fourth term in the matrix of discourses) does not stand simply for the result of the discursive operation, but rather for its "indivisible remainder," for the excess which resists being included in the discursive network, i.e. for what the discourse itself produces as the foreign body in its very heart. Perhaps the exemplary case of the Master's position which underlies the university discourse is the way in which medical discourse functions in our everyday lives: at the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge which desubjectivizes the subject-patient, reducing [them] to an object of research, of diagnosis and treatment; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing the doctor as his [or her] Master and asking for reassurance from him [or her]. At a more common level, suffice it to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures (cutting welfare expenses, etc.) as a necessity imposed by his neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases: what he conceals is the series of power-relations (from the active role of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) which sustain the "neutral" functioning of the market mechanism. In the University discourse, is not the upper level ($ — a) that of biopolitics (in the sense deployed from Foucault to Agamben)? Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is a - not subjects, but individuals reduced to bare life? And does the lower not designate what Eric Santner called the "crisis of investiture," i.e., the impossibility of the subject to relate to S1, to identify with a Master-Signifier, to assume the imposed symbolic mandate?[1] The key point is here that the expert rule of "biopolitics" is grounded in and conditioned by the crisis of investiture; this crisis generated the "post-metaphysical" survivalist [position] of the Last Men, which ends up in an anemic spectacle of life dragging on as its own shadow. It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden "biopolitics" which sustains this rejection. Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers which parasitize on it, end up in a world in which, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking, drugs, food…). Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying, with its "demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter which nothing can really justify - as such, it provides the best possible justification for the Colin Powell's "no-casualties-on-our-side" military doctrine. On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. Is this not the attitude of the hedonistic Last Man? Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. (This is also Last Man's revolution — "revolution without revolution.") Is this not one of the two versions of Lacan's anti-Dostoyevski motto "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited"? (1) God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance; (2) If God is dead, superego enjoins you to enjoy, but every determinate enjoyment is already a betrayal of the unconditional one, so it should be prohibited. The nutritive version of this is to enjoy directly the Thing Itself: why bother with coffee? Inject caffeine directly into your blood! Why bother with sensual perceptions and excitations by external reality? Take drugs which directly affect your brain! - And if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely human" constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness). Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine. The ultimate example of it is arguably a chocolate laxative, available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!", i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. Do we not find here a weird version of Wagner's famous "Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it" from Parsifal? And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking…) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?". The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium." The structure of the "chocolate laxative," of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly present in how we relate to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy… And the same goes for war, for the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help. And does the same not hold more and more even for democracy: it is OK if it is "rethought" to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of its populist "excesses," and if the people are "mature" enough to live by it… However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to homo sacer as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge? But what if these two stances nonetheless rely on the same root, what if they are the two aspects of one and the same underlying attitude, what if they coincide in what one is tempted to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites? What the two poles share is precisely the underlying refusal of any higher Causes, the notion that the ultimate goal of our lives is life itself. Nowhere is the complicity of these two levels clearer as in the case of the opposition to death penalty — no wonder, since (violently putting another human being to) death is, quite logically, the ultimate traumatic point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life. To put it in Foucauldian terms, is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime as the result of social, psychological, ideological, etc., circumstances: the notion of the morally/legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life. Superego is thus not directly S2; it is rather the S1 of the S2 itself, the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself. Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the time: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is impossible not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that the discourse of the University is thoroughly mystifying, concealing its true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.

<h4>The aff’s approach to marijuana legalization is a redefinition of the law to a tolerant liberally regulated market which can only mystify the inner workings of disciplinary power. This is the foundation for violence, otherness becomes tolerated insofar as it takes on the form of a proper subject which creates the conditions for extermination based on notions of bare life. </h4><p><strong>Zizek ’03 </strong>(Slavoj, he has like a degree or something, “HOMO SACER AS THE OBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY<u><strong><mark>”, [SG]) **Modified from previously assumed genders and abilities** </p><p></mark>The <mark>university discourse is </mark>enunciated from the position of "<mark>neutral" Knowledge</u></strong></mark>; it addresses the remainder of the real (say, <u><strong>in the case of pedagogical knowledge, the "raw, uncultivated child"), <mark>turning it into the subject</u></strong></mark> ($). <u><strong>The "truth" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the bar, of course, is power</u></strong>, i.e. the Master-Signifier: the constitutive lie of the university discourse is that <u><strong>it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things.</u></strong> What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: <u><strong>the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power. <mark>"Production"</u></strong></mark> (the fourth term in the matrix of discourses) <u><strong>does not stand simply for the result of the discursive operation, but rather for its "indivisible remainder," for the excess which resists being <mark>included in the discursive network</mark>, i.e. for what the discourse itself produces as the foreign body in its very heart.</u></strong> Perhaps the exemplary case of the Master's position which underlies the university discourse is the way in which <u><strong>medical discourse functions in our everyday lives: at the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge which desubjectivizes the subject-patient, <mark>reducing [them] to an object of research, </mark>of diagnosis <mark>and treatment</mark>; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing the doctor as his [or her] Master and asking for reassurance from him [or her]. At a more common level, suffice it to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures</u></strong> (cutting welfare expenses, etc.) <u><strong>as a necessity imposed by his <mark>neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases</mark>: what he <mark>conceals</mark> is <mark>the series of power-relations</u></strong></mark> (from the active role of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) which sustain <u><strong>the "neutral" functioning of the market mechanism. In the <mark>University discourse,</mark> <mark>is</mark> not the upper level </u></strong>($ — a) <u><strong><mark>that of biopolitics</u></strong></mark> (in the sense deployed from Foucault to Agamben)? <u><strong>Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is a - not subjects, but individuals reduced to bare life</u></strong>? And does the lower not designate what Eric Santner called the "crisis of investiture," i.e., the impossibility of the subject to relate to S1, to identify with a Master-Signifier, to assume the imposed symbolic mandate?[1] The key point is here that <u><strong>the expert rule of "biopolitics" is grounded in and conditioned by the crisis of investiture; <mark>this crisis generated the "post-metaphysical" survivalist [position]</mark> of the Last Men, which <mark>ends up</mark> in an anemic <mark>spectacle of</mark> <mark>life dragging on as its own shadow.</mark> It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden "<mark>biopolitics"</mark> which <mark>sustains this rejection.</mark> <mark>Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers</mark> which parasitize on it, <mark>end up in a world in which</mark>, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective <mark>pleasures are prohibited</mark> or strictly controlled (<mark>smoking, drugs</mark>, food…)</u></strong>. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying, with its <u><strong>"<mark>demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter</mark> which nothing can really justify - as such, it <mark>provides the best possible justification for</u></strong></mark> the Colin Powell's <u><strong>"no-casualties-on-our-side" <mark>military doctrine. </mark>On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol</u></strong>... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, <u><strong>the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance</u></strong>, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. Is this not the attitude of the hedonistic Last Man? Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. (This is also Last Man's revolution — "revolution without revolution.") Is this not one of the two versions of Lacan's anti-Dostoyevski motto "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited"? (1) God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance; (2) If God is dead, superego enjoins you to enjoy, but every determinate enjoyment is already a betrayal of the unconditional one, so it should be prohibited. The nutritive version of this is to enjoy directly the Thing Itself: why bother with coffee? Inject caffeine directly into your blood! Why bother with sensual perceptions and excitations by external reality? Take drugs which directly affect your brain! - And if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely human" constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness). <u><strong><mark>Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint</mark> — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine</u></strong>. The ultimate example of it is arguably a chocolate laxative, available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!", i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. Do we not find here a weird version of Wagner's famous "Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it" from Parsifal? And is not a negative proof of the <u><strong>hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking…) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." <mark>Solutions</mark> are here desperately sought which would <mark>reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative</mark>.</u></strong> The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?". <u><strong>The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": <mark>no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium."</mark> The structure</u></strong> of the "chocolate laxative," <u><strong>of <mark>a product containing the agent of its own containment</mark>, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape.</u></strong> There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, <u><strong>the <mark>Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive</mark>, insofar as the Other is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly <mark>present in</mark> how we relate <mark>to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities —</mark> first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy… And <mark>the same goes for war</mark>, for the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: <mark>war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy</mark>, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help.</u></strong> And does the same not hold more and more even <u><strong>for democracy: it is OK if <mark>it is "rethought" to include </mark>torture and <mark>a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of</mark> its populist <mark>"excess</mark>es," and if the people are "mature" enough to live by it… However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to homo sacer as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge?</u></strong> But what if <u><strong><mark>these</mark> two</u></strong> stances nonetheless <u><strong><mark>rely on the same root,</u></strong></mark> what if they are the two aspects of one and the same underlying attitude, what if they coincide in what one is tempted <u><strong>to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites</u></strong>? What the two poles share is precisely the underlying refusal of any higher Causes, the notion that the <u><strong><mark>ultimate goal of our lives is life itself</mark>.</u></strong> Nowhere is the complicity of these two levels clearer as in the case of the opposition to death penalty — no wonder, since (violently putting another human being to) <u><strong>death is, quite logically, the ultimate traumatic point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life.</u></strong> To put it in Foucauldian terms, is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime as the result of social, psychological, ideological, etc., circumstances: <u><strong><mark>the notion of the</mark> morally/<mark>legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, </mark>individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? <mark>No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life</mark>.</u></strong> Superego is thus not directly S2; it is rather the S1 of the S2 itself, <u><strong>the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself. Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the time: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is impossible not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that <mark>the discourse of the University</mark> is thoroughly <mark>mystifying</mark>, concealing its <mark>true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.</p></u></strong></mark>

Zizek ’03 (Slavoj, he has like a degree or something, “HOMO SACER AS THE OBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY”, [SG]) **Modified from previously assumed genders and abilities**

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Zizek ’03 (Slavoj, he has like a degree or something, “HOMO SACER AS THE OBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY”, [SG]) **Modified from previously assumed genders and abilities** fulltext: The university discourse is enunciated from the position of "neutral" Knowledge; it addresses the remainder of the real (say, in the case of pedagogical knowledge, the "raw, uncultivated child"), turning it into the subject ($). The "truth" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the bar, of course, is power, i.e. the Master-Signifier: the constitutive lie of the university discourse is that it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things. What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power. "Production" (the fourth term in the matrix of discourses) does not stand simply for the result of the discursive operation, but rather for its "indivisible remainder," for the excess which resists being included in the discursive network, i.e. for what the discourse itself produces as the foreign body in its very heart. Perhaps the exemplary case of the Master's position which underlies the university discourse is the way in which medical discourse functions in our everyday lives: at the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge which desubjectivizes the subject-patient, reducing [them] to an object of research, of diagnosis and treatment; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing the doctor as his [or her] Master and asking for reassurance from him [or her]. At a more common level, suffice it to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures (cutting welfare expenses, etc.) as a necessity imposed by his neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases: what he conceals is the series of power-relations (from the active role of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) which sustain the "neutral" functioning of the market mechanism. In the University discourse, is not the upper level ($ — a) that of biopolitics (in the sense deployed from Foucault to Agamben)? Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is a - not subjects, but individuals reduced to bare life? And does the lower not designate what Eric Santner called the "crisis of investiture," i.e., the impossibility of the subject to relate to S1, to identify with a Master-Signifier, to assume the imposed symbolic mandate?[1] The key point is here that the expert rule of "biopolitics" is grounded in and conditioned by the crisis of investiture; this crisis generated the "post-metaphysical" survivalist [position] of the Last Men, which ends up in an anemic spectacle of life dragging on as its own shadow. It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden "biopolitics" which sustains this rejection. Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers which parasitize on it, end up in a world in which, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking, drugs, food…). Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying, with its "demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter which nothing can really justify - as such, it provides the best possible justification for the Colin Powell's "no-casualties-on-our-side" military doctrine. On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. Is this not the attitude of the hedonistic Last Man? Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. (This is also Last Man's revolution — "revolution without revolution.") Is this not one of the two versions of Lacan's anti-Dostoyevski motto "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited"? (1) God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance; (2) If God is dead, superego enjoins you to enjoy, but every determinate enjoyment is already a betrayal of the unconditional one, so it should be prohibited. The nutritive version of this is to enjoy directly the Thing Itself: why bother with coffee? Inject caffeine directly into your blood! Why bother with sensual perceptions and excitations by external reality? Take drugs which directly affect your brain! - And if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely human" constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness). Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine. The ultimate example of it is arguably a chocolate laxative, available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!", i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. Do we not find here a weird version of Wagner's famous "Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it" from Parsifal? And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking…) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative. The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?". The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium." The structure of the "chocolate laxative," of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape. There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, the Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as the Other is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly present in how we relate to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities — first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy… And the same goes for war, for the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help. And does the same not hold more and more even for democracy: it is OK if it is "rethought" to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of its populist "excesses," and if the people are "mature" enough to live by it… However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to homo sacer as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge? But what if these two stances nonetheless rely on the same root, what if they are the two aspects of one and the same underlying attitude, what if they coincide in what one is tempted to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites? What the two poles share is precisely the underlying refusal of any higher Causes, the notion that the ultimate goal of our lives is life itself. Nowhere is the complicity of these two levels clearer as in the case of the opposition to death penalty — no wonder, since (violently putting another human being to) death is, quite logically, the ultimate traumatic point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life. To put it in Foucauldian terms, is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime as the result of social, psychological, ideological, etc., circumstances: the notion of the morally/legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life. Superego is thus not directly S2; it is rather the S1 of the S2 itself, the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself. Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the time: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is impossible not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that the discourse of the University is thoroughly mystifying, concealing its true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies. [/INST] <h4>The aff’s approach to marijuana legalization is a redefinition of the law to a tolerant liberally regulated market which can only mystify the inner workings of disciplinary power. This is the foundation for violence, otherness becomes tolerated insofar as it takes on the form of a proper subject which creates the conditions for extermination based on notions of bare life. </h4><p><strong>Zizek ’03 </strong>(Slavoj, he has like a degree or something, “HOMO SACER AS THE OBJECT OF THE DISCOURSE OF THE UNIVERSITY<u><strong><mark>”, [SG]) **Modified from previously assumed genders and abilities** </p><p></mark>The <mark>university discourse is </mark>enunciated from the position of "<mark>neutral" Knowledge</u></strong></mark>; it addresses the remainder of the real (say, <u><strong>in the case of pedagogical knowledge, the "raw, uncultivated child"), <mark>turning it into the subject</u></strong></mark> ($). <u><strong>The "truth" of the university discourse, hidden beneath the bar, of course, is power</u></strong>, i.e. the Master-Signifier: the constitutive lie of the university discourse is that <u><strong>it disavows its performative dimension, presenting what effectively amounts to a political decision based on power as a simple insight into the factual state of things.</u></strong> What one should avoid here is the Foucauldian misreading: <u><strong>the produced subject is not simply the subjectivity which arises as the result of the disciplinary application of knowledge-power, but its remainder, that which eludes the grasp of knowledge-power. <mark>"Production"</u></strong></mark> (the fourth term in the matrix of discourses) <u><strong>does not stand simply for the result of the discursive operation, but rather for its "indivisible remainder," for the excess which resists being <mark>included in the discursive network</mark>, i.e. for what the discourse itself produces as the foreign body in its very heart.</u></strong> Perhaps the exemplary case of the Master's position which underlies the university discourse is the way in which <u><strong>medical discourse functions in our everyday lives: at the surface level, we are dealing with pure objective knowledge which desubjectivizes the subject-patient, <mark>reducing [them] to an object of research, </mark>of diagnosis <mark>and treatment</mark>; however, beneath it, one can easily discern a worried hystericized subject, obsessed with anxiety, addressing the doctor as his [or her] Master and asking for reassurance from him [or her]. At a more common level, suffice it to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures</u></strong> (cutting welfare expenses, etc.) <u><strong>as a necessity imposed by his <mark>neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases</mark>: what he <mark>conceals</mark> is <mark>the series of power-relations</u></strong></mark> (from the active role of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) which sustain <u><strong>the "neutral" functioning of the market mechanism. In the <mark>University discourse,</mark> <mark>is</mark> not the upper level </u></strong>($ — a) <u><strong><mark>that of biopolitics</u></strong></mark> (in the sense deployed from Foucault to Agamben)? <u><strong>Of the expert knowledge dealing with its object which is a - not subjects, but individuals reduced to bare life</u></strong>? And does the lower not designate what Eric Santner called the "crisis of investiture," i.e., the impossibility of the subject to relate to S1, to identify with a Master-Signifier, to assume the imposed symbolic mandate?[1] The key point is here that <u><strong>the expert rule of "biopolitics" is grounded in and conditioned by the crisis of investiture; <mark>this crisis generated the "post-metaphysical" survivalist [position]</mark> of the Last Men, which <mark>ends up</mark> in an anemic <mark>spectacle of</mark> <mark>life dragging on as its own shadow.</mark> It is within this horizon that one should appreciate today's growing rejection of death penalty: what one should be able to discern is the hidden "<mark>biopolitics"</mark> which <mark>sustains this rejection.</mark> <mark>Those who assert the "sacredness of life," defending it against the threat of transcendent powers</mark> which parasitize on it, <mark>end up in a world in which</mark>, on behalf of its very official goal — long pleasurable life — all effective <mark>pleasures are prohibited</mark> or strictly controlled (<mark>smoking, drugs</mark>, food…)</u></strong>. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying, with its <u><strong>"<mark>demystifying" presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter</mark> which nothing can really justify - as such, it <mark>provides the best possible justification for</u></strong></mark> the Colin Powell's <u><strong>"no-casualties-on-our-side" <mark>military doctrine. </mark>On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol</u></strong>... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, <u><strong>the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight…)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance</u></strong>, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. Is this not the attitude of the hedonistic Last Man? Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. (This is also Last Man's revolution — "revolution without revolution.") Is this not one of the two versions of Lacan's anti-Dostoyevski motto "If God doesn't exist, everything is prohibited"? (1) God is dead, we live in a permissive universe, you should strive for pleasures and happiness — but, in order to have a life full of happiness and pleasures, you should avoid dangerous excesses, so everything is prohibited if it is not deprived of its substance; (2) If God is dead, superego enjoins you to enjoy, but every determinate enjoyment is already a betrayal of the unconditional one, so it should be prohibited. The nutritive version of this is to enjoy directly the Thing Itself: why bother with coffee? Inject caffeine directly into your blood! Why bother with sensual perceptions and excitations by external reality? Take drugs which directly affect your brain! - And if there is God, then everything is permitted — to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the instruments of His will; clearly, a direct link to God justifies our violation of any "merely human" constraints and considerations (as in Stalinism, where the reference to the big Other of historical Necessity justifies absolute ruthlessness). <u><strong><mark>Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint</mark> — it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine</u></strong>. The ultimate example of it is arguably a chocolate laxative, available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!", i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. Do we not find here a weird version of Wagner's famous "Only the spear which caused the wound can heal it" from Parsifal? And is not a negative proof of the <u><strong>hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking…) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." <mark>Solutions</mark> are here desperately sought which would <mark>reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative</mark>.</u></strong> The main contender is "safe sex" — a term which makes one appreciative of the truth of the old saying "Is having sex with a condom not like taking a shower with a raincoat on?". <u><strong>The ultimate goal would be here, along the lines of decaf coffee, to invent "opium without opium": <mark>no wonder marijuana is so popular among liberals who want to legalize it — it already IS a kind of "opium without opium."</mark> The structure</u></strong> of the "chocolate laxative," <u><strong>of <mark>a product containing the agent of its own containment</mark>, can be discerned throughout today's ideological landscape.</u></strong> There are two topics which determine today's liberal tolerant attitude towards Others: the respect of Otherness, openness towards it, AND the obsessive fear of harassment — in short, <u><strong>the <mark>Other is OK insofar as its presence is not intrusive</mark>, insofar as the Other is not really Other… A similar structure is clearly <mark>present in</mark> how we relate <mark>to capitalist profiteering: it is OK IF it is counteracted with charitable activities —</mark> first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy… And <mark>the same goes for war</mark>, for the emergent logic of humanitarian or pacifist militarism: <mark>war is OK insofar as it really serves to bring about peace, democracy</mark>, or to create conditions for distributing humanitarian help.</u></strong> And does the same not hold more and more even <u><strong>for democracy: it is OK if <mark>it is "rethought" to include </mark>torture and <mark>a permanent emergency state, if it is cleansed of</mark> its populist <mark>"excess</mark>es," and if the people are "mature" enough to live by it… However, what we were describing what cannot but appear as two opposite ideological spaces: that of the reduction of humans to bare life, to homo sacer as the dispensable object of the expert caretaking knowledge; and that of the respect for the vulnerable Other brought to extreme, of the attitude of narcissistic subjectivity which experiences itself as vulnerable, constantly exposed to a multitude of potential "harassments." Is there a stronger contrast than the one between the respect for the Other's vulnerability and the reduction of the Other to "mere life" regulated by the administrative knowledge?</u></strong> But what if <u><strong><mark>these</mark> two</u></strong> stances nonetheless <u><strong><mark>rely on the same root,</u></strong></mark> what if they are the two aspects of one and the same underlying attitude, what if they coincide in what one is tempted <u><strong>to designate as the contemporary case of the Hegelian "infinite judgement" which asserts the identity of opposites</u></strong>? What the two poles share is precisely the underlying refusal of any higher Causes, the notion that the <u><strong><mark>ultimate goal of our lives is life itself</mark>.</u></strong> Nowhere is the complicity of these two levels clearer as in the case of the opposition to death penalty — no wonder, since (violently putting another human being to) <u><strong>death is, quite logically, the ultimate traumatic point of biopolitics, the politics of the administration of life.</u></strong> To put it in Foucauldian terms, is the abolition of death penalty not part of a certain "biopolitics" which considers crime as the result of social, psychological, ideological, etc., circumstances: <u><strong><mark>the notion of the</mark> morally/<mark>legally responsible subject is an ideological fiction whose function is to cover up the network of power relations, </mark>individuals are not responsible for the crimes they commit, so they should not be punished? Is, however, the obverse of this thesis not that those who control the circumstances control the people? <mark>No wonder the two strongest industrial complexes are today the military and the medical, that of destroying and that of prolonging life</mark>.</u></strong> Superego is thus not directly S2; it is rather the S1 of the S2 itself, <u><strong>the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself. Recall the informations about health we are bombarded with all the time: "Smoking is dangerous! To much fat may cause a heart attack! Regular exercise leads to a longer life!" etc.etc. — it is impossible not to hear beneath it the unconditional injunction "You should enjoy a long and healthy life!"… What this means is that <mark>the discourse of the University</mark> is thoroughly <mark>mystifying</mark>, concealing its <mark>true foundation, obfuscating the unfreedom on which it relies.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Ballot initiatives=Key, plan removes them

Engaging young voters with promises of legalizing marijuana may be the ticket to keep Senate Majority Leader Reid in his post through this election cycle according to a new Brookings Institution study In Colorado, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%) reads the study entitled ‘Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep The Senate Blue’ in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama. The president won about 56% statewide Reid is a supporter of medicinal marijuana The study cited the competitive Alaska Senate race where Begich is fighting for a second term against Republican former state attorney general Dan Sullivan while midterm elections generally favor Republican candidates, Alaska’s electoral ballot will also include an initiative to legalize marijuana Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection,” the study said. Oregon will also vote for pot legalization this November )egardless of the outcomes, the presence of those initiatives will likely drive younger and more liberal voters to the polls

Engaging young voters with promises of legalizing marijuana may be the ticket to keep Reid in his post In Colorado at a rate of 68 How Legalization Could Keep The Senate Blue’. Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate egardless of the outcomes, the presence of those initiatives will likely drive younger and more liberal voters to the polls

Engaging young voters with promises of legalizing marijuana may be the ticket to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his post through this election cycle, according to a new Brookings Institution study. “In Colorado, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%),” reads the study, entitled ‘Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep The Senate Blue’. “Similarly, in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama. The president won about 56% statewide.” Reid is a supporter of medicinal marijuana. The study cited the competitive Alaska Senate race, where incumbent Sen. Mark Begich (D) is fighting for a second term against Republican former state attorney general Dan Sullivan. And while midterm elections generally favor Republican candidates, Alaska’s electoral ballot will also include an initiative to legalize marijuana. Alaska, if approved, would join Washington State and Colorado as U.S. states that have legalized marijuana. “Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection,” the study said. Oregon will also vote for pot legalization this November. “(R)egardless of the outcomes, the presence of those initiatives will likely drive younger and more liberal voters to the polls,” the study reads, “However, legalization supporters would be wise to wait until 2016 and capitalize on a dual effect. A presidential election year will bring out voters more sympathetic to legalization, and legalization will bring out even more young, liberal voters than normal.”

<h4>Ballot initiatives=Key, plan removes them</h4><p><strong>TRNS, 14</strong> TRNS=Talk Radio News Service, “Brookings: Harry Reid Should Support Pot Legalization to Keep Leadership Post,” 8/25, http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2014/08/25/brookings-harry-reid-support-pot-legalization-keep-leadership-post.html#.U_zy1vldXeZ, ALB</p><p><u><strong><mark>Engaging young voters with promises of legalizing marijuana</u></strong> <u><strong>may be the ticket</mark> <mark>to keep</mark> Senate Majority Leader</u></strong> Harry <u><strong><mark>Reid in his post</mark> through this election cycle</u></strong>, <u><strong>according to a new Brookings Institution study</u></strong>. “<u><strong><mark>In Colorado</mark>, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64</u></strong> (marijuana legalization) <u><strong>voted for President Obama <mark>at a rate of 68</mark>%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%)</u></strong>,” <u><strong>reads the study</u></strong>, <u><strong>entitled ‘Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: <mark>How Legalization Could Keep The Senate Blue’</u></strong>.</mark> “Similarly, <u><strong>in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama.</u></strong> <u><strong>The president won about 56% statewide</u></strong>.” <u><strong>Reid is a supporter of medicinal marijuana</u></strong>. <u><strong>The study cited the competitive Alaska Senate race</u></strong>, <u><strong>where</u></strong> incumbent Sen. Mark <u><strong>Begich</u></strong> (D) <u><strong>is fighting for a second term against Republican former state attorney general Dan Sullivan</u></strong>. And <u><strong>while midterm elections generally favor Republican candidates, Alaska’s electoral ballot will also include an initiative to legalize marijuana</u></strong>. Alaska, if approved, would join Washington State and Colorado as U.S. states that have legalized marijuana. “<u><strong><mark>Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically</mark> <mark>changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate</mark> in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection,” the study said. Oregon will also vote for pot legalization this November</u></strong>. “(R<u><strong>)<mark>egardless of the outcomes, the presence of those initiatives will likely drive younger and more liberal voters to the polls</u></strong></mark>,” the study reads, “However, legalization supporters would be wise to wait until 2016 and capitalize on a dual effect. A presidential election year will bring out voters more sympathetic to legalization, and legalization will bring out even more young, liberal voters than normal.”</p>

TRNS, 14 TRNS=Talk Radio News Service, “Brookings: Harry Reid Should Support Pot Legalization to Keep Leadership Post,” 8/25, http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2014/08/25/brookings-harry-reid-support-pot-legalization-keep-leadership-post.html#.U_zy1vldXeZ, ALB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: TRNS, 14 TRNS=Talk Radio News Service, “Brookings: Harry Reid Should Support Pot Legalization to Keep Leadership Post,” 8/25, http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2014/08/25/brookings-harry-reid-support-pot-legalization-keep-leadership-post.html#.U_zy1vldXeZ, ALB fulltext: Engaging young voters with promises of legalizing marijuana may be the ticket to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his post through this election cycle, according to a new Brookings Institution study. “In Colorado, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization) voted for President Obama at a rate of 68%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%),” reads the study, entitled ‘Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization Could Keep The Senate Blue’. “Similarly, in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama. The president won about 56% statewide.” Reid is a supporter of medicinal marijuana. The study cited the competitive Alaska Senate race, where incumbent Sen. Mark Begich (D) is fighting for a second term against Republican former state attorney general Dan Sullivan. And while midterm elections generally favor Republican candidates, Alaska’s electoral ballot will also include an initiative to legalize marijuana. Alaska, if approved, would join Washington State and Colorado as U.S. states that have legalized marijuana. “Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection,” the study said. Oregon will also vote for pot legalization this November. “(R)egardless of the outcomes, the presence of those initiatives will likely drive younger and more liberal voters to the polls,” the study reads, “However, legalization supporters would be wise to wait until 2016 and capitalize on a dual effect. A presidential election year will bring out voters more sympathetic to legalization, and legalization will bring out even more young, liberal voters than normal.” [/INST] <h4>Ballot initiatives=Key, plan removes them</h4><p><strong>TRNS, 14</strong> TRNS=Talk Radio News Service, “Brookings: Harry Reid Should Support Pot Legalization to Keep Leadership Post,” 8/25, http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2014/08/25/brookings-harry-reid-support-pot-legalization-keep-leadership-post.html#.U_zy1vldXeZ, ALB</p><p><u><strong><mark>Engaging young voters with promises of legalizing marijuana</u></strong> <u><strong>may be the ticket</mark> <mark>to keep</mark> Senate Majority Leader</u></strong> Harry <u><strong><mark>Reid in his post</mark> through this election cycle</u></strong>, <u><strong>according to a new Brookings Institution study</u></strong>. “<u><strong><mark>In Colorado</mark>, those who voted in favor of Amendment 64</u></strong> (marijuana legalization) <u><strong>voted for President Obama <mark>at a rate of 68</mark>%—far above his support among all Colorado voters (51%)</u></strong>,” <u><strong>reads the study</u></strong>, <u><strong>entitled ‘Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: <mark>How Legalization Could Keep The Senate Blue’</u></strong>.</mark> “Similarly, <u><strong>in Washington, among those who voted in favor of Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization), 72% also voted for President Obama.</u></strong> <u><strong>The president won about 56% statewide</u></strong>.” <u><strong>Reid is a supporter of medicinal marijuana</u></strong>. <u><strong>The study cited the competitive Alaska Senate race</u></strong>, <u><strong>where</u></strong> incumbent Sen. Mark <u><strong>Begich</u></strong> (D) <u><strong>is fighting for a second term against Republican former state attorney general Dan Sullivan</u></strong>. And <u><strong>while midterm elections generally favor Republican candidates, Alaska’s electoral ballot will also include an initiative to legalize marijuana</u></strong>. Alaska, if approved, would join Washington State and Colorado as U.S. states that have legalized marijuana. “<u><strong><mark>Marijuana legalization could change that by dramatically</mark> <mark>changing the character and nature of the midterm electorate</mark> in Alaska, and helping Sen. Begich win reelection,” the study said. Oregon will also vote for pot legalization this November</u></strong>. “(R<u><strong>)<mark>egardless of the outcomes, the presence of those initiatives will likely drive younger and more liberal voters to the polls</u></strong></mark>,” the study reads, “However, legalization supporters would be wise to wait until 2016 and capitalize on a dual effect. A presidential election year will bring out voters more sympathetic to legalization, and legalization will bring out even more young, liberal voters than normal.”</p> </s>

The United States should cease its public and diplomatic opposition to the initiation of WTO-authorized suspension of Antigua’s obligations towards the United States under the TRIPS Agreement, and encourage Antigua to proceed with such suspension so long as legally authorized.

<h4>The United States should cease its public and diplomatic opposition to the initiation of WTO-authorized suspension of Antigua’s obligations towards the United States under the TRIPS Agreement, and encourage Antigua to proceed with such suspension so long as legally authorized. </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>The United States should cease its public and diplomatic opposition to the initiation of WTO-authorized suspension of Antigua’s obligations towards the United States under the TRIPS Agreement, and encourage Antigua to proceed with such suspension so long as legally authorized. </h4> </s>

Should means immediate

The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar; it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals The actual meaning intended by the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the phrase to be interpreted is used the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution should" is synonymous with ought or must and is in itself sufficient to effect an inpraesenti ruling - one that is couched in "a present indicative synonymous with ought." In praesenti means literally "at the present time." the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that would become effective in the future

The legal question to be resolved is whether the word "should connotes futurity or in praesenti The answer is not from grammar it must be governed by legal professionals The actual meaning should be derived from context the judge intended ruling as in praesenti resolution should" is synonymous must and is sufficient to effect an inpraesenti ruling - one that is couched in "a present indicative synonymous with ought." In praesenti means "at the present time." the phrase denotes law is immediately effective, as opposed to something that would become effective in the future

(Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14) The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. The actual meaning intended by the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the phrase to be interpreted is used.18 When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. IV CONCLUSION Nisi prius judgments and orders should be construed in a manner which gives effect and meaning to the complete substance of the memorial. When a judge-signed direction is capable of two interpretations, one of which would make it a valid part of the record proper and the other would render it a meaningless exercise in futility, the adoption of the former interpretation is this court's due. A rule - that on direct appeal views as fatal to the order's efficacy the mere omission from the journal entry of a long and customarily implied phrase, i.e., "and the same hereby is" - is soon likely to drift into the body of principles which govern the facial validity of judgments. This development would make judicial acts acutely vulnerable to collateral attack for the most trivial of reasons and tend to undermine the stability of titles or other adjudicated rights. It is obvious the trial judge intended his May 18 memorial to be an in praesenti order overruling Dollarsaver's motion for judgment n.o.v. It is hence that memorial, and not the later June 2 entry, which triggered appeal time in this case. Because the petition. in error was not filed within 30 days of May 18, the appeal is untimely. I would hence sustain the appellee's motion to dismiss.21 Footnotes: 1 The pertinent terms of the memorial of May 18, 1993 are: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA COURT MINUTE 5/18/93 No. C-91-223 After having heard and considered arguments of counsel in support of and in opposition to the motions of the Defendant for judgment N.O.V. and a new trial, the Court finds that the motions should be overruled. Approved as to form: /s/ Ken Rainbolt /s/ Austin R. Deaton, Jr. /s/ Don Michael Haggerty /s/ Rocky L. Powers Judge 2 The turgid phrase - "should be and the same hereby is" - is a tautological absurdity. This is so because "should" is synonymous with ought or must and is in itself sufficient to effect an inpraesenti ruling - one that is couched in "a present indicative synonymous with ought." See infra note 15. 3 Carter v. Carter, Okl., 783 P.2d 969, 970 (1989); Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., Okl., 681 P.2d 757, 759 (1984); Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, Okl., 655 P.2d 1040, 1043 (1983); Knell v. Burnes, Okl., 645 P.2d 471, 473 (1982); Prock v. District Court of Pittsburgh County, Okl., 630 P.2d 772, 775 (1981); Harry v. Hertzler, 185 Okl. 151, 90 P.2d 656, 659 (1939); Ginn v. Knight, 106 Okl. 4, 232 P. 936, 937 (1925). 4 "Recordable" means that by force of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 an instrument meeting that section's criteria must be entered on or "recorded" in the court's journal. The clerk may "enter" only that which is "on file." The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 are: "Upon the journal record required to be kept by the clerk of the district court in civil cases . . . shall be entered copies of the following instruments on file: 1. All items of process by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of each defendant in the case; and 2. All instruments filed in the case that bear the signature of the and judge and specify clearly the relief granted or order made." [Emphasis added.] 5 See 12 O.S. 1991 § 1116 which states in pertinent part: "Every direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment is an order." [Emphasis added.] 6 The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1993 § 696.3 , effective October 1, 1993, are: "A. Judgments, decrees and appealable orders that are filed with the clerk of the court shall contain: 1. A caption setting forth the name of the court, the names and designation of the parties, the file number of the case and the title of the instrument; 2. A statement of the disposition of the action, proceeding, or motion, including a statement of the relief awarded to a party or parties and the liabilities and obligations imposed on the other party or parties; 3. The signature and title of the court; . . ." 7 The court holds that the May 18 memorial's recital that "the Court finds that the motions should be overruled" is a "finding" and not a ruling. In its pure form, a finding is generally not effective as an order or judgment. See, e.g., Tillman v. Tillman, 199 Okl. 130, 184 P.2d 784 (1947), cited in the court's opinion. 8 When ruling upon a motion for judgment n.o.v. the court must take into account all the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant. If the court should conclude the motion is sustainable, it must hold, as a matter of law, that there is an entire absence of proof tending to show a right to recover. See Austin v. Wilkerson, Inc., Okl., 519 P.2d 899, 903 (1974). 9 See Bullard v. Grisham Const. Co., Okl., 660 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1983), where this court reviewed a trial judge's "findings of fact", perceived as a basis for his ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v. (in the face of a defendant's reliance on plaintiff's contributory negligence). These judicial findings were held impermissible as an invasion of the providence of the jury and proscribed by OKLA. CONST. ART, 23, § 6 . Id. at 1048. 10 Everyday courthouse parlance does not always distinguish between a judge's "finding", which denotes nisi prius resolution of fact issues, and "ruling" or "conclusion of law". The latter resolves disputed issues of law. In practice usage members of the bench and bar often confuse what the judge "finds" with what that official "concludes", i.e., resolves as a legal matter. 11 See Fowler v. Thomsen, 68 Neb. 578, 94 N.W. 810, 811-12 (1903), where the court determined a ruling that "[1] find from the bill of particulars that there is due the plaintiff the sum of . . ." was a judgment and not a finding. In reaching its conclusion the court reasoned that "[e]ffect must be given to the entire in the docket according to the manifest intention of the justice in making them." Id., 94 N.W. at 811. 12 When the language of a judgment is susceptible of two interpretations, that which makes it correct and valid is preferred to one that would render it erroneous. Hale v. Independent Powder Co., 46 Okl. 135, 148 P. 715, 716 (1915); Sharp v. McColm, 79 Kan. 772, 101 P. 659, 662 (1909); Clay v. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 9 P. 466, 470 (1886); see also 1 A.C. FREEMAN LAW OF JUDGMENTS § 76 (5th ed. 1925). 13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).

<h4>Should means immediate</h4><p><strong>Summer 94 </p><p></strong>(Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14)</p><p><u><strong><mark>The legal question to be resolved</mark> by the court <mark>is whether the word "should</mark>"13 in the May 18 order <mark>connotes futurity or </mark>may be deemed a ruling <mark>in praesenti</mark>.14 <mark>The answer </mark>to this query <mark>is not</mark> to be divined <mark>from</mark> rules of <mark>grammar</mark>;</u></strong>15<u><strong> <mark>it</mark> <mark>must be governed by</mark> the age-old practice culture of <mark>legal professionals</mark> </u></strong>and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. <u><strong><mark>The actual meaning</mark> intended by the document's signatory <mark>should be derived from</mark> the <mark>context</mark> in which the phrase to be interpreted is used</u></strong>.18 When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that <u><strong><mark>the judge </mark>doubtless <mark>intended</mark> his <mark>ruling as</mark> an <mark>in praesenti resolution</mark> </u></strong>of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. IV CONCLUSION Nisi prius judgments and orders should be construed in a manner which gives effect and meaning to the complete substance of the memorial. When a judge-signed direction is capable of two interpretations, one of which would make it a valid part of the record proper and the other would render it a meaningless exercise in futility, the adoption of the former interpretation is this court's due. A rule - that on direct appeal views as fatal to the order's efficacy the mere omission from the journal entry of a long and customarily implied phrase, i.e., "and the same hereby is" - is soon likely to drift into the body of principles which govern the facial validity of judgments. This development would make judicial acts acutely vulnerable to collateral attack for the most trivial of reasons and tend to undermine the stability of titles or other adjudicated rights. It is obvious the trial judge intended his May 18 memorial to be an in praesenti order overruling Dollarsaver's motion for judgment n.o.v. It is hence that memorial, and not the later June 2 entry, which triggered appeal time in this case. Because the petition. in error was not filed within 30 days of May 18, the appeal is untimely. I would hence sustain the appellee's motion to dismiss.21 Footnotes: 1 The pertinent terms of the memorial of May 18, 1993 are: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA COURT MINUTE 5/18/93 No. C-91-223 After having heard and considered arguments of counsel in support of and in opposition to the motions of the Defendant for judgment N.O.V. and a new trial, the Court finds that the motions should be overruled. Approved as to form: /s/ Ken Rainbolt /s/ Austin R. Deaton, Jr. /s/ Don Michael Haggerty /s/ Rocky L. Powers Judge 2 The turgid phrase - "should be and the same hereby is" - is a tautological absurdity. This is so because "<u><strong><mark>should" is synonymous </mark>with ought or <mark>must and is </mark>in itself <mark>sufficient to effect an inpraesenti ruling - one that is couched in "a present indicative synonymous with ought."</u></strong></mark> See infra note 15. 3 Carter v. Carter, Okl., 783 P.2d 969, 970 (1989); Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., Okl., 681 P.2d 757, 759 (1984); Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, Okl., 655 P.2d 1040, 1043 (1983); Knell v. Burnes, Okl., 645 P.2d 471, 473 (1982); Prock v. District Court of Pittsburgh County, Okl., 630 P.2d 772, 775 (1981); Harry v. Hertzler, 185 Okl. 151, 90 P.2d 656, 659 (1939); Ginn v. Knight, 106 Okl. 4, 232 P. 936, 937 (1925). 4 "Recordable" means that by force of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 an instrument meeting that section's criteria must be entered on or "recorded" in the court's journal. The clerk may "enter" only that which is "on file." The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 are: "Upon the journal record required to be kept by the clerk of the district court in civil cases . . . shall be entered copies of the following instruments on file: 1. All items of process by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of each defendant in the case; and 2. All instruments filed in the case that bear the signature of the and judge and specify clearly the relief granted or order made." [Emphasis added.] 5 See 12 O.S. 1991 § 1116 which states in pertinent part: "Every direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment is an order." [Emphasis added.] 6 The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1993 § 696.3 , effective October 1, 1993, are: "A. Judgments, decrees and appealable orders that are filed with the clerk of the court shall contain: 1. A caption setting forth the name of the court, the names and designation of the parties, the file number of the case and the title of the instrument; 2. A statement of the disposition of the action, proceeding, or motion, including a statement of the relief awarded to a party or parties and the liabilities and obligations imposed on the other party or parties; 3. The signature and title of the court; . . ." 7 The court holds that the May 18 memorial's recital that "the Court finds that the motions should be overruled" is a "finding" and not a ruling. In its pure form, a finding is generally not effective as an order or judgment. See, e.g., Tillman v. Tillman, 199 Okl. 130, 184 P.2d 784 (1947), cited in the court's opinion. 8 When ruling upon a motion for judgment n.o.v. the court must take into account all the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant. If the court should conclude the motion is sustainable, it must hold, as a matter of law, that there is an entire absence of proof tending to show a right to recover. See Austin v. Wilkerson, Inc., Okl., 519 P.2d 899, 903 (1974). 9 See Bullard v. Grisham Const. Co., Okl., 660 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1983), where this court reviewed a trial judge's "findings of fact", perceived as a basis for his ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v. (in the face of a defendant's reliance on plaintiff's contributory negligence). These judicial findings were held impermissible as an invasion of the providence of the jury and proscribed by OKLA. CONST. ART, 23, § 6 . Id. at 1048. 10 Everyday courthouse parlance does not always distinguish between a judge's "finding", which denotes nisi prius resolution of fact issues, and "ruling" or "conclusion of law". The latter resolves disputed issues of law. In practice usage members of the bench and bar often confuse what the judge "finds" with what that official "concludes", i.e., resolves as a legal matter. 11 See Fowler v. Thomsen, 68 Neb. 578, 94 N.W. 810, 811-12 (1903), where the court determined a ruling that "[1] find from the bill of particulars that there is due the plaintiff the sum of . . ." was a judgment and not a finding. In reaching its conclusion the court reasoned that "[e]ffect must be given to the entire in the docket according to the manifest intention of the justice in making them." Id., 94 N.W. at 811. 12 When the language of a judgment is susceptible of two interpretations, that which makes it correct and valid is preferred to one that would render it erroneous. Hale v. Independent Powder Co., 46 Okl. 135, 148 P. 715, 716 (1915); Sharp v. McColm, 79 Kan. 772, 101 P. 659, 662 (1909); Clay v. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 9 P. 466, 470 (1886); see also 1 A.C. FREEMAN LAW OF JUDGMENTS § 76 (5th ed. 1925). 13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 <u><strong><mark>In praesenti means </mark>literally <mark>"at the present time."</mark> </u></strong>BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance<u><strong> <mark>the phrase denotes </mark>that which in <mark>law is </mark>presently or <mark>immediately effective, as opposed to something that </u></strong></mark>will or<u><strong> <mark>would become effective in the future</u></strong></mark> [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882). </p>

Summer 94

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Summer 94 fulltext: (Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14) The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. The actual meaning intended by the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the phrase to be interpreted is used.18 When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. IV CONCLUSION Nisi prius judgments and orders should be construed in a manner which gives effect and meaning to the complete substance of the memorial. When a judge-signed direction is capable of two interpretations, one of which would make it a valid part of the record proper and the other would render it a meaningless exercise in futility, the adoption of the former interpretation is this court's due. A rule - that on direct appeal views as fatal to the order's efficacy the mere omission from the journal entry of a long and customarily implied phrase, i.e., "and the same hereby is" - is soon likely to drift into the body of principles which govern the facial validity of judgments. This development would make judicial acts acutely vulnerable to collateral attack for the most trivial of reasons and tend to undermine the stability of titles or other adjudicated rights. It is obvious the trial judge intended his May 18 memorial to be an in praesenti order overruling Dollarsaver's motion for judgment n.o.v. It is hence that memorial, and not the later June 2 entry, which triggered appeal time in this case. Because the petition. in error was not filed within 30 days of May 18, the appeal is untimely. I would hence sustain the appellee's motion to dismiss.21 Footnotes: 1 The pertinent terms of the memorial of May 18, 1993 are: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA COURT MINUTE 5/18/93 No. C-91-223 After having heard and considered arguments of counsel in support of and in opposition to the motions of the Defendant for judgment N.O.V. and a new trial, the Court finds that the motions should be overruled. Approved as to form: /s/ Ken Rainbolt /s/ Austin R. Deaton, Jr. /s/ Don Michael Haggerty /s/ Rocky L. Powers Judge 2 The turgid phrase - "should be and the same hereby is" - is a tautological absurdity. This is so because "should" is synonymous with ought or must and is in itself sufficient to effect an inpraesenti ruling - one that is couched in "a present indicative synonymous with ought." See infra note 15. 3 Carter v. Carter, Okl., 783 P.2d 969, 970 (1989); Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., Okl., 681 P.2d 757, 759 (1984); Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, Okl., 655 P.2d 1040, 1043 (1983); Knell v. Burnes, Okl., 645 P.2d 471, 473 (1982); Prock v. District Court of Pittsburgh County, Okl., 630 P.2d 772, 775 (1981); Harry v. Hertzler, 185 Okl. 151, 90 P.2d 656, 659 (1939); Ginn v. Knight, 106 Okl. 4, 232 P. 936, 937 (1925). 4 "Recordable" means that by force of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 an instrument meeting that section's criteria must be entered on or "recorded" in the court's journal. The clerk may "enter" only that which is "on file." The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 are: "Upon the journal record required to be kept by the clerk of the district court in civil cases . . . shall be entered copies of the following instruments on file: 1. All items of process by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of each defendant in the case; and 2. All instruments filed in the case that bear the signature of the and judge and specify clearly the relief granted or order made." [Emphasis added.] 5 See 12 O.S. 1991 § 1116 which states in pertinent part: "Every direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment is an order." [Emphasis added.] 6 The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1993 § 696.3 , effective October 1, 1993, are: "A. Judgments, decrees and appealable orders that are filed with the clerk of the court shall contain: 1. A caption setting forth the name of the court, the names and designation of the parties, the file number of the case and the title of the instrument; 2. A statement of the disposition of the action, proceeding, or motion, including a statement of the relief awarded to a party or parties and the liabilities and obligations imposed on the other party or parties; 3. The signature and title of the court; . . ." 7 The court holds that the May 18 memorial's recital that "the Court finds that the motions should be overruled" is a "finding" and not a ruling. In its pure form, a finding is generally not effective as an order or judgment. See, e.g., Tillman v. Tillman, 199 Okl. 130, 184 P.2d 784 (1947), cited in the court's opinion. 8 When ruling upon a motion for judgment n.o.v. the court must take into account all the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant. If the court should conclude the motion is sustainable, it must hold, as a matter of law, that there is an entire absence of proof tending to show a right to recover. See Austin v. Wilkerson, Inc., Okl., 519 P.2d 899, 903 (1974). 9 See Bullard v. Grisham Const. Co., Okl., 660 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1983), where this court reviewed a trial judge's "findings of fact", perceived as a basis for his ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v. (in the face of a defendant's reliance on plaintiff's contributory negligence). These judicial findings were held impermissible as an invasion of the providence of the jury and proscribed by OKLA. CONST. ART, 23, § 6 . Id. at 1048. 10 Everyday courthouse parlance does not always distinguish between a judge's "finding", which denotes nisi prius resolution of fact issues, and "ruling" or "conclusion of law". The latter resolves disputed issues of law. In practice usage members of the bench and bar often confuse what the judge "finds" with what that official "concludes", i.e., resolves as a legal matter. 11 See Fowler v. Thomsen, 68 Neb. 578, 94 N.W. 810, 811-12 (1903), where the court determined a ruling that "[1] find from the bill of particulars that there is due the plaintiff the sum of . . ." was a judgment and not a finding. In reaching its conclusion the court reasoned that "[e]ffect must be given to the entire in the docket according to the manifest intention of the justice in making them." Id., 94 N.W. at 811. 12 When the language of a judgment is susceptible of two interpretations, that which makes it correct and valid is preferred to one that would render it erroneous. Hale v. Independent Powder Co., 46 Okl. 135, 148 P. 715, 716 (1915); Sharp v. McColm, 79 Kan. 772, 101 P. 659, 662 (1909); Clay v. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 9 P. 466, 470 (1886); see also 1 A.C. FREEMAN LAW OF JUDGMENTS § 76 (5th ed. 1925). 13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882). [/INST] <h4>Should means immediate</h4><p><strong>Summer 94 </p><p></strong>(Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14)</p><p><u><strong><mark>The legal question to be resolved</mark> by the court <mark>is whether the word "should</mark>"13 in the May 18 order <mark>connotes futurity or </mark>may be deemed a ruling <mark>in praesenti</mark>.14 <mark>The answer </mark>to this query <mark>is not</mark> to be divined <mark>from</mark> rules of <mark>grammar</mark>;</u></strong>15<u><strong> <mark>it</mark> <mark>must be governed by</mark> the age-old practice culture of <mark>legal professionals</mark> </u></strong>and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. <u><strong><mark>The actual meaning</mark> intended by the document's signatory <mark>should be derived from</mark> the <mark>context</mark> in which the phrase to be interpreted is used</u></strong>.18 When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that <u><strong><mark>the judge </mark>doubtless <mark>intended</mark> his <mark>ruling as</mark> an <mark>in praesenti resolution</mark> </u></strong>of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. IV CONCLUSION Nisi prius judgments and orders should be construed in a manner which gives effect and meaning to the complete substance of the memorial. When a judge-signed direction is capable of two interpretations, one of which would make it a valid part of the record proper and the other would render it a meaningless exercise in futility, the adoption of the former interpretation is this court's due. A rule - that on direct appeal views as fatal to the order's efficacy the mere omission from the journal entry of a long and customarily implied phrase, i.e., "and the same hereby is" - is soon likely to drift into the body of principles which govern the facial validity of judgments. This development would make judicial acts acutely vulnerable to collateral attack for the most trivial of reasons and tend to undermine the stability of titles or other adjudicated rights. It is obvious the trial judge intended his May 18 memorial to be an in praesenti order overruling Dollarsaver's motion for judgment n.o.v. It is hence that memorial, and not the later June 2 entry, which triggered appeal time in this case. Because the petition. in error was not filed within 30 days of May 18, the appeal is untimely. I would hence sustain the appellee's motion to dismiss.21 Footnotes: 1 The pertinent terms of the memorial of May 18, 1993 are: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA COURT MINUTE 5/18/93 No. C-91-223 After having heard and considered arguments of counsel in support of and in opposition to the motions of the Defendant for judgment N.O.V. and a new trial, the Court finds that the motions should be overruled. Approved as to form: /s/ Ken Rainbolt /s/ Austin R. Deaton, Jr. /s/ Don Michael Haggerty /s/ Rocky L. Powers Judge 2 The turgid phrase - "should be and the same hereby is" - is a tautological absurdity. This is so because "<u><strong><mark>should" is synonymous </mark>with ought or <mark>must and is </mark>in itself <mark>sufficient to effect an inpraesenti ruling - one that is couched in "a present indicative synonymous with ought."</u></strong></mark> See infra note 15. 3 Carter v. Carter, Okl., 783 P.2d 969, 970 (1989); Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., Okl., 681 P.2d 757, 759 (1984); Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, Okl., 655 P.2d 1040, 1043 (1983); Knell v. Burnes, Okl., 645 P.2d 471, 473 (1982); Prock v. District Court of Pittsburgh County, Okl., 630 P.2d 772, 775 (1981); Harry v. Hertzler, 185 Okl. 151, 90 P.2d 656, 659 (1939); Ginn v. Knight, 106 Okl. 4, 232 P. 936, 937 (1925). 4 "Recordable" means that by force of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 an instrument meeting that section's criteria must be entered on or "recorded" in the court's journal. The clerk may "enter" only that which is "on file." The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1991 § 24 are: "Upon the journal record required to be kept by the clerk of the district court in civil cases . . . shall be entered copies of the following instruments on file: 1. All items of process by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of each defendant in the case; and 2. All instruments filed in the case that bear the signature of the and judge and specify clearly the relief granted or order made." [Emphasis added.] 5 See 12 O.S. 1991 § 1116 which states in pertinent part: "Every direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment is an order." [Emphasis added.] 6 The pertinent terms of 12 O.S. 1993 § 696.3 , effective October 1, 1993, are: "A. Judgments, decrees and appealable orders that are filed with the clerk of the court shall contain: 1. A caption setting forth the name of the court, the names and designation of the parties, the file number of the case and the title of the instrument; 2. A statement of the disposition of the action, proceeding, or motion, including a statement of the relief awarded to a party or parties and the liabilities and obligations imposed on the other party or parties; 3. The signature and title of the court; . . ." 7 The court holds that the May 18 memorial's recital that "the Court finds that the motions should be overruled" is a "finding" and not a ruling. In its pure form, a finding is generally not effective as an order or judgment. See, e.g., Tillman v. Tillman, 199 Okl. 130, 184 P.2d 784 (1947), cited in the court's opinion. 8 When ruling upon a motion for judgment n.o.v. the court must take into account all the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant. If the court should conclude the motion is sustainable, it must hold, as a matter of law, that there is an entire absence of proof tending to show a right to recover. See Austin v. Wilkerson, Inc., Okl., 519 P.2d 899, 903 (1974). 9 See Bullard v. Grisham Const. Co., Okl., 660 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1983), where this court reviewed a trial judge's "findings of fact", perceived as a basis for his ruling on a motion for judgment n.o.v. (in the face of a defendant's reliance on plaintiff's contributory negligence). These judicial findings were held impermissible as an invasion of the providence of the jury and proscribed by OKLA. CONST. ART, 23, § 6 . Id. at 1048. 10 Everyday courthouse parlance does not always distinguish between a judge's "finding", which denotes nisi prius resolution of fact issues, and "ruling" or "conclusion of law". The latter resolves disputed issues of law. In practice usage members of the bench and bar often confuse what the judge "finds" with what that official "concludes", i.e., resolves as a legal matter. 11 See Fowler v. Thomsen, 68 Neb. 578, 94 N.W. 810, 811-12 (1903), where the court determined a ruling that "[1] find from the bill of particulars that there is due the plaintiff the sum of . . ." was a judgment and not a finding. In reaching its conclusion the court reasoned that "[e]ffect must be given to the entire in the docket according to the manifest intention of the justice in making them." Id., 94 N.W. at 811. 12 When the language of a judgment is susceptible of two interpretations, that which makes it correct and valid is preferred to one that would render it erroneous. Hale v. Independent Powder Co., 46 Okl. 135, 148 P. 715, 716 (1915); Sharp v. McColm, 79 Kan. 772, 101 P. 659, 662 (1909); Clay v. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 9 P. 466, 470 (1886); see also 1 A.C. FREEMAN LAW OF JUDGMENTS § 76 (5th ed. 1925). 13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 <u><strong><mark>In praesenti means </mark>literally <mark>"at the present time."</mark> </u></strong>BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance<u><strong> <mark>the phrase denotes </mark>that which in <mark>law is </mark>presently or <mark>immediately effective, as opposed to something that </u></strong></mark>will or<u><strong> <mark>would become effective in the future</u></strong></mark> [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882). </p> </s>

Deforestation leads to zoonotic disease

changes that result in deforestation impact the emergence of viral zoonoses extreme landscape changes contribute to deforestation and facilitate the emergence of zoonotic disease Deforestation facilitates contact between people and novel zoonotic viruses projects draw laborers and their families to extraction sites, resulting in increased population density and corresponding use of the forest itself. As people work and live in these degraded ecological systems, they may come into contact with novel zoonoses through direct contact such as hunting, butchering, and consumption of wildlife or through indirect contact thereby increasing the variety of zoonotic pathogens that can infect humans

deforestation facilitate the emergence of zoonotic disease Deforestation facilitates contact between people and viruses As people work in degraded ecological systems, they come into contact with zoonoses

(Sunit, “Viral Infections and Global Change,” Googlebook) Landscape changes that result in deforestation simultaneously impact climate change and the emergence of viral zoonoses. Healthy forests sequester atmospheric carbon on a global scale and stabilize temperature and rainfall patterns on a local scale (Patz and Olson, 2006). Large-scale development projects that result in extreme landscape changes, like mining and timber extraction in Central Africa, contribute to climate change through deforestation and facilitate the emergence of zoonotic disease (Daszak et al., 2000; Wolfe et al., 2005, 2007). Deforestation facilitates contact between people and novel zoonotic viruses. For example, large-scale natural resource projects draw laborers and their families to extraction sites, resulting in increased population density and corresponding use of the forest itself. As people work and live in these degraded ecological systems, they may come into contact with novel zoonoses through direct contact such as hunting, butchering, and consumption of wildlife (Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2005) or through indirect contact including ecological overlap of human livelihood spaces with wildlife habitat. Selective deforestation, whereby humans extract high-value timber, increases spatial fragmentation, thereby increasing the variety of zoonotic pathogens that can infect hunters and humans engaged in other activities (Wolfe et al., 2005).

<h4>Deforestation leads to zoonotic disease </h4><p><strong>Singh 13</strong> – PhD, Virologist working in the area of Emerging Viruses at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology</p><p>(Sunit, “Viral Infections and Global Change,” Googlebook)</p><p>Landscape <u>changes that result in deforestation</u> simultaneously <u>impact </u>climate change and<u> the emergence of viral zoonoses</u>. Healthy forests sequester atmospheric carbon on a global scale and stabilize temperature and rainfall patterns on a local scale (Patz and Olson, 2006). Large-scale development projects that result in <u>extreme landscape changes</u>, like mining and timber extraction in Central Africa, <u>contribute to </u>climate change through <u><mark>deforestation</mark> and <mark>facilitate the emergence of zoonotic disease</u></mark> (Daszak et al., 2000; Wolfe et al., 2005, 2007). <u><mark>Deforestation facilitates contact between people and </mark>novel zoonotic <mark>viruses</u></mark>. For example, large-scale natural resource <u>projects draw laborers and their families to extraction sites, resulting in increased population density and corresponding use of the forest itself. <mark>As people work</mark> and live <mark>in</mark> these <mark>degraded ecological systems, they</mark> may <mark>come into contact with </mark>novel <mark>zoonoses </mark>through direct contact such as hunting, butchering, and consumption of wildlife</u> (Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2005) <u>or through indirect contact</u> including ecological overlap of human livelihood spaces with wildlife habitat. Selective deforestation, whereby humans extract high-value timber, increases spatial fragmentation, <u>thereby increasing the variety of zoonotic pathogens that can infect</u> hunters and <u>humans</u> engaged in other activities (Wolfe et al., 2005).</p>

Singh 13 – PhD, Virologist working in the area of Emerging Viruses at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Singh 13 – PhD, Virologist working in the area of Emerging Viruses at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology fulltext: (Sunit, “Viral Infections and Global Change,” Googlebook) Landscape changes that result in deforestation simultaneously impact climate change and the emergence of viral zoonoses. Healthy forests sequester atmospheric carbon on a global scale and stabilize temperature and rainfall patterns on a local scale (Patz and Olson, 2006). Large-scale development projects that result in extreme landscape changes, like mining and timber extraction in Central Africa, contribute to climate change through deforestation and facilitate the emergence of zoonotic disease (Daszak et al., 2000; Wolfe et al., 2005, 2007). Deforestation facilitates contact between people and novel zoonotic viruses. For example, large-scale natural resource projects draw laborers and their families to extraction sites, resulting in increased population density and corresponding use of the forest itself. As people work and live in these degraded ecological systems, they may come into contact with novel zoonoses through direct contact such as hunting, butchering, and consumption of wildlife (Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2005) or through indirect contact including ecological overlap of human livelihood spaces with wildlife habitat. Selective deforestation, whereby humans extract high-value timber, increases spatial fragmentation, thereby increasing the variety of zoonotic pathogens that can infect hunters and humans engaged in other activities (Wolfe et al., 2005). [/INST] <h4>Deforestation leads to zoonotic disease </h4><p><strong>Singh 13</strong> – PhD, Virologist working in the area of Emerging Viruses at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology</p><p>(Sunit, “Viral Infections and Global Change,” Googlebook)</p><p>Landscape <u>changes that result in deforestation</u> simultaneously <u>impact </u>climate change and<u> the emergence of viral zoonoses</u>. Healthy forests sequester atmospheric carbon on a global scale and stabilize temperature and rainfall patterns on a local scale (Patz and Olson, 2006). Large-scale development projects that result in <u>extreme landscape changes</u>, like mining and timber extraction in Central Africa, <u>contribute to </u>climate change through <u><mark>deforestation</mark> and <mark>facilitate the emergence of zoonotic disease</u></mark> (Daszak et al., 2000; Wolfe et al., 2005, 2007). <u><mark>Deforestation facilitates contact between people and </mark>novel zoonotic <mark>viruses</u></mark>. For example, large-scale natural resource <u>projects draw laborers and their families to extraction sites, resulting in increased population density and corresponding use of the forest itself. <mark>As people work</mark> and live <mark>in</mark> these <mark>degraded ecological systems, they</mark> may <mark>come into contact with </mark>novel <mark>zoonoses </mark>through direct contact such as hunting, butchering, and consumption of wildlife</u> (Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2005) <u>or through indirect contact</u> including ecological overlap of human livelihood spaces with wildlife habitat. Selective deforestation, whereby humans extract high-value timber, increases spatial fragmentation, <u>thereby increasing the variety of zoonotic pathogens that can infect</u> hunters and <u>humans</u> engaged in other activities (Wolfe et al., 2005).</p> </s>

Their reps of cyber war cause serial policy failure

Not only does the nuclear deterrence analogy tend to lead its users to “exaggerate the destructive capacity of cyber weapons,” it also results in a tendency to focus on hypothetical worst cases while ignoring actual threats without the potential for decisiveness, the threat of cyber retaliation alone would likely have little deterrent value one would have to rely upon threats of physical retaliation to deter cyber attacks this could encourage an escalation to physical confrontation the threat of massive retaliation has not and will not deter the actual and pervasive “low–level” cyber attacks experienced on a daily basis U.S. capabilities for massive retaliation will likely encourage potential adversaries to constantly seek to pose challenges that fall below the threshold that would trigger massive retaliation a number of other differences between nuclear weapons and cyber weapons render the quest for cyber deterrence inappropriate at best and even potentially counterproductive. it is difficult to know who the attacker is because of online anonymity the “collateral damage” caused by cyber attacks can be unpredictable, which could reduce “the willingness of political leaders to incur the risk of a retaliatory response that goes awry, widening a conflict or creating unfavorable political consequences” language of deterrence and aggression with respect to cyber threats is counterproductive because it results in a self–fulfilling prophecy: actions taken by one state to increase its security can make others feel less secure, resulting in their taking similar actions, which confirms to the first state that it is insecure, and so on

users to “exaggerate the destructive capacity of cyber weapons it results in a tendency to focus on hypothetical worst cases while ignoring actual threats the threat of cyber retaliation would likely have little deterrent value to rely upon threats of cyber attacks could encourage escalation to confrontation the threat of retaliation will not deter actual cyber attacks capabilities for massive retaliation encourage adversaries to seek to pose challenges language of deterrence with respect to cyber threats is counterproductive because it results in a self–fulfilling prophecy actions taken by one state to increase security make others feel less secure resulting in similar actions which confirms the first state that it is insecure

Although in the case of the law of war, cyber war proponents have too quickly abandoned definitions, rules, and norms of war that are and should still be relevant to cyber conflict, in the case of cyber deterrence, many of these same individuals have too quickly adopted a framework that is “deeply flawed and largely unworkable” (Lewis, 2009b). First and foremost, this is the case because, as Martin Libicki of RAND notes, “Cyberspace is its own medium with its own rules. [...] Thus, deterrence and warfighting tenets established in other media do not necessarily translate reliably into cyberspace” [30]. Not only does the nuclear deterrence analogy tend to lead its users to “exaggerate the destructive capacity of cyber weapons,” it also results in a tendency to focus on hypothetical worst cases while ignoring actual threats (Lewis, 2009b). For example, while Raduege admitted that “low–level” attacks are predominant, he nonetheless advocated that national policy should focus on “strategic attacks” that “could one day” occur (Raduege, 2011). This tendency presents several problems. First, if cyber weapon capabilities have been exaggerated, then it is unlikely that strategic cyber attacks, if they did occur, could be decisive in the way that nuclear weapons could be [31]. Ironically, however, without the potential for decisiveness, the threat of cyber retaliation alone would likely have little deterrent value, meaning that one would have to rely upon threats of physical retaliation to deter cyber attacks. In turn, this could encourage an escalation to physical confrontation — that is, assuming the defender follows through on his threat of retaliation, without which any future threats would lose credibility. Second, the threat of massive retaliation, either cyber or physical, has not and will not deter the actual and pervasive “low–level” cyber attacks experienced on a daily basis. It is important to remember that during the Cold War, the threat of massive retaliation did not deter all war. It only deterred all–out nuclear war. As Raduege (2011) notes, the Cold War ended up taking the form of numerous proxy wars fought around the globe, from Southeast Asia to Latin America. Similarly, not only will U.S. capabilities for and threats of massive retaliation in response to cyber attacks not deter the daily occurrence of low–level attacks, it will likely encourage potential adversaries to constantly seek to pose challenges that fall below the threshold that would trigger massive retaliation, either cyber or kinetic. Finally, all of this points to another problem: a simplification of nuclear deterrence and Cold War history. Nuclear strategists confronted these same problems in the 1960s as it became increasingly clear that Eisenhower era threats of “massive retaliation” had lost their credibility and value. This resulted in a robust debate about “flexible response,” escalation, the role of conventional forces in promoting nuclear deterrence, and much more. In short, there was no one nuclear deterrence strategy during the Cold War. Nuclear strategy evolved over time (Freedman, 1989). Unfortunately, current notions of cyber deterrence are more akin to the 1950s strategy of massive retaliation that was ultimately deemed incredible and dangerous in comparison to the later, more nuanced variants of deterrence. Finally, a number of other differences between nuclear weapons and cyber weapons render the quest for cyber deterrence inappropriate at best and even potentially counterproductive. Cyber attacks generally suffer from a crisis of cause and effect. In one variant, this is what cyber war experts call the “attribution problem” — i.e., it is difficult to know who the attacker is because of online anonymity. As Mike McConnell and others have noted, deterrence is impossible without the ability to credibly threaten the attacker. But deterrence is also difficult if one cannot reliably know in advance the effects of one’s response. In cyberspace, the “collateral damage” caused by cyber attacks can be unpredictable, which could reduce “the willingness of political leaders to incur the risk of a retaliatory response that goes awry, widening a conflict or creating unfavorable political consequences” (Lewis, 2009a). The unpredictable results of a cyber response could encourage the use of a more predictable but more deadly physical response. It is for all of these reasons that Myriam Dunn Cavelty warns against the use of the language of deterrence and aggression with respect to cyber threats. Such language is counterproductive because it results in a self–fulfilling prophecy: actions taken by one state to increase its security can make others feel less secure, resulting in their taking similar actions, which confirms to the first state that it is insecure, and so on (Dunn Cavelty, 2010).

<h4>Their reps of cyber war cause serial policy failure </h4><p><strong><mark>Lawson 2012</strong></mark> (Sean Lawson is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. His essays on science, technology, and security have appeared in the journals Social Studies of Science, Security Dialogue, Cold War History and Journal of Information Technology & Politics. "Putting the "war" in cyberwar: Metaphor, analogy, and cybersecurity discourse in the United States"; First Monday, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3848/3270)</p><p>Although in the case of the law of war, cyber war proponents have too quickly abandoned definitions, rules, and norms of war that are and should still be relevant to cyber conflict, in the case of cyber deterrence, many of these same individuals have too quickly adopted a framework that is “deeply flawed and largely unworkable” (Lewis, 2009b). First and foremost, this is the case because, as Martin Libicki of RAND notes, “Cyberspace is its own medium with its own rules. [...] Thus, deterrence and warfighting tenets established in other media do not necessarily translate reliably into cyberspace” [30]. <u><strong>Not only does the nuclear deterrence analogy tend to lead its <mark>users to “exaggerate the destructive capacity of cyber weapons</mark>,” <mark>it</mark> also <mark>results in a tendency to focus on hypothetical worst cases while ignoring actual threats</u></strong></mark> (Lewis, 2009b). For example, while Raduege admitted that “low–level” attacks are predominant, he nonetheless advocated that national policy should focus on “strategic attacks” that “could one day” occur (Raduege, 2011). This tendency presents several problems. First, if cyber weapon capabilities have been exaggerated, then it is unlikely that strategic cyber attacks, if they did occur, could be decisive in the way that nuclear weapons could be [31]. Ironically, however, <u><strong>without the potential for decisiveness, <mark>the threat of cyber retaliation</mark> alone <mark>would likely have little deterrent value</u></strong></mark>, meaning that <u><strong>one would have <mark>to rely upon threats</mark> <mark>of</mark> physical retaliation to deter <mark>cyber attacks</u></strong></mark>. In turn, <u><strong>this <mark>could encourage</mark> an <mark>escalation</mark> <mark>to</mark> physical <mark>confrontation</u></strong></mark> — that is, assuming the defender follows through on his threat of retaliation, without which any future threats would lose credibility. Second, <u><strong><mark>the threat of</mark> massive <mark>retaliation</u></strong></mark>, either cyber or physical, <u><strong>has not and <mark>will not deter</mark> the <mark>actual</mark> and pervasive “low–level” <mark>cyber attacks</mark> experienced on a daily basis</u></strong>. It is important to remember that during the Cold War, the threat of massive retaliation did not deter all war. It only deterred all–out nuclear war. As Raduege (2011) notes, the Cold War ended up taking the form of numerous proxy wars fought around the globe, from Southeast Asia to Latin America. Similarly, not only will <u><strong>U.S. <mark>capabilities for</u></strong></mark> and threats of <u><strong><mark>massive retaliation</u></strong></mark> in response to cyber attacks not deter the daily occurrence of low–level attacks, it <u><strong>will likely <mark>encourage</mark> potential <mark>adversaries</mark> <mark>to</mark> constantly <mark>seek</mark> <mark>to pose challenges</mark> that fall below the threshold that would trigger massive retaliation</u></strong>, either cyber or kinetic. Finally, all of this points to another problem: a simplification of nuclear deterrence and Cold War history. Nuclear strategists confronted these same problems in the 1960s as it became increasingly clear that Eisenhower era threats of “massive retaliation” had lost their credibility and value. This resulted in a robust debate about “flexible response,” escalation, the role of conventional forces in promoting nuclear deterrence, and much more. In short, there was no one nuclear deterrence strategy during the Cold War. Nuclear strategy evolved over time (Freedman, 1989). Unfortunately, current notions of cyber deterrence are more akin to the 1950s strategy of massive retaliation that was ultimately deemed incredible and dangerous in comparison to the later, more nuanced variants of deterrence. Finally, <u><strong>a number of other differences between nuclear weapons and cyber weapons render the quest for cyber deterrence inappropriate at best and even potentially counterproductive.</u></strong> Cyber attacks generally suffer from a crisis of cause and effect. In one variant, this is what cyber war experts call the “attribution problem” — i.e., <u><strong>it is difficult to know who the attacker is because of online anonymity</u></strong>. As Mike McConnell and others have noted, deterrence is impossible without the ability to credibly threaten the attacker. But deterrence is also difficult if one cannot reliably know in advance the effects of one’s response. In cyberspace, <u><strong>the “collateral damage” caused by cyber attacks can be unpredictable, which could reduce “the willingness of political leaders to incur the risk of a retaliatory response that goes awry, widening a conflict or creating unfavorable political consequences”</u></strong> (Lewis, 2009a). The unpredictable results of a cyber response could encourage the use of a more predictable but more deadly physical response. It is for all of these reasons that Myriam Dunn Cavelty warns against the use of the <u><strong><mark>language of deterrence</mark> and aggression <mark>with respect to cyber threats</u></strong></mark>. Such language <u><strong><mark>is counterproductive</mark> <mark>because it results in a self–fulfilling prophecy</mark>: <mark>actions taken by one state to increase</mark> its <mark>security</mark> can <mark>make others feel less secure</mark>, <mark>resulting</mark> <mark>in</mark> their taking <mark>similar actions</mark>, <mark>which confirms</mark> to <mark>the first state that it is insecure</mark>, and so on</u></strong> (Dunn Cavelty, 2010).</p>

Lawson 2012 (Sean Lawson is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. His essays on science, technology, and security have appeared in the journals Social Studies of Science, Security Dialogue, Cold War History and Journal of Information Technology & Politics. "Putting the "war" in cyberwar: Metaphor, analogy, and cybersecurity discourse in the United States"; First Monday, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3848/3270)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Lawson 2012 (Sean Lawson is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. His essays on science, technology, and security have appeared in the journals Social Studies of Science, Security Dialogue, Cold War History and Journal of Information Technology & Politics. "Putting the "war" in cyberwar: Metaphor, analogy, and cybersecurity discourse in the United States"; First Monday, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3848/3270) fulltext: Although in the case of the law of war, cyber war proponents have too quickly abandoned definitions, rules, and norms of war that are and should still be relevant to cyber conflict, in the case of cyber deterrence, many of these same individuals have too quickly adopted a framework that is “deeply flawed and largely unworkable” (Lewis, 2009b). First and foremost, this is the case because, as Martin Libicki of RAND notes, “Cyberspace is its own medium with its own rules. [...] Thus, deterrence and warfighting tenets established in other media do not necessarily translate reliably into cyberspace” [30]. Not only does the nuclear deterrence analogy tend to lead its users to “exaggerate the destructive capacity of cyber weapons,” it also results in a tendency to focus on hypothetical worst cases while ignoring actual threats (Lewis, 2009b). For example, while Raduege admitted that “low–level” attacks are predominant, he nonetheless advocated that national policy should focus on “strategic attacks” that “could one day” occur (Raduege, 2011). This tendency presents several problems. First, if cyber weapon capabilities have been exaggerated, then it is unlikely that strategic cyber attacks, if they did occur, could be decisive in the way that nuclear weapons could be [31]. Ironically, however, without the potential for decisiveness, the threat of cyber retaliation alone would likely have little deterrent value, meaning that one would have to rely upon threats of physical retaliation to deter cyber attacks. In turn, this could encourage an escalation to physical confrontation — that is, assuming the defender follows through on his threat of retaliation, without which any future threats would lose credibility. Second, the threat of massive retaliation, either cyber or physical, has not and will not deter the actual and pervasive “low–level” cyber attacks experienced on a daily basis. It is important to remember that during the Cold War, the threat of massive retaliation did not deter all war. It only deterred all–out nuclear war. As Raduege (2011) notes, the Cold War ended up taking the form of numerous proxy wars fought around the globe, from Southeast Asia to Latin America. Similarly, not only will U.S. capabilities for and threats of massive retaliation in response to cyber attacks not deter the daily occurrence of low–level attacks, it will likely encourage potential adversaries to constantly seek to pose challenges that fall below the threshold that would trigger massive retaliation, either cyber or kinetic. Finally, all of this points to another problem: a simplification of nuclear deterrence and Cold War history. Nuclear strategists confronted these same problems in the 1960s as it became increasingly clear that Eisenhower era threats of “massive retaliation” had lost their credibility and value. This resulted in a robust debate about “flexible response,” escalation, the role of conventional forces in promoting nuclear deterrence, and much more. In short, there was no one nuclear deterrence strategy during the Cold War. Nuclear strategy evolved over time (Freedman, 1989). Unfortunately, current notions of cyber deterrence are more akin to the 1950s strategy of massive retaliation that was ultimately deemed incredible and dangerous in comparison to the later, more nuanced variants of deterrence. Finally, a number of other differences between nuclear weapons and cyber weapons render the quest for cyber deterrence inappropriate at best and even potentially counterproductive. Cyber attacks generally suffer from a crisis of cause and effect. In one variant, this is what cyber war experts call the “attribution problem” — i.e., it is difficult to know who the attacker is because of online anonymity. As Mike McConnell and others have noted, deterrence is impossible without the ability to credibly threaten the attacker. But deterrence is also difficult if one cannot reliably know in advance the effects of one’s response. In cyberspace, the “collateral damage” caused by cyber attacks can be unpredictable, which could reduce “the willingness of political leaders to incur the risk of a retaliatory response that goes awry, widening a conflict or creating unfavorable political consequences” (Lewis, 2009a). The unpredictable results of a cyber response could encourage the use of a more predictable but more deadly physical response. It is for all of these reasons that Myriam Dunn Cavelty warns against the use of the language of deterrence and aggression with respect to cyber threats. Such language is counterproductive because it results in a self–fulfilling prophecy: actions taken by one state to increase its security can make others feel less secure, resulting in their taking similar actions, which confirms to the first state that it is insecure, and so on (Dunn Cavelty, 2010). [/INST] <h4>Their reps of cyber war cause serial policy failure </h4><p><strong><mark>Lawson 2012</strong></mark> (Sean Lawson is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. His essays on science, technology, and security have appeared in the journals Social Studies of Science, Security Dialogue, Cold War History and Journal of Information Technology & Politics. "Putting the "war" in cyberwar: Metaphor, analogy, and cybersecurity discourse in the United States"; First Monday, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3848/3270)</p><p>Although in the case of the law of war, cyber war proponents have too quickly abandoned definitions, rules, and norms of war that are and should still be relevant to cyber conflict, in the case of cyber deterrence, many of these same individuals have too quickly adopted a framework that is “deeply flawed and largely unworkable” (Lewis, 2009b). First and foremost, this is the case because, as Martin Libicki of RAND notes, “Cyberspace is its own medium with its own rules. [...] Thus, deterrence and warfighting tenets established in other media do not necessarily translate reliably into cyberspace” [30]. <u><strong>Not only does the nuclear deterrence analogy tend to lead its <mark>users to “exaggerate the destructive capacity of cyber weapons</mark>,” <mark>it</mark> also <mark>results in a tendency to focus on hypothetical worst cases while ignoring actual threats</u></strong></mark> (Lewis, 2009b). For example, while Raduege admitted that “low–level” attacks are predominant, he nonetheless advocated that national policy should focus on “strategic attacks” that “could one day” occur (Raduege, 2011). This tendency presents several problems. First, if cyber weapon capabilities have been exaggerated, then it is unlikely that strategic cyber attacks, if they did occur, could be decisive in the way that nuclear weapons could be [31]. Ironically, however, <u><strong>without the potential for decisiveness, <mark>the threat of cyber retaliation</mark> alone <mark>would likely have little deterrent value</u></strong></mark>, meaning that <u><strong>one would have <mark>to rely upon threats</mark> <mark>of</mark> physical retaliation to deter <mark>cyber attacks</u></strong></mark>. In turn, <u><strong>this <mark>could encourage</mark> an <mark>escalation</mark> <mark>to</mark> physical <mark>confrontation</u></strong></mark> — that is, assuming the defender follows through on his threat of retaliation, without which any future threats would lose credibility. Second, <u><strong><mark>the threat of</mark> massive <mark>retaliation</u></strong></mark>, either cyber or physical, <u><strong>has not and <mark>will not deter</mark> the <mark>actual</mark> and pervasive “low–level” <mark>cyber attacks</mark> experienced on a daily basis</u></strong>. It is important to remember that during the Cold War, the threat of massive retaliation did not deter all war. It only deterred all–out nuclear war. As Raduege (2011) notes, the Cold War ended up taking the form of numerous proxy wars fought around the globe, from Southeast Asia to Latin America. Similarly, not only will <u><strong>U.S. <mark>capabilities for</u></strong></mark> and threats of <u><strong><mark>massive retaliation</u></strong></mark> in response to cyber attacks not deter the daily occurrence of low–level attacks, it <u><strong>will likely <mark>encourage</mark> potential <mark>adversaries</mark> <mark>to</mark> constantly <mark>seek</mark> <mark>to pose challenges</mark> that fall below the threshold that would trigger massive retaliation</u></strong>, either cyber or kinetic. Finally, all of this points to another problem: a simplification of nuclear deterrence and Cold War history. Nuclear strategists confronted these same problems in the 1960s as it became increasingly clear that Eisenhower era threats of “massive retaliation” had lost their credibility and value. This resulted in a robust debate about “flexible response,” escalation, the role of conventional forces in promoting nuclear deterrence, and much more. In short, there was no one nuclear deterrence strategy during the Cold War. Nuclear strategy evolved over time (Freedman, 1989). Unfortunately, current notions of cyber deterrence are more akin to the 1950s strategy of massive retaliation that was ultimately deemed incredible and dangerous in comparison to the later, more nuanced variants of deterrence. Finally, <u><strong>a number of other differences between nuclear weapons and cyber weapons render the quest for cyber deterrence inappropriate at best and even potentially counterproductive.</u></strong> Cyber attacks generally suffer from a crisis of cause and effect. In one variant, this is what cyber war experts call the “attribution problem” — i.e., <u><strong>it is difficult to know who the attacker is because of online anonymity</u></strong>. As Mike McConnell and others have noted, deterrence is impossible without the ability to credibly threaten the attacker. But deterrence is also difficult if one cannot reliably know in advance the effects of one’s response. In cyberspace, <u><strong>the “collateral damage” caused by cyber attacks can be unpredictable, which could reduce “the willingness of political leaders to incur the risk of a retaliatory response that goes awry, widening a conflict or creating unfavorable political consequences”</u></strong> (Lewis, 2009a). The unpredictable results of a cyber response could encourage the use of a more predictable but more deadly physical response. It is for all of these reasons that Myriam Dunn Cavelty warns against the use of the <u><strong><mark>language of deterrence</mark> and aggression <mark>with respect to cyber threats</u></strong></mark>. Such language <u><strong><mark>is counterproductive</mark> <mark>because it results in a self–fulfilling prophecy</mark>: <mark>actions taken by one state to increase</mark> its <mark>security</mark> can <mark>make others feel less secure</mark>, <mark>resulting</mark> <mark>in</mark> their taking <mark>similar actions</mark>, <mark>which confirms</mark> to <mark>the first state that it is insecure</mark>, and so on</u></strong> (Dunn Cavelty, 2010).</p> </s>

Extinction

the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in 30 minutes Just one can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. this would destroy the entire economic infrastructure on which we all depend Those who survived would inhabit a nightmare landscape blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms would loft tons of debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun Temperatures across the globe would fall to levels not seen on earth since the last ice age, Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including our own, would become extinct. We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack.

20,000 nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals can be fired within five minutes A war would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented the firestorms would blot out the sun Temperatures would fall Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse species including our own, would become extinct

President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.

<h4>Extinction</h4><p><strong>Helfand and Pastore 9</strong> [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]</p><p>President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of <u>the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. </u> Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. <u>There remain in the world more than <mark>20,000 nuclear weapons</mark>.</u> Alarmingly, <u>more than 2,000 of these weapons <mark>in the U.S. and Russian arsenals</mark> remain on ready-alert status, </u>commonly known as hair-trigger alert. <u>They <mark>can be fired within five minutes</mark> and reach targets in </u>the other country<u> 30 minutes</u> later.<u> Just one</u> of these weapons <u>can destroy a city. <mark>A war</mark> involving a substantial number <mark>would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented</mark> in human history</u>. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that<u> </u>if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities,<u> 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes.</u> An attack of <u>this</u> magnitude also <u>would destroy the entire economic</u>, communications and transportation <u>infrastructure on which we all depend</u>. <u>Those who survived</u> the initial attack <u>would inhabit a nightmare landscape</u> with huge swaths of the country <u>blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant</u>. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. <u>If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, <mark>the firestorms</mark> </u>they caused<u> <mark>would</mark> loft</u> 180 million <u>tons of </u>soot and <u>debris into the upper atmosphere — <mark>blot</mark>ting <mark>out the sun</u></mark>. <u><mark>Temperatures</mark> across the globe <mark>would fall</mark> </u>an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit<u> to levels not seen on earth since </u>the depth of<u> the last ice age, </u>18,000 years ago. <u><mark>Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse</mark>, and many <mark>species</mark>, <mark>including</mark> </u>perhaps <u><mark>our own, would become extinct</mark>.</u> It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? <u>We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack.</u> The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.</p>

Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html] fulltext: President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today. [/INST] <h4>Extinction</h4><p><strong>Helfand and Pastore 9</strong> [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]</p><p>President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of <u>the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. </u> Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. <u>There remain in the world more than <mark>20,000 nuclear weapons</mark>.</u> Alarmingly, <u>more than 2,000 of these weapons <mark>in the U.S. and Russian arsenals</mark> remain on ready-alert status, </u>commonly known as hair-trigger alert. <u>They <mark>can be fired within five minutes</mark> and reach targets in </u>the other country<u> 30 minutes</u> later.<u> Just one</u> of these weapons <u>can destroy a city. <mark>A war</mark> involving a substantial number <mark>would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented</mark> in human history</u>. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that<u> </u>if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities,<u> 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes.</u> An attack of <u>this</u> magnitude also <u>would destroy the entire economic</u>, communications and transportation <u>infrastructure on which we all depend</u>. <u>Those who survived</u> the initial attack <u>would inhabit a nightmare landscape</u> with huge swaths of the country <u>blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant</u>. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. <u>If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, <mark>the firestorms</mark> </u>they caused<u> <mark>would</mark> loft</u> 180 million <u>tons of </u>soot and <u>debris into the upper atmosphere — <mark>blot</mark>ting <mark>out the sun</u></mark>. <u><mark>Temperatures</mark> across the globe <mark>would fall</mark> </u>an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit<u> to levels not seen on earth since </u>the depth of<u> the last ice age, </u>18,000 years ago. <u><mark>Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse</mark>, and many <mark>species</mark>, <mark>including</mark> </u>perhaps <u><mark>our own, would become extinct</mark>.</u> It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? <u>We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack.</u> The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.</p> </s>

Specifically negative in this context: The AFF calls for your empathetic identification with their narrative and identity as presented in the 1AC. This form of empathetic identification maintains an economy of sense which makes the black body fungible and captive to the white, recreating the conditions of violence. While voting AFF may satisfy your desire to be a good white anti-racist, this only occurs through their obliteration.

empathy is a projection of oneself into another to understand the other or “the projection of one’s own personality into an object, with the attribution to the object of one’s own emotions empathy confounds Rankin’s efforts to identify with the enslaved because in making the slave’s suffering his own, Rankin begins to feel for himself by exploiting the vulnerability of the captive body as a vessel for uses, thoughts, and feelings the humanity extended to the slave inadvertently confirms the expectations and desires definitive of the relations of chattel slavery the ease of Rankin’s empathetic identification is as much due to his good intentions and heartfelt opposition to slavery as to the fungibility of the captive body Can the white witness of the spectacle of suffering affirm the materiality of black sentience only by feeling for himself? Does this not reinforce the “thingly” quality of the captive by reducing the body to evidence in the very effort to establish the humanity of the enslaved The purpose of these inquiries is not to cast doubt on Rankin’s motives for recounting these events but to consider the precariousness of empathy and the thin line between witness and spectator the effort to counteract the commonplace callousness to black suffering requires the white body be positioned in place of the black body in order to make this suffering visible and intelligible empathy is double-edged, in making the other’s suffering one’s own, this suffering is occluded by the other’s obliteration this recourse to fantasy reveals an anxiety about making the slave’s suffering legible. This anxiety is historically determined by the denial of black sentience, the slave’s status as object of property Rankin must supplant the black captive to give expression to black suffering, and as a consequence, – the denial of black sentience and the obscurity of suffering – is not attenuated but instantiated. the repressive effects of empathy can be located in the “obliteration of otherness” or the facile intimacy that enables identification with the other only as we “feel ourselves into those we imagine as ourselves as a consequence, empathy fails to expand the space of the other but merely places the self in its stead.

empathy is a projection of oneself into another empathy making the slave’s suffering his own begins to feel for himself by exploiting the vulnerability of the captive body as a vessel for uses, thoughts, and feelings the humanity extended to the slave inadvertently confirms the expectations and desires definitive of the relations of chattel slavery the ease of empathetic identification is as much due to ood intentions and heartfelt opposition to slavery as to the fungibility of the captive body the effort to counteract the commonplace callousness to black suffering requires the white body be positioned in place of the black body to make suffering visible and intelligible empathy in making the other’s suffering one’s own, this suffering is occluded by the other’s obliteration this recourse to fantasy reveals an anxiety about making the slave’s suffering legible. This anxiety is historically determined by the denial of black sentience, the slave’s status as object of propert the obscurity of suffering – is instantiated the “obliteration of otherness” or the facile intimacy that enables identification with the other only as we “feel ourselves into those we imagine as ourselves empathy fails to expand the space of the other but merely places the self in its stead

Properly speaking, empathy is a projection of oneself into another in order to better understand the other or “the projection of one’s own personality into an object, with the attribution to the object of one’s own emotions.” Yet empathy in important respects confounds Rankin’s efforts to identify with the enslaved because in making the slave’s suffering his own, Rankin begins to feel for himself rather than for those whom this exercise in imagination presumably is designed to reach. Moreover, by exploiting the vulnerability of the captive body as a vessel for the uses, thoughts, and feelings of others, the humanity extended to the slave inadvertently confirms the expectations and desires definitive of the relations of chattel slavery. In other words, the ease of Rankin’s empathetic identification is as much due to his good intentions and heartfelt opposition to slavery as to the fungibility of the captive body. By making the suffering of others his own, has Rankin ameliorated indifference or only confirmed the difficulty of understanding the suffering of the enslaved? Can the white witness of the spectacle of suffering affirm the materiality of black sentience only by feeling for himself? Does this not only exacerbate the idea that black sentience is inconceivable and unimaginable but, in the very ease of possessing the abased and enslaved body, ultimately elide an understanding and acknowledgement of the slave’s pain? Beyond evidence of slavery’s crime, what does this exposure of the suffering body of the bondsman yield? Does this not reinforce the “thingly” quality of the captive by reducing the body to evidence in the very effort to establish the humanity of the enslaved? Does it not reproduce the hyperembodiness of the powerless? The purpose of these inquiries is not to cast doubt on Rankin’s motives for recounting these events but to consider the precariousness of empathy and the thin line between witness and spectator. In the fantasy of being beaten, Rankin must substitute himself and his wife and children for the black captive in order that this pain can be perceived and experienced. So, in fact, Rankin becomes a proxy and the other’s pain is acknowledged to the degree that it can be imagined, yet by virtue of this substitution the object of identification threatens to disappear. In order to convince the reader of the horrors of slavery, Rankin must volunteer himself and his family for abasement. Put differently, the effort to counteract the commonplace callousness to black suffering requires that the white body be positioned in the place of the black body in order to make this suffering visible and intelligible. Yet if this violence can become palpable and indignation can be fully aroused only through the masochistic fantasy, then it becomes clear that empathy is double-edged, for in making the other’s suffering one’s own, this suffering is occluded by the other’s obliteration. Given the litany of horrors that fill Rankin’s pages, this recourse to fantasy reveals an anxiety about making the slave’s suffering legible. This anxiety is historically determined by the denial of black sentience, the slave’s status as object of property, the predicament of witnessing given the legal status of blacks, and the repression of counterdiscourses on the “peculiar institution.“ Therefore, Rankin must supplant the black captive in order to give expression to black suffering, and as a consequence, the dilemma – the denial of black sentience and the obscurity of suffering – is not attenuated but instantiated. The ambivalent character of empathy-more exactly, the repressive effects of empathy-as Jonathan Boyarin notes, can be located in the “obliteration of otherness” or the facile intimacy that enables identification with the other only as we “feel ourselves into those we imagine as ourselves.” And as a consequence, empathy fails to expand the space of the other but merely places the self in its stead.

<h4>Specifically negative in this context: The AFF calls for your empathetic identification with their narrative and identity as presented in the 1AC. This form of empathetic identification maintains an economy of sense which makes the black body fungible and captive to the white, recreating the conditions of violence. While voting AFF may satisfy your desire to be a good white anti-racist, this only occurs through their obliteration.</h4><p><strong>Hartman ‘97</strong> (Saidiya, Scene of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America pg. 18-19)</p><p>Properly speaking, <u><strong><mark>empathy is a projection of oneself into another</mark> </u></strong>in order<u><strong> to </u></strong>better<u><strong> understand the other or “the projection of one’s own personality into an object, with the attribution to the object of one’s own emotions</u></strong>.” Yet <u><strong><mark>empathy</u></strong></mark> in important respects <u><strong>confounds</strong> <strong>Rankin’s efforts to identify with the enslaved because in <mark>making the slave’s suffering his own</mark>, Rankin <mark>begins to feel for himself</mark> </u></strong>rather than for those whom this exercise in imagination presumably is designed to reach. Moreover, <u><strong><mark>by exploiting the vulnerability of the captive body as a vessel for</mark> </u></strong>the<u><strong> <mark>uses, thoughts, and feelings</mark> </u></strong>of others,<u><strong> <mark>the humanity extended to the slave inadvertently confirms the expectations and desires definitive of the relations of chattel slavery</u></strong></mark>. In other words, <u><strong><mark>the ease of</mark> Rankin’s <mark>empathetic identification is as much due to</mark> his g<mark>ood intentions and heartfelt opposition to slavery as to the fungibility of the captive body</u></strong></mark>. By making the suffering of others his own, has Rankin ameliorated indifference or only confirmed the difficulty of understanding the suffering of the enslaved? <u><strong>Can the white witness of the spectacle of suffering affirm the materiality of black sentience only by feeling for himself? </u></strong>Does this not only exacerbate the idea that black sentience is inconceivable and unimaginable but, in the very ease of possessing the abased and enslaved body, ultimately elide an understanding and acknowledgement of the slave’s pain? Beyond evidence of slavery’s crime, what does this exposure of the suffering body of the bondsman yield? <u><strong>Does this not reinforce the “thingly” quality of the captive by reducing the body to evidence in the very effort to establish the humanity of the enslaved</u></strong>? Does it not reproduce the hyperembodiness of the powerless? <u><strong>The purpose of these inquiries is not to cast doubt on Rankin’s motives for recounting these events but to consider the precariousness of empathy and the thin line between witness and spectator</u></strong>. In the fantasy of being beaten, Rankin must substitute himself and his wife and children for the black captive in order that this pain can be perceived and experienced. So, in fact, Rankin becomes a proxy and the other’s pain is acknowledged to the degree that it can be imagined, yet by virtue of this substitution the object of identification threatens to disappear. In order to convince the reader of the horrors of slavery, Rankin must volunteer himself and his family for abasement. Put differently, <u><strong><mark>the effort to counteract the commonplace callousness to black suffering requires</mark> </u></strong>that<u><strong> <mark>the white body be positioned in</mark> </u></strong>the <u><strong><mark>place of the black body</mark> in order <mark>to make</mark> this <mark>suffering visible and intelligible</u></strong></mark>. Yet if this violence can become palpable and indignation can be fully aroused only through the masochistic fantasy, then it becomes clear that <u><strong><mark>empathy</mark> is double-edged, </u></strong>for<u><strong> <mark>in making the other’s suffering one’s own, this suffering is occluded by the other’s obliteration</u></strong></mark>. Given the litany of horrors that fill Rankin’s pages, <u><strong><mark>this recourse to fantasy reveals an anxiety about making the slave’s suffering legible. This anxiety is historically determined by the denial of black sentience, the slave’s status as object of propert</mark>y</u></strong>, the predicament of witnessing given the legal status of blacks, and the repression of counterdiscourses on the “peculiar institution.“ Therefore, <u><strong>Rankin must supplant the black captive </u></strong>in order<u><strong> to give expression to black suffering, and as a consequence, </u></strong>the dilemma <u><strong>– the denial of black sentience and <mark>the obscurity of suffering – is</mark> not attenuated but <mark>instantiated</mark>.</u></strong> The ambivalent character of empathy-more exactly, <u><strong>the repressive effects of empathy</u></strong>-as Jonathan Boyarin notes, <u><strong>can be located in <mark>the “obliteration of otherness” or the facile intimacy that enables identification with the other only as we “feel ourselves into those we imagine as ourselves</u></strong></mark>.” And <u><strong>as a consequence, <mark>empathy fails to expand the space of the other but merely places the self in its stead</mark>.</p></u></strong>

Hartman ‘97 (Saidiya, Scene of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America pg. 18-19)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hartman ‘97 (Saidiya, Scene of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America pg. 18-19) fulltext: Properly speaking, empathy is a projection of oneself into another in order to better understand the other or “the projection of one’s own personality into an object, with the attribution to the object of one’s own emotions.” Yet empathy in important respects confounds Rankin’s efforts to identify with the enslaved because in making the slave’s suffering his own, Rankin begins to feel for himself rather than for those whom this exercise in imagination presumably is designed to reach. Moreover, by exploiting the vulnerability of the captive body as a vessel for the uses, thoughts, and feelings of others, the humanity extended to the slave inadvertently confirms the expectations and desires definitive of the relations of chattel slavery. In other words, the ease of Rankin’s empathetic identification is as much due to his good intentions and heartfelt opposition to slavery as to the fungibility of the captive body. By making the suffering of others his own, has Rankin ameliorated indifference or only confirmed the difficulty of understanding the suffering of the enslaved? Can the white witness of the spectacle of suffering affirm the materiality of black sentience only by feeling for himself? Does this not only exacerbate the idea that black sentience is inconceivable and unimaginable but, in the very ease of possessing the abased and enslaved body, ultimately elide an understanding and acknowledgement of the slave’s pain? Beyond evidence of slavery’s crime, what does this exposure of the suffering body of the bondsman yield? Does this not reinforce the “thingly” quality of the captive by reducing the body to evidence in the very effort to establish the humanity of the enslaved? Does it not reproduce the hyperembodiness of the powerless? The purpose of these inquiries is not to cast doubt on Rankin’s motives for recounting these events but to consider the precariousness of empathy and the thin line between witness and spectator. In the fantasy of being beaten, Rankin must substitute himself and his wife and children for the black captive in order that this pain can be perceived and experienced. So, in fact, Rankin becomes a proxy and the other’s pain is acknowledged to the degree that it can be imagined, yet by virtue of this substitution the object of identification threatens to disappear. In order to convince the reader of the horrors of slavery, Rankin must volunteer himself and his family for abasement. Put differently, the effort to counteract the commonplace callousness to black suffering requires that the white body be positioned in the place of the black body in order to make this suffering visible and intelligible. Yet if this violence can become palpable and indignation can be fully aroused only through the masochistic fantasy, then it becomes clear that empathy is double-edged, for in making the other’s suffering one’s own, this suffering is occluded by the other’s obliteration. Given the litany of horrors that fill Rankin’s pages, this recourse to fantasy reveals an anxiety about making the slave’s suffering legible. This anxiety is historically determined by the denial of black sentience, the slave’s status as object of property, the predicament of witnessing given the legal status of blacks, and the repression of counterdiscourses on the “peculiar institution.“ Therefore, Rankin must supplant the black captive in order to give expression to black suffering, and as a consequence, the dilemma – the denial of black sentience and the obscurity of suffering – is not attenuated but instantiated. The ambivalent character of empathy-more exactly, the repressive effects of empathy-as Jonathan Boyarin notes, can be located in the “obliteration of otherness” or the facile intimacy that enables identification with the other only as we “feel ourselves into those we imagine as ourselves.” And as a consequence, empathy fails to expand the space of the other but merely places the self in its stead. [/INST] <h4>Specifically negative in this context: The AFF calls for your empathetic identification with their narrative and identity as presented in the 1AC. This form of empathetic identification maintains an economy of sense which makes the black body fungible and captive to the white, recreating the conditions of violence. While voting AFF may satisfy your desire to be a good white anti-racist, this only occurs through their obliteration.</h4><p><strong>Hartman ‘97</strong> (Saidiya, Scene of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America pg. 18-19)</p><p>Properly speaking, <u><strong><mark>empathy is a projection of oneself into another</mark> </u></strong>in order<u><strong> to </u></strong>better<u><strong> understand the other or “the projection of one’s own personality into an object, with the attribution to the object of one’s own emotions</u></strong>.” Yet <u><strong><mark>empathy</u></strong></mark> in important respects <u><strong>confounds</strong> <strong>Rankin’s efforts to identify with the enslaved because in <mark>making the slave’s suffering his own</mark>, Rankin <mark>begins to feel for himself</mark> </u></strong>rather than for those whom this exercise in imagination presumably is designed to reach. Moreover, <u><strong><mark>by exploiting the vulnerability of the captive body as a vessel for</mark> </u></strong>the<u><strong> <mark>uses, thoughts, and feelings</mark> </u></strong>of others,<u><strong> <mark>the humanity extended to the slave inadvertently confirms the expectations and desires definitive of the relations of chattel slavery</u></strong></mark>. In other words, <u><strong><mark>the ease of</mark> Rankin’s <mark>empathetic identification is as much due to</mark> his g<mark>ood intentions and heartfelt opposition to slavery as to the fungibility of the captive body</u></strong></mark>. By making the suffering of others his own, has Rankin ameliorated indifference or only confirmed the difficulty of understanding the suffering of the enslaved? <u><strong>Can the white witness of the spectacle of suffering affirm the materiality of black sentience only by feeling for himself? </u></strong>Does this not only exacerbate the idea that black sentience is inconceivable and unimaginable but, in the very ease of possessing the abased and enslaved body, ultimately elide an understanding and acknowledgement of the slave’s pain? Beyond evidence of slavery’s crime, what does this exposure of the suffering body of the bondsman yield? <u><strong>Does this not reinforce the “thingly” quality of the captive by reducing the body to evidence in the very effort to establish the humanity of the enslaved</u></strong>? Does it not reproduce the hyperembodiness of the powerless? <u><strong>The purpose of these inquiries is not to cast doubt on Rankin’s motives for recounting these events but to consider the precariousness of empathy and the thin line between witness and spectator</u></strong>. In the fantasy of being beaten, Rankin must substitute himself and his wife and children for the black captive in order that this pain can be perceived and experienced. So, in fact, Rankin becomes a proxy and the other’s pain is acknowledged to the degree that it can be imagined, yet by virtue of this substitution the object of identification threatens to disappear. In order to convince the reader of the horrors of slavery, Rankin must volunteer himself and his family for abasement. Put differently, <u><strong><mark>the effort to counteract the commonplace callousness to black suffering requires</mark> </u></strong>that<u><strong> <mark>the white body be positioned in</mark> </u></strong>the <u><strong><mark>place of the black body</mark> in order <mark>to make</mark> this <mark>suffering visible and intelligible</u></strong></mark>. Yet if this violence can become palpable and indignation can be fully aroused only through the masochistic fantasy, then it becomes clear that <u><strong><mark>empathy</mark> is double-edged, </u></strong>for<u><strong> <mark>in making the other’s suffering one’s own, this suffering is occluded by the other’s obliteration</u></strong></mark>. Given the litany of horrors that fill Rankin’s pages, <u><strong><mark>this recourse to fantasy reveals an anxiety about making the slave’s suffering legible. This anxiety is historically determined by the denial of black sentience, the slave’s status as object of propert</mark>y</u></strong>, the predicament of witnessing given the legal status of blacks, and the repression of counterdiscourses on the “peculiar institution.“ Therefore, <u><strong>Rankin must supplant the black captive </u></strong>in order<u><strong> to give expression to black suffering, and as a consequence, </u></strong>the dilemma <u><strong>– the denial of black sentience and <mark>the obscurity of suffering – is</mark> not attenuated but <mark>instantiated</mark>.</u></strong> The ambivalent character of empathy-more exactly, <u><strong>the repressive effects of empathy</u></strong>-as Jonathan Boyarin notes, <u><strong>can be located in <mark>the “obliteration of otherness” or the facile intimacy that enables identification with the other only as we “feel ourselves into those we imagine as ourselves</u></strong></mark>.” And <u><strong>as a consequence, <mark>empathy fails to expand the space of the other but merely places the self in its stead</mark>.</p></u></strong> </s>

Independently, HIV spread causes Russian collapse—demographic hollowing out threatens the Russian military, results in overreliance on nukes

several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will soon threaten their stability and in turn cause global instability. AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than in any other country in the world It is aggravating Russia’s projected population decrease, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and if the AIDS trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant through 2025 This will in turn lead to regional volatility and further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties “AIDS could further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and potentially lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force to maintain its great power status In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the rest of the world the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers.

several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will threaten their stability and global instability AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than any other country It is aggravating Russia’s population decrease if the trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant This will lead to regional volatility and further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the world

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will soon threaten their stability and in turn cause global instability. A little known fact is that ¶ AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than in any other country in the world, including many of the ¶ African nations. It is aggravating Russia’s projected population decrease, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and if the AIDS trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant through 2025” (Peterson 66). This will in turn lead to regional volatility and further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, “AIDS could further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and potentially lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force to maintain its great power status” (Peterson 66). In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the rest of the world. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers.

<h4>Independently, HIV spread causes Russian collapse—demographic hollowing out threatens the Russian military, results in overreliance on nukes </h4><p>Jane <strong>Evans 10, Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf</p><p></strong>Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., <u><strong><mark>several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will</mark> soon <mark>threaten their stability and</mark> in turn cause <mark>global instability</mark>.</u></strong> A little known fact is that ¶ <u><strong><mark>AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than</mark> in <mark>any other country</mark> in the world</u></strong>, including many of the ¶ African nations. <u><strong><mark>It is aggravating Russia’s</mark> projected <mark>population decrease</mark>, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and <mark>if the</mark> AIDS <mark>trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant</mark> through 2025</u></strong>” (Peterson 66). <u><strong><mark>This will</mark> in turn <mark>lead to regional volatility and</mark> further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties</u></strong>. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, <u><strong>“AIDS could <mark>further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and</mark> potentially <mark>lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force</mark> to maintain its great power status</u></strong>” (Peterson 66). <u><strong>In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the <mark>collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the</mark> rest of the <mark>world</u></strong></mark>. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, <u><strong>the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers. </p></u></strong>

Jane Evans 10, Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jane Evans 10, Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf fulltext: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will soon threaten their stability and in turn cause global instability. A little known fact is that ¶ AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than in any other country in the world, including many of the ¶ African nations. It is aggravating Russia’s projected population decrease, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and if the AIDS trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant through 2025” (Peterson 66). This will in turn lead to regional volatility and further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, “AIDS could further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and potentially lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force to maintain its great power status” (Peterson 66). In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the rest of the world. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers. [/INST] <h4>Independently, HIV spread causes Russian collapse—demographic hollowing out threatens the Russian military, results in overreliance on nukes </h4><p>Jane <strong>Evans 10, Department of Military Strategic Studies- U.S. Air Force Academy, “Pandemics and National Security,” Global Security Studies, Spring 2010, Volume l, Issue 1, http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf</p><p></strong>Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, was first identified in the U.S. in 1981 ¶ (although retrospective immunology showed the virus was being transmitted epidemically by the ¶ late 1970’s); the causative agent, HIV-1 virus, was found to have occurred in the Democratic ¶ Republic of the Congo in 1959 (CDC/HIV). Today, there is no vaccine and antiretroviral ¶ treatments can at best delay the onset of death. While incidence rates of HIV/AIDS remain low ¶ in the U.S., <u><strong><mark>several countries of strategic importance are experiencing an epidemic of AIDS that will</mark> soon <mark>threaten their stability and</mark> in turn cause <mark>global instability</mark>.</u></strong> A little known fact is that ¶ <u><strong><mark>AIDS is spreading faster in Russia than</mark> in <mark>any other country</mark> in the world</u></strong>, including many of the ¶ African nations. <u><strong><mark>It is aggravating Russia’s</mark> projected <mark>population decrease</mark>, will “significantly reduce worker output and decimate the working age population”, and <mark>if the</mark> AIDS <mark>trend continues, “Russia’s future GNP will remain stagnant</mark> through 2025</u></strong>” (Peterson 66). <u><strong><mark>This will</mark> in turn <mark>lead to regional volatility and</mark> further exacerbate Eastern Europe’s economic difficulties</u></strong>. A ¶ worst case scenario for national security in the future, <u><strong>“AIDS could <mark>further erode Russia’s ability to staff a conventional army and</mark> potentially <mark>lead Moscow to rely more on a deteriorating nuclear force</mark> to maintain its great power status</u></strong>” (Peterson 66). <u><strong>In an increasingly global economy and international dependence, the <mark>collapse of Russia could profoundly affect the</mark> rest of the <mark>world</u></strong></mark>. A¶ similar situation in China would cause even more problems; however, China has the resources and the population to likely absorb and recover from the AIDS crisis. Nevertheless, <u><strong>the spread of HIV/AIDS is and will remain a critical security issue to U.S. policymakers. </p></u></strong> </s>

Current state ballot initiatives K2 youth turnout K2 Dems/election-Plan makes those not happen

voter-registration volunteers say the medical-marijuana amendment on November's ballot is attracting new voters who otherwise might not bother with a midterm election Both political parties for more than a year have been knocking on doors to energize supporters who might be lured to the polls by a heated governor's race. Democrats are eager to avoid the usual big drop-off of turnout in nonpresidential elections, which tends to hurt their party's candidates. the wild card this year — the factor most likely to motivate new voters appears to be the marijuana measure "Young people are very unfamiliar with other elections going on but have heard about the medical-marijuana amendment and are excited to have an opportunity to vote for that It's definitely going to be a hot topic that will get young people out encourage them to vote on other things as well." Most registration campaigns target young adults and Hispanics because they are the most inclined to vote in presidential-election years but skip midterms. On the margins, the marijuana amendment may bring people to the polls who normally wait till there's a presidential candidate on the ballot said Smith, political science professor at the University of Florida It may only be a couple of percentage points, but that could make all the difference."

the wild card this year — the factor most likely to motivate new voters — appears to be the marijuana measure Young people are very unfamiliar with other elections going on but have heard about the medical-marijuana amendment and are excited to have an opportunity to vote for that It may only be a couple of percentage points, but that could make all the difference."

Getting young people engaged in politics is never easy, but voter-registration volunteers say the medical-marijuana amendment on November's ballot is attracting new voters who otherwise might not bother with a midterm election. Both political parties for more than a year have been knocking on doors to energize supporters who might be lured to the polls by a heated governor's race. Democrats are especially eager to avoid the usual big drop-off of turnout in nonpresidential elections, which tends to hurt their party's candidates. But the wild card this year — the factor most likely to motivate new voters — appears to be the marijuana measure, along with another constitutional amendment that would provide special state funding to conserve environmentally sensitive land. "Young people are very unfamiliar with other elections going on but have heard about the medical-marijuana amendment and are excited to have an opportunity to vote for that," said Anna Eskamani, 23, a volunteer with the League of Women Voters who recruited passers-by at a farmers' market in Orlando last week. "It's definitely going to be a hot topic that will get young people out and, of course, encourage them to vote on other things as well." The proposed amendment would legalize marijuana for patients diagnosed with debilitating health problems. Although it would directly affect a relatively small number of people, it has drawn widespread interest because many voters see it leading to a broader decriminalization of marijuana. A recent statewide poll by Quinnipiac University found that 88 percent of voters supported it. The environmental amendment would devote a portion of state excise taxes to conserving land and wildlife. "It has to do with drinking water and protecting our rivers and lakes and the Everglades. That's an issue a lot people do feel strongly about," said Lynne Joshi, president of the League of Women Voters in Broward County. "With the amendments, we have a chance, especially with the younger people, for more people to turn out." A League forum in West Palm Beach last month to discuss the environmental amendment drew enough voters to fill a school auditorium. "There are always those voters who would not come out and do such a thing until they feel there's a direct effect on them," said Geanine Wester, the League president in Palm Beach County. If the parties and registration groups succeed, the 2014 election will buck a seesaw trend in Florida marked by wild swings in turnout rates among registered voters. Turnout soared from 47 percent in the 2006 midterm election to 75 percent in the 2008 presidential election. The rate plunged to 49 percent in the 2010 midterms, then rose to 72 percent in the 2012 presidential election. Most registration campaigns target young adults and Hispanics because they are the most inclined to vote in presidential-election years but skip midterms. "In parts of Orlando, Osceola County and South Florida, you don't see a drop-off, you see a plunge," said Christian Ulvert, political director of the Florida Democratic Party. "You see turnout in areas with high Hispanic voters go from 88 percent in a presidential year down to 25 or 26 percent in a gubernatorial year." The party is trying to counter the trend by emphasizing the importance of midterm elections. The Democratic National Committee, chaired by U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, also has hired Zach Learner, a Fort Lauderdale attorney, to head a Voter Expansion Project designed to help overcome voter confusion and perceived barriers. He will lead a small army of volunteer lawyers to educate people about voting methods — such as early voting, mail-in voting and provisional ballots — and to safeguard their rights at polling places. Many volunteers were inspired by the tumultuous 2000 presidential election, decided in Florida after five weeks of recounts and disputes. "I saw what happened in 2000, and I became concerned that citizens were either not going to be able to vote or might not understand what they needed to do to allow them to vote," said Jason B. Blank, of Fort Lauderdale, a volunteer attorney ready to advise voters who run into problems. Republicans, meanwhile, are culling through vast amounts of data on Floridians to spot potential like-minded voters who might be inclined to support Scott. They call it "the largest micro-targeting project in Florida history." "It's millions of data points on voters that have been assembled, and it can help predict which voters are likely to support the governor," said Susan Hepworth, communications director for the state Republicans. Even a slight increase in registration and turnout could tip the results of a close election. "On the margins, the marijuana amendment may bring people to the polls who normally wait till there's a presidential candidate on the ballot," said Daniel Smith, political science professor at the University of Florida. "It may only be a couple of percentage points, but that could make all the difference."

<h4>Current state ballot initiatives K2 youth turnout K2 Dems/election-Plan makes those not happen</h4><p><strong>Gibson, 8/11 </strong>William E., Washington Bureau, Sun Sentinel, “Medical Marijuana ballot issue may draw new voters,” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-11/news/fl-voter-turnout-boost-20140808_1_women-voters-new-voters-medical-marijuana-amendment<u><strong>, ALB]</p><p></u></strong>Getting young people engaged in politics is never easy, but <u><strong>voter-registration volunteers say the medical-marijuana amendment on November's ballot is attracting new voters who otherwise might not bother with a midterm election</u></strong>. <u><strong>Both political parties for more than a year have been knocking on doors to energize supporters who might be lured to the polls by a heated governor's race.</u></strong> <u><strong>Democrats are</u></strong> especially <u><strong>eager to avoid the usual big drop-off of turnout in nonpresidential elections, which tends to hurt their party's candidates. </u></strong>But <u><strong><mark>the wild card this year — the factor most likely to motivate new voters</u></strong> — <u><strong>appears to be the marijuana measure</u></strong></mark>, along with another constitutional amendment that would provide special state funding to conserve environmentally sensitive land. <u><strong>"<mark>Young people are very unfamiliar with other elections going on but have heard about the medical-marijuana amendment</u></strong> <u><strong>and are excited to have an opportunity to vote for that</u></strong></mark>," said Anna Eskamani, 23, a volunteer with the League of Women Voters who recruited passers-by at a farmers' market in Orlando last week. "<u><strong>It's definitely going to be a hot topic that will get young people out</u></strong> and, of course, <u><strong>encourage them to vote on other things as well." </u></strong>The proposed amendment would legalize marijuana for patients diagnosed with debilitating health problems. Although it would directly affect a relatively small number of people, it has drawn widespread interest because many voters see it leading to a broader decriminalization of marijuana. A recent statewide poll by Quinnipiac University found that 88 percent of voters supported it. The environmental amendment would devote a portion of state excise taxes to conserving land and wildlife. "It has to do with drinking water and protecting our rivers and lakes and the Everglades. That's an issue a lot people do feel strongly about," said Lynne Joshi, president of the League of Women Voters in Broward County. "With the amendments, we have a chance, especially with the younger people, for more people to turn out." A League forum in West Palm Beach last month to discuss the environmental amendment drew enough voters to fill a school auditorium. "There are always those voters who would not come out and do such a thing until they feel there's a direct effect on them," said Geanine Wester, the League president in Palm Beach County. If the parties and registration groups succeed, the 2014 election will buck a seesaw trend in Florida marked by wild swings in turnout rates among registered voters. Turnout soared from 47 percent in the 2006 midterm election to 75 percent in the 2008 presidential election. The rate plunged to 49 percent in the 2010 midterms, then rose to 72 percent in the 2012 presidential election. <u><strong>Most registration campaigns target young adults and Hispanics because they are the most inclined to vote in presidential-election years but skip midterms. </u></strong>"In parts of Orlando, Osceola County and South Florida, you don't see a drop-off, you see a plunge," said Christian Ulvert, political director of the Florida Democratic Party. "You see turnout in areas with high Hispanic voters go from 88 percent in a presidential year down to 25 or 26 percent in a gubernatorial year." The party is trying to counter the trend by emphasizing the importance of midterm elections. The Democratic National Committee, chaired by U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, also has hired Zach Learner, a Fort Lauderdale attorney, to head a Voter Expansion Project designed to help overcome voter confusion and perceived barriers. He will lead a small army of volunteer lawyers to educate people about voting methods — such as early voting, mail-in voting and provisional ballots — and to safeguard their rights at polling places. Many volunteers were inspired by the tumultuous 2000 presidential election, decided in Florida after five weeks of recounts and disputes. "I saw what happened in 2000, and I became concerned that citizens were either not going to be able to vote or might not understand what they needed to do to allow them to vote," said Jason B. Blank, of Fort Lauderdale, a volunteer attorney ready to advise voters who run into problems. Republicans, meanwhile, are culling through vast amounts of data on Floridians to spot potential like-minded voters who might be inclined to support Scott. They call it "the largest micro-targeting project in Florida history." "It's millions of data points on voters that have been assembled, and it can help predict which voters are likely to support the governor," said Susan Hepworth, communications director for the state Republicans. Even a slight increase in registration and turnout could tip the results of a close election. "<u><strong>On the margins, the marijuana amendment may bring people to the polls who normally wait till there's a presidential candidate on the ballot</u></strong>," <u><strong>said </u></strong>Daniel <u><strong>Smith, political science professor at the University of Florida</u></strong>. "<u><strong><mark>It may only be a couple of percentage points, but that could make all the difference."</mark> </p></u></strong>

Gibson, 8/11 William E., Washington Bureau, Sun Sentinel, “Medical Marijuana ballot issue may draw new voters,” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-11/news/fl-voter-turnout-boost-20140808_1_women-voters-new-voters-medical-marijuana-amendment, ALB]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Gibson, 8/11 William E., Washington Bureau, Sun Sentinel, “Medical Marijuana ballot issue may draw new voters,” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-11/news/fl-voter-turnout-boost-20140808_1_women-voters-new-voters-medical-marijuana-amendment, ALB] fulltext: Getting young people engaged in politics is never easy, but voter-registration volunteers say the medical-marijuana amendment on November's ballot is attracting new voters who otherwise might not bother with a midterm election. Both political parties for more than a year have been knocking on doors to energize supporters who might be lured to the polls by a heated governor's race. Democrats are especially eager to avoid the usual big drop-off of turnout in nonpresidential elections, which tends to hurt their party's candidates. But the wild card this year — the factor most likely to motivate new voters — appears to be the marijuana measure, along with another constitutional amendment that would provide special state funding to conserve environmentally sensitive land. "Young people are very unfamiliar with other elections going on but have heard about the medical-marijuana amendment and are excited to have an opportunity to vote for that," said Anna Eskamani, 23, a volunteer with the League of Women Voters who recruited passers-by at a farmers' market in Orlando last week. "It's definitely going to be a hot topic that will get young people out and, of course, encourage them to vote on other things as well." The proposed amendment would legalize marijuana for patients diagnosed with debilitating health problems. Although it would directly affect a relatively small number of people, it has drawn widespread interest because many voters see it leading to a broader decriminalization of marijuana. A recent statewide poll by Quinnipiac University found that 88 percent of voters supported it. The environmental amendment would devote a portion of state excise taxes to conserving land and wildlife. "It has to do with drinking water and protecting our rivers and lakes and the Everglades. That's an issue a lot people do feel strongly about," said Lynne Joshi, president of the League of Women Voters in Broward County. "With the amendments, we have a chance, especially with the younger people, for more people to turn out." A League forum in West Palm Beach last month to discuss the environmental amendment drew enough voters to fill a school auditorium. "There are always those voters who would not come out and do such a thing until they feel there's a direct effect on them," said Geanine Wester, the League president in Palm Beach County. If the parties and registration groups succeed, the 2014 election will buck a seesaw trend in Florida marked by wild swings in turnout rates among registered voters. Turnout soared from 47 percent in the 2006 midterm election to 75 percent in the 2008 presidential election. The rate plunged to 49 percent in the 2010 midterms, then rose to 72 percent in the 2012 presidential election. Most registration campaigns target young adults and Hispanics because they are the most inclined to vote in presidential-election years but skip midterms. "In parts of Orlando, Osceola County and South Florida, you don't see a drop-off, you see a plunge," said Christian Ulvert, political director of the Florida Democratic Party. "You see turnout in areas with high Hispanic voters go from 88 percent in a presidential year down to 25 or 26 percent in a gubernatorial year." The party is trying to counter the trend by emphasizing the importance of midterm elections. The Democratic National Committee, chaired by U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, also has hired Zach Learner, a Fort Lauderdale attorney, to head a Voter Expansion Project designed to help overcome voter confusion and perceived barriers. He will lead a small army of volunteer lawyers to educate people about voting methods — such as early voting, mail-in voting and provisional ballots — and to safeguard their rights at polling places. Many volunteers were inspired by the tumultuous 2000 presidential election, decided in Florida after five weeks of recounts and disputes. "I saw what happened in 2000, and I became concerned that citizens were either not going to be able to vote or might not understand what they needed to do to allow them to vote," said Jason B. Blank, of Fort Lauderdale, a volunteer attorney ready to advise voters who run into problems. Republicans, meanwhile, are culling through vast amounts of data on Floridians to spot potential like-minded voters who might be inclined to support Scott. They call it "the largest micro-targeting project in Florida history." "It's millions of data points on voters that have been assembled, and it can help predict which voters are likely to support the governor," said Susan Hepworth, communications director for the state Republicans. Even a slight increase in registration and turnout could tip the results of a close election. "On the margins, the marijuana amendment may bring people to the polls who normally wait till there's a presidential candidate on the ballot," said Daniel Smith, political science professor at the University of Florida. "It may only be a couple of percentage points, but that could make all the difference." [/INST] <h4>Current state ballot initiatives K2 youth turnout K2 Dems/election-Plan makes those not happen</h4><p><strong>Gibson, 8/11 </strong>William E., Washington Bureau, Sun Sentinel, “Medical Marijuana ballot issue may draw new voters,” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-11/news/fl-voter-turnout-boost-20140808_1_women-voters-new-voters-medical-marijuana-amendment<u><strong>, ALB]</p><p></u></strong>Getting young people engaged in politics is never easy, but <u><strong>voter-registration volunteers say the medical-marijuana amendment on November's ballot is attracting new voters who otherwise might not bother with a midterm election</u></strong>. <u><strong>Both political parties for more than a year have been knocking on doors to energize supporters who might be lured to the polls by a heated governor's race.</u></strong> <u><strong>Democrats are</u></strong> especially <u><strong>eager to avoid the usual big drop-off of turnout in nonpresidential elections, which tends to hurt their party's candidates. </u></strong>But <u><strong><mark>the wild card this year — the factor most likely to motivate new voters</u></strong> — <u><strong>appears to be the marijuana measure</u></strong></mark>, along with another constitutional amendment that would provide special state funding to conserve environmentally sensitive land. <u><strong>"<mark>Young people are very unfamiliar with other elections going on but have heard about the medical-marijuana amendment</u></strong> <u><strong>and are excited to have an opportunity to vote for that</u></strong></mark>," said Anna Eskamani, 23, a volunteer with the League of Women Voters who recruited passers-by at a farmers' market in Orlando last week. "<u><strong>It's definitely going to be a hot topic that will get young people out</u></strong> and, of course, <u><strong>encourage them to vote on other things as well." </u></strong>The proposed amendment would legalize marijuana for patients diagnosed with debilitating health problems. Although it would directly affect a relatively small number of people, it has drawn widespread interest because many voters see it leading to a broader decriminalization of marijuana. A recent statewide poll by Quinnipiac University found that 88 percent of voters supported it. The environmental amendment would devote a portion of state excise taxes to conserving land and wildlife. "It has to do with drinking water and protecting our rivers and lakes and the Everglades. That's an issue a lot people do feel strongly about," said Lynne Joshi, president of the League of Women Voters in Broward County. "With the amendments, we have a chance, especially with the younger people, for more people to turn out." A League forum in West Palm Beach last month to discuss the environmental amendment drew enough voters to fill a school auditorium. "There are always those voters who would not come out and do such a thing until they feel there's a direct effect on them," said Geanine Wester, the League president in Palm Beach County. If the parties and registration groups succeed, the 2014 election will buck a seesaw trend in Florida marked by wild swings in turnout rates among registered voters. Turnout soared from 47 percent in the 2006 midterm election to 75 percent in the 2008 presidential election. The rate plunged to 49 percent in the 2010 midterms, then rose to 72 percent in the 2012 presidential election. <u><strong>Most registration campaigns target young adults and Hispanics because they are the most inclined to vote in presidential-election years but skip midterms. </u></strong>"In parts of Orlando, Osceola County and South Florida, you don't see a drop-off, you see a plunge," said Christian Ulvert, political director of the Florida Democratic Party. "You see turnout in areas with high Hispanic voters go from 88 percent in a presidential year down to 25 or 26 percent in a gubernatorial year." The party is trying to counter the trend by emphasizing the importance of midterm elections. The Democratic National Committee, chaired by U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, also has hired Zach Learner, a Fort Lauderdale attorney, to head a Voter Expansion Project designed to help overcome voter confusion and perceived barriers. He will lead a small army of volunteer lawyers to educate people about voting methods — such as early voting, mail-in voting and provisional ballots — and to safeguard their rights at polling places. Many volunteers were inspired by the tumultuous 2000 presidential election, decided in Florida after five weeks of recounts and disputes. "I saw what happened in 2000, and I became concerned that citizens were either not going to be able to vote or might not understand what they needed to do to allow them to vote," said Jason B. Blank, of Fort Lauderdale, a volunteer attorney ready to advise voters who run into problems. Republicans, meanwhile, are culling through vast amounts of data on Floridians to spot potential like-minded voters who might be inclined to support Scott. They call it "the largest micro-targeting project in Florida history." "It's millions of data points on voters that have been assembled, and it can help predict which voters are likely to support the governor," said Susan Hepworth, communications director for the state Republicans. Even a slight increase in registration and turnout could tip the results of a close election. "<u><strong>On the margins, the marijuana amendment may bring people to the polls who normally wait till there's a presidential candidate on the ballot</u></strong>," <u><strong>said </u></strong>Daniel <u><strong>Smith, political science professor at the University of Florida</u></strong>. "<u><strong><mark>It may only be a couple of percentage points, but that could make all the difference."</mark> </p></u></strong> </s>

“Resolved” means

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]

That’s Merriam Webster 14

That’s Merriam Webster 14 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]

<h4>“Resolved” means </h4><p><u><strong>re·solve verb \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ : to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something)</p><p></u></strong>: <u><strong><mark>to make a definite</u></strong></mark> and serious <u><strong><mark>decision </u></strong></mark>to do something</p><p><strong><mark>That’s Merriam Webster 14</mark> <u>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]</p></u></strong>

re·solve verb \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ : to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something) : to make a definite and serious decision to do something

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: re·solve verb \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ : to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something) : to make a definite and serious decision to do something fulltext: That’s Merriam Webster 14 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved] [/INST] <h4>“Resolved” means </h4><p><u><strong>re·solve verb \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ : to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something)</p><p></u></strong>: <u><strong><mark>to make a definite</u></strong></mark> and serious <u><strong><mark>decision </u></strong></mark>to do something</p><p><strong><mark>That’s Merriam Webster 14</mark> <u>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]</p></u></strong> </s>

The United States should not retaliate against Antigua for such suspension.

<h4>The United States should not retaliate against Antigua for such suspension. </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>The United States should not retaliate against Antigua for such suspension. </h4> </s>

Ransoms and state sponsors of terror outweigh the internal link

Ransom increasingly fills the coffers of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa, U.S. and other Western officials said, with the payments often coming from a Persian Gulf or Western European government. Only U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror now provide more money to violent extremist groups than ransoms do, said David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism. Ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for such groups in Syria and Iraq, 120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and that since then, Yemen's al Qaeda branch alone has collected at least $20 million. "Absolutely, Western states were paying direct" in Yemen n states that frankly ought to have known better were covertly paying ransoms. While businesses and other organizations also sometimes pay to free captives, the diplomats and officials said, government-paid ransoms have been game-changers. The Treasury has estimated that by 2011, ransoms were averaging more than $5 million a hostage in North Africa.

Ransom fills the coffers of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa state sponsors of terror provide money to violent extremist groups Ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for groups in Syria and Iraq $120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and since then, Yemen's branch has collected $20 million ransoms were averaging $5 million a hostage in North Africa

Ransom increasingly fills the coffers of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa, U.S. and other Western officials said, with the payments often coming from a Persian Gulf or Western European government. Only U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror now provide more money to violent extremist groups than ransoms do, said David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism. Ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for such groups in Syria and Iraq, Mr. Cohen said in an interview. He estimated that $120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and that since then, Yemen's al Qaeda branch alone has collected at least $20 million. "Absolutely, Western states were paying direct" in Yemen, said Alistair Burt, Britain's state minister for the Middle East until October, speaking of his time overseeing the region. "Western states that frankly ought to have known better were covertly paying ransoms." Several current European, Arab and other diplomats privately made the same assertion in interviews this spring. Asked for evidence of arrangements that are by nature secretive, they cited information gathered by their national intelligence agencies, by their own involvement in efforts to free Western hostages and from others involved in such efforts. While businesses and other organizations also sometimes pay to free captives, the diplomats and officials said, government-paid ransoms have been game-changers. The Treasury has estimated that by 2011, ransoms were averaging more than $5 million a hostage in North Africa.

<h4>Ransoms and state sponsors of terror outweigh the internal link </h4><p><strong>Knickmeyer 14<u> (Ellen, correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2014, “Al Qaeda-Linked Groups Increasingly Funded by Ransom”, http://online.wsj.com/articles/ransom-fills-terrorist-coffers-1406637010///TS)</p><p><mark>Ransom</mark> increasingly <mark>fills the coffers of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa</mark>, U.S. and other Western officials said, with the payments often coming from a Persian Gulf or Western European government. Only U.S.-designated <mark>state sponsors of terror </mark>now <mark>provide</mark> more <mark>money to violent extremist groups</mark> than ransoms do, said David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism. <mark>Ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for</mark> such <mark>groups in Syria and Iraq</mark>,</u></strong> Mr. Cohen said in an interview. He estimated that <mark>$<u><strong>120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and</mark> that <mark>since then, Yemen's</mark> al Qaeda <mark>branch</mark> alone <mark>has collected</mark> at least <mark>$20 million</mark>. "Absolutely, Western states were paying direct" in Yemen</u></strong>, said Alistair Burt, Britain's state minister for the Middle East until October, speaking of his time overseeing the region. "Wester<u><strong>n states that frankly ought to have known better were covertly paying ransoms.</u></strong>" Several current European, Arab and other diplomats privately made the same assertion in interviews this spring. Asked for evidence of arrangements that are by nature secretive, they cited information gathered by their national intelligence agencies, by their own involvement in efforts to free Western hostages and from others involved in such efforts. <u><strong>While businesses and other organizations also sometimes pay to free captives, the diplomats and officials said, government-paid ransoms have been game-changers. The Treasury has estimated that by 2011, <mark>ransoms were averaging</mark> more than <mark>$5 million a hostage in North Africa</mark>. </p></u></strong>

Knickmeyer 14 (Ellen, correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2014, “Al Qaeda-Linked Groups Increasingly Funded by Ransom”, http://online.wsj.com/articles/ransom-fills-terrorist-coffers-1406637010///TS)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Knickmeyer 14 (Ellen, correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2014, “Al Qaeda-Linked Groups Increasingly Funded by Ransom”, http://online.wsj.com/articles/ransom-fills-terrorist-coffers-1406637010///TS) fulltext: Ransom increasingly fills the coffers of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa, U.S. and other Western officials said, with the payments often coming from a Persian Gulf or Western European government. Only U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror now provide more money to violent extremist groups than ransoms do, said David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism. Ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for such groups in Syria and Iraq, Mr. Cohen said in an interview. He estimated that $120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and that since then, Yemen's al Qaeda branch alone has collected at least $20 million. "Absolutely, Western states were paying direct" in Yemen, said Alistair Burt, Britain's state minister for the Middle East until October, speaking of his time overseeing the region. "Western states that frankly ought to have known better were covertly paying ransoms." Several current European, Arab and other diplomats privately made the same assertion in interviews this spring. Asked for evidence of arrangements that are by nature secretive, they cited information gathered by their national intelligence agencies, by their own involvement in efforts to free Western hostages and from others involved in such efforts. While businesses and other organizations also sometimes pay to free captives, the diplomats and officials said, government-paid ransoms have been game-changers. The Treasury has estimated that by 2011, ransoms were averaging more than $5 million a hostage in North Africa. [/INST] <h4>Ransoms and state sponsors of terror outweigh the internal link </h4><p><strong>Knickmeyer 14<u> (Ellen, correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2014, “Al Qaeda-Linked Groups Increasingly Funded by Ransom”, http://online.wsj.com/articles/ransom-fills-terrorist-coffers-1406637010///TS)</p><p><mark>Ransom</mark> increasingly <mark>fills the coffers of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa</mark>, U.S. and other Western officials said, with the payments often coming from a Persian Gulf or Western European government. Only U.S.-designated <mark>state sponsors of terror </mark>now <mark>provide</mark> more <mark>money to violent extremist groups</mark> than ransoms do, said David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism. <mark>Ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for</mark> such <mark>groups in Syria and Iraq</mark>,</u></strong> Mr. Cohen said in an interview. He estimated that <mark>$<u><strong>120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and</mark> that <mark>since then, Yemen's</mark> al Qaeda <mark>branch</mark> alone <mark>has collected</mark> at least <mark>$20 million</mark>. "Absolutely, Western states were paying direct" in Yemen</u></strong>, said Alistair Burt, Britain's state minister for the Middle East until October, speaking of his time overseeing the region. "Wester<u><strong>n states that frankly ought to have known better were covertly paying ransoms.</u></strong>" Several current European, Arab and other diplomats privately made the same assertion in interviews this spring. Asked for evidence of arrangements that are by nature secretive, they cited information gathered by their national intelligence agencies, by their own involvement in efforts to free Western hostages and from others involved in such efforts. <u><strong>While businesses and other organizations also sometimes pay to free captives, the diplomats and officials said, government-paid ransoms have been game-changers. The Treasury has estimated that by 2011, <mark>ransoms were averaging</mark> more than <mark>$5 million a hostage in North Africa</mark>. </p></u></strong> </s>

New zoonotic diseases cause extinction – no burnout because infectivity precedes symptoms

Infectious disease is all around us under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't ordinary. Aberrations occur zoonosis 's a word destined for heavy use in the 21st century zoonoses a pathogen can "spillover", crossing into people from other animals Zoonotic pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little illness Sars could have been very much worse If the virus had arrived in a different sort of big city it might have burned through a much larger segment of humanity. 1918 influenza occurred before globalisation When the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move through cities and airports like an angel of death not every virus goes airborne If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That is what separates a localised disease from a global pandemic there is the possibility of disaster No other primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the degree we do We are an outbreak And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end

zoonoses can "spillover" into people Zoonotic pathogens hide within a reservoir host: If the virus arrived in a different city it might have burned through humanity 1918 occurred before globalisation the Big One will conform to high infectivity preceding notable symptoms move through airports airborne rabies would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. human transmission is the crux there is the possibility of disaster No other primate has weighed on the planet like we do We are an outbreak And outbreaks end

(David, “Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?,” The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis) Infectious disease is all around us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't always ordinary.¶ Just as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. Aberrations occur. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a zoonosis.¶ It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It's a word of the future, destined for heavy use in the 21st century.¶ Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a pathogen that can "spillover", crossing into people from other animals.¶ Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years.¶ Zoonotic pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little or no illness. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out.¶ Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda.¶ Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007.¶ They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast."¶ By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back negative, including the test for Marburg.¶ Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats.¶ Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample.¶ The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive."¶ The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat.¶ The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats.¶ Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away.¶ "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars?¶ In the case of Sars, the scenario could have been very much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. If the virus had arrived in a different sort of big city - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - it might have burned through a much larger segment of humanity.¶ One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919 influenza. And that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before globalisation. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. When the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move through cities and airports like an angel of death.¶ The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, not every virus goes airborne from one host to another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best.¶ Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what separates a bizarre, awful, localised, intermittent and mysterious disease (such as Ebola) from a global pandemic. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918.¶ It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to pass from one person to another.¶ Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people.¶ "As long as H5N1 is out there in the world," Webster told me, "there is the possibility of disaster. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us."¶ We're unique in the history of mammals. No other primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the degree we do. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. We are an outbreak.¶ And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in particular.

<h4>New zoonotic diseases cause extinction – no burnout because infectivity precedes symptoms</h4><p><strong>Quammen 12</strong> – award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine, writer for National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others, 9/29</p><p>(David, “Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?,” The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis) </p><p><u>Infectious disease is all around us</u>. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, <u>under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions <strong>aren't</strong> </u>always<u> <strong>ordinary</strong>.</u>¶ Just as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. <u><strong>Aberrations occur</u></strong>. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a <u>zoonosis</u>.¶ It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It<u>'s</u> <u>a word</u> of the future, <u>destined for heavy use in the 21st century</u>.¶ Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these <u><mark>zoonoses</u></mark> reflects the action of <u>a pathogen</u> that <u><mark>can "spillover"</mark>, crossing <mark>into people</mark> from other animals</u>.¶ Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years.¶ <u><mark>Zoonotic pathogens</mark> can <mark>hide</mark>. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk <mark>within</mark> what's called <mark>a reservoir host: </mark>a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little</u> or no <u>illness</u>. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out.¶ Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda.¶ Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007.¶ They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast."¶ By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back negative, including the test for Marburg.¶ Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats.¶ Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample.¶ The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive."¶ The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat.¶ The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats.¶ Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away.¶ "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars?¶ In the case of <u>Sars</u>, the scenario <u>could have been very much worse</u>. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. <u><mark>If the virus</mark> had <mark>arrived in a different</mark> sort of big <strong><mark>city</u></strong></mark> - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - <u><mark>it might have burned through</mark> a much larger segment of <mark>humanity</mark>.</u>¶ One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the <u><mark>1918</u></mark>-1919 <u>influenza</u>. And that infamous global pandemic <u><mark>occurred</u></mark> in the era <u><mark>before globalisation</u></mark>. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. <u>When <mark>the</mark> Next <mark>Big One</mark> comes, it <mark>will</mark> likely <mark>conform to</mark> the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: <strong><mark>high infectivity</strong> <strong>preceding</strong> notable <strong>symptoms</strong></mark>. That will help it <strong><mark>move through</mark> cities</strong> and <strong><mark>airports</strong></mark> like an angel of death</u>.¶ The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, <u>not every virus goes <mark>airborne</u></mark> from one host to another. <u>If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the <mark>rabies</mark> virus could, it <mark>would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. </mark>The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission</u>, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best.¶ <u>Human-to-<mark>human transmission is the crux</mark>. That</u> capacity <u>is what separates a</u> bizarre, awful, <u>localised</u>, intermittent and mysterious <u>disease</u> (such as Ebola) <u>from a global pandemic</u>. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918.¶ It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to pass from one person to another.¶ Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people.¶ "As long as H5N1 is out there in the world," Webster told me, "<u><strong><mark>there is the possibility of disaster</u></strong></mark>. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us."¶ We're unique in the history of mammals. <u><mark>No other primate has</mark> ever <mark>weighed</mark> up<mark>on the planet</mark> to anything <mark>like</mark> the degree <mark>we do</u></mark>. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. <u><strong><mark>We are an outbreak</u></strong></mark>.¶ <u><mark>And</mark> here's the thing about <mark>outbreaks</mark>: they <mark>end</u></mark>. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in particular.</p>

Quammen 12 – award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine, writer for National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others, 9/29

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Quammen 12 – award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine, writer for National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others, 9/29 fulltext: (David, “Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?,” The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis) Infectious disease is all around us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't always ordinary.¶ Just as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. Aberrations occur. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a zoonosis.¶ It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It's a word of the future, destined for heavy use in the 21st century.¶ Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a pathogen that can "spillover", crossing into people from other animals.¶ Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years.¶ Zoonotic pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little or no illness. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out.¶ Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda.¶ Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007.¶ They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast."¶ By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back negative, including the test for Marburg.¶ Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats.¶ Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample.¶ The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive."¶ The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat.¶ The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats.¶ Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away.¶ "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars?¶ In the case of Sars, the scenario could have been very much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. If the virus had arrived in a different sort of big city - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - it might have burned through a much larger segment of humanity.¶ One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919 influenza. And that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before globalisation. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. When the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move through cities and airports like an angel of death.¶ The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, not every virus goes airborne from one host to another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best.¶ Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what separates a bizarre, awful, localised, intermittent and mysterious disease (such as Ebola) from a global pandemic. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918.¶ It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to pass from one person to another.¶ Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people.¶ "As long as H5N1 is out there in the world," Webster told me, "there is the possibility of disaster. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us."¶ We're unique in the history of mammals. No other primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the degree we do. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. We are an outbreak.¶ And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in particular. [/INST] <h4>New zoonotic diseases cause extinction – no burnout because infectivity precedes symptoms</h4><p><strong>Quammen 12</strong> – award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine, writer for National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others, 9/29</p><p>(David, “Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?,” The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis) </p><p><u>Infectious disease is all around us</u>. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, <u>under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions <strong>aren't</strong> </u>always<u> <strong>ordinary</strong>.</u>¶ Just as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. <u><strong>Aberrations occur</u></strong>. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a <u>zoonosis</u>.¶ It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It<u>'s</u> <u>a word</u> of the future, <u>destined for heavy use in the 21st century</u>.¶ Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these <u><mark>zoonoses</u></mark> reflects the action of <u>a pathogen</u> that <u><mark>can "spillover"</mark>, crossing <mark>into people</mark> from other animals</u>.¶ Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years.¶ <u><mark>Zoonotic pathogens</mark> can <mark>hide</mark>. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk <mark>within</mark> what's called <mark>a reservoir host: </mark>a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little</u> or no <u>illness</u>. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out.¶ Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda.¶ Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007.¶ They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast."¶ By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back negative, including the test for Marburg.¶ Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats.¶ Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample.¶ The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive."¶ The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat.¶ The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats.¶ Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away.¶ "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars?¶ In the case of <u>Sars</u>, the scenario <u>could have been very much worse</u>. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. <u><mark>If the virus</mark> had <mark>arrived in a different</mark> sort of big <strong><mark>city</u></strong></mark> - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - <u><mark>it might have burned through</mark> a much larger segment of <mark>humanity</mark>.</u>¶ One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the <u><mark>1918</u></mark>-1919 <u>influenza</u>. And that infamous global pandemic <u><mark>occurred</u></mark> in the era <u><mark>before globalisation</u></mark>. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. <u>When <mark>the</mark> Next <mark>Big One</mark> comes, it <mark>will</mark> likely <mark>conform to</mark> the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: <strong><mark>high infectivity</strong> <strong>preceding</strong> notable <strong>symptoms</strong></mark>. That will help it <strong><mark>move through</mark> cities</strong> and <strong><mark>airports</strong></mark> like an angel of death</u>.¶ The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, <u>not every virus goes <mark>airborne</u></mark> from one host to another. <u>If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the <mark>rabies</mark> virus could, it <mark>would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. </mark>The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission</u>, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best.¶ <u>Human-to-<mark>human transmission is the crux</mark>. That</u> capacity <u>is what separates a</u> bizarre, awful, <u>localised</u>, intermittent and mysterious <u>disease</u> (such as Ebola) <u>from a global pandemic</u>. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918.¶ It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to pass from one person to another.¶ Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people.¶ "As long as H5N1 is out there in the world," Webster told me, "<u><strong><mark>there is the possibility of disaster</u></strong></mark>. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us."¶ We're unique in the history of mammals. <u><mark>No other primate has</mark> ever <mark>weighed</mark> up<mark>on the planet</mark> to anything <mark>like</mark> the degree <mark>we do</u></mark>. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. <u><strong><mark>We are an outbreak</u></strong></mark>.¶ <u><mark>And</mark> here's the thing about <mark>outbreaks</mark>: they <mark>end</u></mark>. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in particular.</p> </s>

Now is the key time for a policy shift

the war on drugs has led to public health crises, mass incarceration, corruption, and black market–fueled violence. Governments have begun calling for a new approach, and reforms in some countries have spurred unprecedented momentum for change Pressed by drug war–fatigued Latin American leaders, the UN General Assembly plans to hold a review of the drug control system in 2016.¶ The UNGASS, is a meeting of UN member states to assess the world’s drug control priorities. Why does this summit matter?¶ International debates on drugs are rarely more than reaffirmations of the established system. But 2016 is different. Never before have so many governments voiced displeasure with the international drug control regime. Never before, have citizens passed regulatory proposals via referenda Never before have the health benefits of harm reduction approaches been clearer. there is significant dissent at the local, national, and international levels UNGASS 2016 is an unparalleled opportunity to put an end to the horrors of the drug war and instead prioritize health, human rights, and safety If this event is slated for 2016, why are we talking about it now?¶ As with all UN summits, the preparatory work begins well in advance. The content, priorities, and strategies are determined years ahead of time . Change is possible, and the process is starting now.

the war on drugs has led to health crises and violence Governments have begun calling for a new approach, and reforms have spurred unprecedented momentum for change the UN plans to review the system in 2016 debates on drugs are rarely more than reaffirmations But 2016 is different. Never before have so many governments voiced displeasure Never before have the health benefits of harm reduction been clearer there is significant dissent UNGASS 2016 is an unparalleled opportunity to put an end to the drug war and instead prioritize health with all UN summits, The strategies are determined years ahead of time the process is starting now.

Over the last few decades, the international war on drugs has led to public health crises, mass incarceration, corruption, and black market–fueled violence. Governments have begun calling for a new approach, and reforms in some countries have spurred unprecedented momentum for change. Pressed by drug war–fatigued Latin American leaders, the UN General Assembly plans to hold a review of the drug control system in 2016.¶ What is UNGASS?¶ The United Nations General Assembly Special Session, or UNGASS, is a meeting of UN member states to assess and debate global issues such as health, gender, or in this case, the world’s drug control priorities. The last time a special session on drugs was held, in 1998, its focus was the total elimination of drugs from the world. Today, political leaders and citizens are pushing to rethink that ineffective and dangerous approach.¶ Why does this summit matter?¶ International debates on drugs are rarely more than reaffirmations of the established system. But 2016 is different. Never before have so many governments voiced displeasure with the international drug control regime. Never before, to this degree, have citizens put drug law reform on the agenda and passed regulatory proposals via referenda or by popular campaigns. Never before have the health benefits of harm reduction approaches—which prevent overdose and transmission of diseases like HIV—been clearer. For the first time, there is significant dissent at the local, national, and international levels.¶ UNGASS 2016 is an unparalleled opportunity to put an end to the horrors of the drug war and instead prioritize health, human rights, and safety. ¶ But what does a UN meeting like this have to do with ordinary people’s lives?¶ The simple fact is that if your government wants to introduce drug policy reform, it may have to wrestle with the stewards of the drug control system in the UN.¶ For example, in the early 1990s, Switzerland faced a major drug problem. The country had open-air drug scenes and one of the highest rates of HIV in Western Europe. Rather than traditional, unsuccessful criminal justice approaches, the government pioneered health services such as heroin prescription, supervised consumption rooms, and community-based treatment. The Swiss people approved this policy through a series of referenda.¶ The results were eye-opening.¶ The number of new heroin users declined from 850 in 1990 to 150 in 2002; drug-related deaths declined by more than 50 percent between 1991 and 2004; levels of new HIV infections dropped 87 percent in 10 years, and there was a 90 percent reduction of property crime committed by people who use drugs.¶ However, rather than lauding these successes, the UN’s drug panel (the International Narcotics Control Board), accused the Swiss government of “aiding and/or abetting the commission of crimes involving illegal drug possession and use, as well as other criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”¶ When Uruguay experimented with new cannabis policies, the International Narcotics Control Board’s president went even further, accusing Uruguay of demonstrating “pirate attitudes.” This kind of insult against a country is extremely rare for a body of its kind.¶ In addition to criticism, some of these officials have a history of applauding some of the worst excesses in drug control. For example, after Bulgaria introduced a law that made possession of tiny amounts of drugs punishable with mandatory incarceration for as long as 15 years, the International Narcotics Control Board praised Bulgaria’s “political commitment and the will to deal with drug abuse.” ¶ While condemnation from these bodies may not deter powerful countries, it can discourage smaller nations from experimenting with alternative approaches.¶ If this event is slated for 2016, why are we talking about it now?¶ As with all UN summits, the preparatory work begins well in advance. The content, priorities, and strategies are determined months and years ahead of time. That’s why it’s time for people to speak out and tell their governments that the status quo is not acceptable. Change is possible, and the process is starting now.

<h4>Now is the key time for a policy shift </h4><p><strong>OSF 14</strong>, Open Society Foundation, EXPLAINERS: What Is UNGASS 2016?,<u> March, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016</p><p></u>Over the last few decades, <u><mark>the</mark> </u>international <u><mark>war on drugs has led to</mark> public <mark>health crises</mark>, mass incarceration, corruption, <mark>and</mark> black market–fueled <mark>violence</mark>. <mark>Governments have begun calling for a new approach, and reforms</mark> in some countries <mark>have spurred <strong>unprecedented momentum for change</u></strong></mark>. <u>Pressed by drug war–fatigued Latin American leaders, <mark>the UN</mark> General Assembly <mark>plans to</mark> hold a <mark>review</mark> of <mark>the</mark> drug control <mark>system in 2016</mark>.¶</u> What is UNGASS?¶ <u>The </u>United Nations General Assembly Special Session, or <u><strong>UNGASS,</u></strong> <u>is a meeting of UN member states to assess</u> and debate global issues such as health, gender, or in this case, <u>the world’s drug control priorities.</u> The last time a special session on drugs was held, in 1998, its focus was the total elimination of drugs from the world. Today, political leaders and citizens are pushing to rethink that ineffective and dangerous approach.¶ <u>Why does this summit matter?¶ International <mark>debates on drugs are rarely more than reaffirmations</mark> of the established system. <strong><mark>But 2016 is different.</u></strong> <u>Never before have so many governments voiced displeasure</mark> with the international drug control regime. Never before,</u> to this degree, <u>have citizens </u>put drug law reform on the agenda and <u>passed regulatory proposals via referenda </u>or by popular campaigns. <u><mark>Never before have the health benefits of harm reduction</mark> approaches</u>—which prevent overdose and transmission of diseases like HIV—<u><mark>been clearer</mark>. </u>For the first time, <u><mark>there is <strong>significant dissent</mark> </strong>at the local, national, and international levels</u>.¶ <u><mark>UNGASS 2016 is an unparalleled opportunity to put an end to the</mark> horrors of the <mark>drug war and instead prioritize health</mark>, human rights, and safety</u>. ¶ But what does a UN meeting like this have to do with ordinary people’s lives?¶ The simple fact is that if your government wants to introduce drug policy reform, it may have to wrestle with the stewards of the drug control system in the UN.¶ For example, in the early 1990s, Switzerland faced a major drug problem. The country had open-air drug scenes and one of the highest rates of HIV in Western Europe. Rather than traditional, unsuccessful criminal justice approaches, the government pioneered health services such as heroin prescription, supervised consumption rooms, and community-based treatment. The Swiss people approved this policy through a series of referenda.¶ The results were eye-opening.¶ The number of new heroin users declined from 850 in 1990 to 150 in 2002; drug-related deaths declined by more than 50 percent between 1991 and 2004; levels of new HIV infections dropped 87 percent in 10 years, and there was a 90 percent reduction of property crime committed by people who use drugs.¶ However, rather than lauding these successes, the UN’s drug panel (the International Narcotics Control Board), accused the Swiss government of “aiding and/or abetting the commission of crimes involving illegal drug possession and use, as well as other criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”¶ When Uruguay experimented with new cannabis policies, the International Narcotics Control Board’s president went even further, accusing Uruguay of demonstrating “pirate attitudes.” This kind of insult against a country is extremely rare for a body of its kind.¶ In addition to criticism, some of these officials have a history of applauding some of the worst excesses in drug control. For example, after Bulgaria introduced a law that made possession of tiny amounts of drugs punishable with mandatory incarceration for as long as 15 years, the International Narcotics Control Board praised Bulgaria’s “political commitment and the will to deal with drug abuse.” ¶ While condemnation from these bodies may not deter powerful countries, it can discourage smaller nations from experimenting with alternative approaches.¶ <u>If this event is slated for 2016, why are we talking about it now?¶ As <mark>with all UN summits,</mark> the preparatory work begins well in advance.</u> <u><mark>The</mark> content, priorities, and <mark>strategies are determined</u></mark> months and <u><mark>years ahead of time</u></mark>. That’s why it’s time for people to speak out and tell their governments that the status quo is not acceptable<u>. Change is possible, and <mark>the process is starting now.</p></u></mark>

OSF 14, Open Society Foundation, EXPLAINERS: What Is UNGASS 2016?, March, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: OSF 14, Open Society Foundation, EXPLAINERS: What Is UNGASS 2016?, March, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016 fulltext: Over the last few decades, the international war on drugs has led to public health crises, mass incarceration, corruption, and black market–fueled violence. Governments have begun calling for a new approach, and reforms in some countries have spurred unprecedented momentum for change. Pressed by drug war–fatigued Latin American leaders, the UN General Assembly plans to hold a review of the drug control system in 2016.¶ What is UNGASS?¶ The United Nations General Assembly Special Session, or UNGASS, is a meeting of UN member states to assess and debate global issues such as health, gender, or in this case, the world’s drug control priorities. The last time a special session on drugs was held, in 1998, its focus was the total elimination of drugs from the world. Today, political leaders and citizens are pushing to rethink that ineffective and dangerous approach.¶ Why does this summit matter?¶ International debates on drugs are rarely more than reaffirmations of the established system. But 2016 is different. Never before have so many governments voiced displeasure with the international drug control regime. Never before, to this degree, have citizens put drug law reform on the agenda and passed regulatory proposals via referenda or by popular campaigns. Never before have the health benefits of harm reduction approaches—which prevent overdose and transmission of diseases like HIV—been clearer. For the first time, there is significant dissent at the local, national, and international levels.¶ UNGASS 2016 is an unparalleled opportunity to put an end to the horrors of the drug war and instead prioritize health, human rights, and safety. ¶ But what does a UN meeting like this have to do with ordinary people’s lives?¶ The simple fact is that if your government wants to introduce drug policy reform, it may have to wrestle with the stewards of the drug control system in the UN.¶ For example, in the early 1990s, Switzerland faced a major drug problem. The country had open-air drug scenes and one of the highest rates of HIV in Western Europe. Rather than traditional, unsuccessful criminal justice approaches, the government pioneered health services such as heroin prescription, supervised consumption rooms, and community-based treatment. The Swiss people approved this policy through a series of referenda.¶ The results were eye-opening.¶ The number of new heroin users declined from 850 in 1990 to 150 in 2002; drug-related deaths declined by more than 50 percent between 1991 and 2004; levels of new HIV infections dropped 87 percent in 10 years, and there was a 90 percent reduction of property crime committed by people who use drugs.¶ However, rather than lauding these successes, the UN’s drug panel (the International Narcotics Control Board), accused the Swiss government of “aiding and/or abetting the commission of crimes involving illegal drug possession and use, as well as other criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”¶ When Uruguay experimented with new cannabis policies, the International Narcotics Control Board’s president went even further, accusing Uruguay of demonstrating “pirate attitudes.” This kind of insult against a country is extremely rare for a body of its kind.¶ In addition to criticism, some of these officials have a history of applauding some of the worst excesses in drug control. For example, after Bulgaria introduced a law that made possession of tiny amounts of drugs punishable with mandatory incarceration for as long as 15 years, the International Narcotics Control Board praised Bulgaria’s “political commitment and the will to deal with drug abuse.” ¶ While condemnation from these bodies may not deter powerful countries, it can discourage smaller nations from experimenting with alternative approaches.¶ If this event is slated for 2016, why are we talking about it now?¶ As with all UN summits, the preparatory work begins well in advance. The content, priorities, and strategies are determined months and years ahead of time. That’s why it’s time for people to speak out and tell their governments that the status quo is not acceptable. Change is possible, and the process is starting now. [/INST] <h4>Now is the key time for a policy shift </h4><p><strong>OSF 14</strong>, Open Society Foundation, EXPLAINERS: What Is UNGASS 2016?,<u> March, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-ungass-2016</p><p></u>Over the last few decades, <u><mark>the</mark> </u>international <u><mark>war on drugs has led to</mark> public <mark>health crises</mark>, mass incarceration, corruption, <mark>and</mark> black market–fueled <mark>violence</mark>. <mark>Governments have begun calling for a new approach, and reforms</mark> in some countries <mark>have spurred <strong>unprecedented momentum for change</u></strong></mark>. <u>Pressed by drug war–fatigued Latin American leaders, <mark>the UN</mark> General Assembly <mark>plans to</mark> hold a <mark>review</mark> of <mark>the</mark> drug control <mark>system in 2016</mark>.¶</u> What is UNGASS?¶ <u>The </u>United Nations General Assembly Special Session, or <u><strong>UNGASS,</u></strong> <u>is a meeting of UN member states to assess</u> and debate global issues such as health, gender, or in this case, <u>the world’s drug control priorities.</u> The last time a special session on drugs was held, in 1998, its focus was the total elimination of drugs from the world. Today, political leaders and citizens are pushing to rethink that ineffective and dangerous approach.¶ <u>Why does this summit matter?¶ International <mark>debates on drugs are rarely more than reaffirmations</mark> of the established system. <strong><mark>But 2016 is different.</u></strong> <u>Never before have so many governments voiced displeasure</mark> with the international drug control regime. Never before,</u> to this degree, <u>have citizens </u>put drug law reform on the agenda and <u>passed regulatory proposals via referenda </u>or by popular campaigns. <u><mark>Never before have the health benefits of harm reduction</mark> approaches</u>—which prevent overdose and transmission of diseases like HIV—<u><mark>been clearer</mark>. </u>For the first time, <u><mark>there is <strong>significant dissent</mark> </strong>at the local, national, and international levels</u>.¶ <u><mark>UNGASS 2016 is an unparalleled opportunity to put an end to the</mark> horrors of the <mark>drug war and instead prioritize health</mark>, human rights, and safety</u>. ¶ But what does a UN meeting like this have to do with ordinary people’s lives?¶ The simple fact is that if your government wants to introduce drug policy reform, it may have to wrestle with the stewards of the drug control system in the UN.¶ For example, in the early 1990s, Switzerland faced a major drug problem. The country had open-air drug scenes and one of the highest rates of HIV in Western Europe. Rather than traditional, unsuccessful criminal justice approaches, the government pioneered health services such as heroin prescription, supervised consumption rooms, and community-based treatment. The Swiss people approved this policy through a series of referenda.¶ The results were eye-opening.¶ The number of new heroin users declined from 850 in 1990 to 150 in 2002; drug-related deaths declined by more than 50 percent between 1991 and 2004; levels of new HIV infections dropped 87 percent in 10 years, and there was a 90 percent reduction of property crime committed by people who use drugs.¶ However, rather than lauding these successes, the UN’s drug panel (the International Narcotics Control Board), accused the Swiss government of “aiding and/or abetting the commission of crimes involving illegal drug possession and use, as well as other criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”¶ When Uruguay experimented with new cannabis policies, the International Narcotics Control Board’s president went even further, accusing Uruguay of demonstrating “pirate attitudes.” This kind of insult against a country is extremely rare for a body of its kind.¶ In addition to criticism, some of these officials have a history of applauding some of the worst excesses in drug control. For example, after Bulgaria introduced a law that made possession of tiny amounts of drugs punishable with mandatory incarceration for as long as 15 years, the International Narcotics Control Board praised Bulgaria’s “political commitment and the will to deal with drug abuse.” ¶ While condemnation from these bodies may not deter powerful countries, it can discourage smaller nations from experimenting with alternative approaches.¶ <u>If this event is slated for 2016, why are we talking about it now?¶ As <mark>with all UN summits,</mark> the preparatory work begins well in advance.</u> <u><mark>The</mark> content, priorities, and <mark>strategies are determined</u></mark> months and <u><mark>years ahead of time</u></mark>. That’s why it’s time for people to speak out and tell their governments that the status quo is not acceptable<u>. Change is possible, and <mark>the process is starting now.</p></u></mark> </s>

Makes nuclear miscalculation inevitable

security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing,¶ actor on the world stage. the decline could lead Russia’s military leaders, to lower the threshold at which they might consider using nuclear weapons in moments of crisis. The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy Russia’s political leaders could very well become more alarmist, mercurial, and confrontational in their international posture. And in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalculation when it comes to relations with both allies and rivals If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.

it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing on the world stage the decline could lead Russia’s leaders to lower the threshold at which they might us nuclear weapons Russia’s leaders could become alarmist and confrontational in posture in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalc with both allies and rivals

Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing,¶ actor on the world stage.¶ Most immediately and dramatically, the decline could lead Russia’s military leaders, aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, to lower the threshold at which they might consider using nuclear weapons in moments of crisis. Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, Russia’s political leaders could very well become more alarmist, mercurial, and confrontational in their international posture. And in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalculation when it comes to relations with both allies and rivals. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶ stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.

<h4>Makes nuclear miscalculation inevitable</h4><p>Nicholas <strong>Eberstadt 11<u>, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf </p><p></u></strong>Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential <u><strong>security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders</u></strong>. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ <u><strong>this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: <mark>it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing</mark>,¶ actor <mark>on the world stage</mark>.</u></strong>¶ Most immediately and dramatically, <u><strong><mark>the decline could lead Russia’s</mark> military <mark>leaders</mark>, </u></strong>aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, <u><strong><mark>to lower the threshold at which they might</mark> consider <mark>us</mark>ing <mark>nuclear weapons</mark> in moments of crisis.</u></strong> Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ <u><strong>The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy</u></strong>. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, <u><strong><mark>Russia’s</mark> political <mark>leaders could</mark> very well <mark>become</mark> more <mark>alarmist</mark>, mercurial, <mark>and confrontational in</mark> their international <mark>posture</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>And <mark>in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalc</mark>ulation when it comes to relations <mark>with both allies and rivals</u></strong></mark>. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶<u><strong> </u></strong>stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. <u><strong>If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.</p></u></strong>

Nicholas Eberstadt 11, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nicholas Eberstadt 11, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf fulltext: Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing,¶ actor on the world stage.¶ Most immediately and dramatically, the decline could lead Russia’s military leaders, aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, to lower the threshold at which they might consider using nuclear weapons in moments of crisis. Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, Russia’s political leaders could very well become more alarmist, mercurial, and confrontational in their international posture. And in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalculation when it comes to relations with both allies and rivals. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶ stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky. [/INST] <h4>Makes nuclear miscalculation inevitable</h4><p>Nicholas <strong>Eberstadt 11<u>, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Senior Adviser at the National Bureau of Asian Research, “The Dying Bear: Russia's Demographic Disaster,” Nov/Dec, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/11/02/-eberstadtthedyingbear_194331985869.pdf </p><p></u></strong>Throughout the Putin and Medvedev eras, the potential <u><strong>security risks to Russia from the ongoing demographic crisis have weighed heavily on the minds of the country’s leaders</u></strong>. In his first State of the¶ Nation address, in July 2000, Putin declared that “year by year, we,¶ the citizens of Russia, are getting fewer and fewer. . . . We face the¶ threat of becoming a senile nation.” In his 2006 address, he identified¶ demographics as “the most acute problem facing our country today.”¶ In Medvedev’s May 2009 National Security Strategy, the country’s¶ demographic situation was noted as one of the “new security challenges”¶ that Russia must confront in the years ahead. In other words, the¶ potential ramifications of Russia’s population trends are not entirely¶ lost on the Kremlin—and they are hardly just a domestic concern.¶ But how will Russia’s bunkered and undemocratic leaders cope with¶ the demographic pressures and unfavorable human resource trends¶ that are undermining their goals? For the international community,¶ <u><strong>this may be the single most disturbing aspect of Russia’s peacetime¶ population crisis: <mark>it is possible that Russia’s demographic decline could prompt Moscow to become a more unpredictable, even menacing</mark>,¶ actor <mark>on the world stage</mark>.</u></strong>¶ Most immediately and dramatically, <u><strong><mark>the decline could lead Russia’s</mark> military <mark>leaders</mark>, </u></strong>aware of their deficiencies in both manpower and¶ advanced technology, <u><strong><mark>to lower the threshold at which they might</mark> consider <mark>us</mark>ing <mark>nuclear weapons</mark> in moments of crisis.</u></strong> Indeed, such¶ thinking was first outlined in Putin’s 2000 National Security Concept¶ and was reaffrmed in Medvedev’s 2009 National Security Strategy.¶ <u><strong>The official Russian thinking is that nuclear weapons are Russia’s¶ trump card: the more threatening the international environment, the¶ more readily Moscow will resort to nuclear diplomacy</u></strong>. ¶ For the moment, the Kremlin evidently still believes that its ambitious long-term socioeconomic plans will not only remedy the country’s¶ demographic woes but also propel Russia into the select ranks of the¶ world’s economic superpowers. But if Russia’s demographic decline¶ and relative economic decline continue over the next few decades,¶ as they most likely will, Moscow’s leaders will be unable to sustain¶ that illusion.¶ Indeed, once the Kremlin finally confronts the true depths of the¶ country’s ugly demographic truths, <u><strong><mark>Russia’s</mark> political <mark>leaders could</mark> very well <mark>become</mark> more <mark>alarmist</mark>, mercurial, <mark>and confrontational in</mark> their international <mark>posture</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>And <mark>in the process, Moscow might become more prone to miscalc</mark>ulation when it comes to relations <mark>with both allies and rivals</u></strong></mark>. Meanwhile, Russia is surrounded by countries whose¶<u><strong> </u></strong>stability and comity in the decades ahead are anything but given:¶ for example, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Cen-¶ tral Asian republics. <u><strong>If Russia's periphery becomes more unstable¶ and threatening at the same time that Russia's rulers realize their¶ relative power is waning, the Kremlin's behavior may well become¶ less confident—and more risky.</p></u></strong> </s>

Marijuana’s key to turnout

Democrats could gain an edge in November midterm elections as marijuana bring out younger voters who traditionally lean Democratic the issue could be a deciding factor in November it will get people out to vote. It will increase turnout of young people who otherwise voted for Obama and otherwise will not vote Sixty nine percent of Americans, meanwhile, said they would be more likely to vote in an election if it included a ballot proposal to legalize marijuana it'll bring out the vote It's going to be a big issue for getting out the vote

Democrats could gain an edge in November as marijuana bring out younger voters who traditionally lean Democratic the issue could be a deciding factor in November it will get people out to vote It will increase turnout of young people who otherwise will not vote

Democrats could gain an edge in November midterm elections as marijuana ballot initiatives bring out younger voters who traditionally lean Democratic, argues U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, one of the elected officials who has been most vocal in advocating for reform of U.S. marijuana laws. Asked during a recent interview with TheStreet whether the issue could be a deciding factor in November, Cohen said, "I don't know that it will, but it could, because I think it will get people out to vote. It will increase turnout of young people who otherwise voted for Obama and otherwise will not vote, because they're just not tuned into the process. But this is something that'll get a lot of people tuned in and interested in politics." A George Washington University poll conducted in March found 53% of Americans in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession, with 44% opposed to the idea. Sixty nine percent of Americans, meanwhile, said they would be more likely to vote in an election if it included a ballot proposal to legalize the use of marijuana. And 79% of those polled believe marijuana should be made legal for medical use. If an initiative can make it on the ballot in Cohen's neighboring state of Arkansas, he believes it will help Democratic Senator Mark Pryor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross. "I don't know what the problems are, but the authorities have found every way in the world to thwart them putting it on the ballot again, because I think they know it'll bring out the vote. If it brings out the vote, it's liable that there'll be a Democrat Mike Ross elected governor, that it will help Mark Pryor. Mark Pryor is probably not for marijuana legalization, but if young people come out and vote, and they vote on a medical marijuana issue and they've got to vote for Pryor or [Tom] Cotton, more of them are going to vote for Pryor, I think, because they're going to realize he's going to be better on the issue," Cohen said. The Congressman also pointed to a measure that will be on the ballot in Alaska that would make it legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow limited amounts of it in private. "That'll help [Sen. Mark] Begich," Cohen predicted. "It's going to be a big issue for getting out the vote."

<h4>Marijuana’s key to turnout</h4><p><strong>Freed 14</strong>, Dan, senior staff reporter at The Street, has been a reporter for Wall Street Letter, BondWeek, Corporate Financing Week, Real Estate Finance & Investment, Investment Dealers' Digest and Institutional Investor magazine, “Marijuana Midterms? Rep. Cohen Sees An Edge for Democrats,” 5/07, http://www.thestreet.com/story/12699355/1/marijuana-midterms-rep-cohen-sees-an-edge-for-democrats.html</p><p><u><strong><mark>Democrats could gain an edge in November</mark> midterm elections <mark>as marijuana</u></strong></mark> ballot initiatives <u><strong><mark>bring out younger voters</mark> <mark>who</mark> <mark>traditionally lean Democratic</u></strong></mark>, argues U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, one of the elected officials who has been most vocal in advocating for reform of U.S. marijuana laws. Asked during a recent interview with TheStreet whether <u><strong><mark>the issue could be a deciding factor in November</u></strong></mark>, Cohen said, "I don't know that it will, but it could, because I think <u><strong><mark>it will get people out to vote</mark>. <mark>It will increase turnout of young people</mark> <mark>who</mark> otherwise voted for Obama and <mark>otherwise will not vote</u></strong></mark>, because they're just not tuned into the process. But this is something that'll get a lot of people tuned in and interested in politics." A George Washington University poll conducted in March found 53% of Americans in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession, with 44% opposed to the idea. <u><strong>Sixty nine percent of Americans, meanwhile, said they would be more likely to vote in an election if it included a ballot proposal to legalize</u></strong> the use of <u><strong>marijuana</u></strong>. And 79% of those polled believe marijuana should be made legal for medical use. If an initiative can make it on the ballot in Cohen's neighboring state of Arkansas, he believes it will help Democratic Senator Mark Pryor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross. "I don't know what the problems are, but the authorities have found every way in the world to thwart them putting it on the ballot again, because I think they know <u><strong>it'll bring out the vote</u></strong>. If it brings out the vote, it's liable that there'll be a Democrat Mike Ross elected governor, that it will help Mark Pryor. Mark Pryor is probably not for marijuana legalization, but if young people come out and vote, and they vote on a medical marijuana issue and they've got to vote for Pryor or [Tom] Cotton, more of them are going to vote for Pryor, I think, because they're going to realize he's going to be better on the issue," Cohen said. The Congressman also pointed to a measure that will be on the ballot in Alaska that would make it legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow limited amounts of it in private. "That'll help [Sen. Mark] Begich," Cohen predicted. "<u><strong>It's going to be a big issue for getting out the vote</u></strong>."</p>

Freed 14, Dan, senior staff reporter at The Street, has been a reporter for Wall Street Letter, BondWeek, Corporate Financing Week, Real Estate Finance & Investment, Investment Dealers' Digest and Institutional Investor magazine, “Marijuana Midterms? Rep. Cohen Sees An Edge for Democrats,” 5/07, http://www.thestreet.com/story/12699355/1/marijuana-midterms-rep-cohen-sees-an-edge-for-democrats.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Freed 14, Dan, senior staff reporter at The Street, has been a reporter for Wall Street Letter, BondWeek, Corporate Financing Week, Real Estate Finance & Investment, Investment Dealers' Digest and Institutional Investor magazine, “Marijuana Midterms? Rep. Cohen Sees An Edge for Democrats,” 5/07, http://www.thestreet.com/story/12699355/1/marijuana-midterms-rep-cohen-sees-an-edge-for-democrats.html fulltext: Democrats could gain an edge in November midterm elections as marijuana ballot initiatives bring out younger voters who traditionally lean Democratic, argues U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, one of the elected officials who has been most vocal in advocating for reform of U.S. marijuana laws. Asked during a recent interview with TheStreet whether the issue could be a deciding factor in November, Cohen said, "I don't know that it will, but it could, because I think it will get people out to vote. It will increase turnout of young people who otherwise voted for Obama and otherwise will not vote, because they're just not tuned into the process. But this is something that'll get a lot of people tuned in and interested in politics." A George Washington University poll conducted in March found 53% of Americans in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession, with 44% opposed to the idea. Sixty nine percent of Americans, meanwhile, said they would be more likely to vote in an election if it included a ballot proposal to legalize the use of marijuana. And 79% of those polled believe marijuana should be made legal for medical use. If an initiative can make it on the ballot in Cohen's neighboring state of Arkansas, he believes it will help Democratic Senator Mark Pryor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross. "I don't know what the problems are, but the authorities have found every way in the world to thwart them putting it on the ballot again, because I think they know it'll bring out the vote. If it brings out the vote, it's liable that there'll be a Democrat Mike Ross elected governor, that it will help Mark Pryor. Mark Pryor is probably not for marijuana legalization, but if young people come out and vote, and they vote on a medical marijuana issue and they've got to vote for Pryor or [Tom] Cotton, more of them are going to vote for Pryor, I think, because they're going to realize he's going to be better on the issue," Cohen said. The Congressman also pointed to a measure that will be on the ballot in Alaska that would make it legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow limited amounts of it in private. "That'll help [Sen. Mark] Begich," Cohen predicted. "It's going to be a big issue for getting out the vote." [/INST] <h4>Marijuana’s key to turnout</h4><p><strong>Freed 14</strong>, Dan, senior staff reporter at The Street, has been a reporter for Wall Street Letter, BondWeek, Corporate Financing Week, Real Estate Finance & Investment, Investment Dealers' Digest and Institutional Investor magazine, “Marijuana Midterms? Rep. Cohen Sees An Edge for Democrats,” 5/07, http://www.thestreet.com/story/12699355/1/marijuana-midterms-rep-cohen-sees-an-edge-for-democrats.html</p><p><u><strong><mark>Democrats could gain an edge in November</mark> midterm elections <mark>as marijuana</u></strong></mark> ballot initiatives <u><strong><mark>bring out younger voters</mark> <mark>who</mark> <mark>traditionally lean Democratic</u></strong></mark>, argues U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, one of the elected officials who has been most vocal in advocating for reform of U.S. marijuana laws. Asked during a recent interview with TheStreet whether <u><strong><mark>the issue could be a deciding factor in November</u></strong></mark>, Cohen said, "I don't know that it will, but it could, because I think <u><strong><mark>it will get people out to vote</mark>. <mark>It will increase turnout of young people</mark> <mark>who</mark> otherwise voted for Obama and <mark>otherwise will not vote</u></strong></mark>, because they're just not tuned into the process. But this is something that'll get a lot of people tuned in and interested in politics." A George Washington University poll conducted in March found 53% of Americans in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession, with 44% opposed to the idea. <u><strong>Sixty nine percent of Americans, meanwhile, said they would be more likely to vote in an election if it included a ballot proposal to legalize</u></strong> the use of <u><strong>marijuana</u></strong>. And 79% of those polled believe marijuana should be made legal for medical use. If an initiative can make it on the ballot in Cohen's neighboring state of Arkansas, he believes it will help Democratic Senator Mark Pryor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross. "I don't know what the problems are, but the authorities have found every way in the world to thwart them putting it on the ballot again, because I think they know <u><strong>it'll bring out the vote</u></strong>. If it brings out the vote, it's liable that there'll be a Democrat Mike Ross elected governor, that it will help Mark Pryor. Mark Pryor is probably not for marijuana legalization, but if young people come out and vote, and they vote on a medical marijuana issue and they've got to vote for Pryor or [Tom] Cotton, more of them are going to vote for Pryor, I think, because they're going to realize he's going to be better on the issue," Cohen said. The Congressman also pointed to a measure that will be on the ballot in Alaska that would make it legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow limited amounts of it in private. "That'll help [Sen. Mark] Begich," Cohen predicted. "<u><strong>It's going to be a big issue for getting out the vote</u></strong>."</p> </s>

The aff doesn’t defend a certain, immediate regulatory structure for Physician Assisted Suicide

<h4><u>The aff doesn’t defend a certain, immediate regulatory structure for Physician Assisted Suicide</h4></u>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><u>The aff doesn’t defend a certain, immediate regulatory structure for Physician Assisted Suicide</h4></u> </s>

Scenario 2 is Agriculture

<h4><strong>Scenario 2 is Agriculture </h4></strong>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><strong>Scenario 2 is Agriculture </h4></strong> </s>

Solves trade and creates TRIP credibility

Antigua had not initiated any proceedings aimed at profiting from suspension of the intellectual property obligations However, many reports suggest it may soon set up a website for the sale of American intellectual property, if the negotiations deadlock is not broken Antigua is still engaged in the use of pressure tactics in the hope of getting the US to comply with the rulings whenever Antigua has shown signs of putting its ruling into action, the Americans have responded with threats claiming intellectual property piracy and violation of international trade laws The Antiguan action has been authorised by the DSB after all the procedures laid down in the DSU were followed to the letter the way in which Antigua has proceeded against the US has conformed to all the standards expected of a country using an international trade dispute redressal forum Yet there have been aspersions on Antiguan conduct by American authorities the levelling of such allegations constitutes a severe breach of trust in WTO procedures Irrespective of its non compliance with the WTO rulings the despicable way in which the US has besmirched Antiguan reputation to cast it as a promulgator of intellectual property piracy has raised questions on the legality of cross retaliation under TRIPs

Antigua had not initiated suspension of i p However, many reports suggest it may soon set up sale of American i p Antigua is still engaged in pressure tactics in the hope of getting the US to comply whenever Antigua has shown signs of putting ruling into action, the Americans have responded with threats The Antiguan action has been authorised by the DSB there have been aspersions on Antiguan conduct by American authorities levelling such allegations constitutes a severe breach of trust in WTO procedures Irrespective of its non compliance with the rulings the despicable way the US has besmirched Antiguan reputation has raised questions on the legality of cross retaliation under TRIPs

As of June 2013, Antigua had not initiated any proceedings aimed at profiting from suspension of the intellectual property obligations owed to the US. However, many reports seem to suggest that it may soon set up a website for the sale of American intellectual property, if the negotiations deadlock is not broken.44 In the decade that has passed since the initiation of this case, there has not been any significant shift in the American position regarding its obligations under the GATS. Antigua is still engaged in the use of pressure tactics in the hope of getting the US to comply with the rulings. However, whenever Antigua has shown signs of putting its ruling into action, the Americans have responded with threats, claiming intellectual property piracy and violation of international trade laws. The Antiguan action has been authorised by the DSB after all the procedures laid down in the DSU were followed to the letter without any breach in its legality. Further, the way in which Antigua has proceeded against the US has conformed to all the standards expected of a country using an international trade dispute redressal forum. Yet there have been aspersions on Antiguan conduct by American authorities. Notwithstanding extant jurisprudence, the levelling of such allegations constitutes a severe breach of trust in WTO procedures. Irrespective of its non compliance with the WTO rulings and disregard of the threat of cross retaliation, the despicable way in which the US has besmirched Antiguan reputation to cast it as a promulgator of intellectual property piracy has also raised questions on the legality of cross retaliation under TRIPs.

<h4>Solves trade and creates TRIP credibility </h4><p><strong>Danish 13</strong>, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B.(H) National University of Advanced Legal Studies, India, October 2013, “WTO Dispute Resolution and Cross Retaliation under Trips: Is it Sanctioned Piracy of Intellectual Property? A Case Study of the US - Gambling (Antigua) Case,” Westminster Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/wlr16.php</p><p>As of June 2013, <u><strong><mark>Antigua had not initiated</mark> any proceedings aimed at profiting from <mark>suspension of</mark> the <mark>i</mark>ntellectual <mark>p</mark>roperty obligations</u></strong> owed to the US. <u><strong><mark>However, many reports</u></strong></mark> seem to <u><strong><mark>suggest</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>it may soon set up</mark> a website for the <mark>sale of American</mark> <mark>i</mark>ntellectual <mark>p</mark>roperty, if the negotiations deadlock is not broken</u></strong>.44 In the decade that has passed since the initiation of this case, there has not been any significant shift in the American position regarding its obligations under the GATS. <u><strong><mark>Antigua is still engaged in</mark> the use of <mark>pressure tactics in the hope of getting the US to comply</mark> with the rulings</u></strong>. However, <u><strong><mark>whenever Antigua has shown signs of putting</mark> its <mark>ruling into action,</u></strong> <u><strong>the Americans have responded with threats</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>claiming intellectual property piracy and violation of international trade laws</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The Antiguan action has been authorised by the DSB</mark> after all the procedures laid down in the DSU were followed to the letter</u></strong> without any breach in its legality. Further, <u><strong>the way in which Antigua has proceeded against the US has conformed to all the standards expected of a country using an international trade dispute redressal forum</u></strong>. <u><strong>Yet <mark>there have been aspersions on Antiguan conduct by American authorities</u></strong></mark>. Notwithstanding extant jurisprudence, <u><strong>the <mark>levelling</mark> of <mark>such allegations constitutes a severe breach of trust in WTO procedures</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Irrespective of its non compliance with the</mark> WTO <mark>rulings</u></strong></mark> and disregard of the threat of cross retaliation, <u><strong><mark>the despicable way</mark> in which <mark>the US has besmirched Antiguan reputation</mark> to cast it as a promulgator of intellectual property piracy <mark>has</u></strong></mark> also <u><strong><mark>raised questions on the legality of cross retaliation under TRIPs</u></strong></mark>.</p>

Danish 13, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B.(H) National University of Advanced Legal Studies, India, October 2013, “WTO Dispute Resolution and Cross Retaliation under Trips: Is it Sanctioned Piracy of Intellectual Property? A Case Study of the US - Gambling (Antigua) Case,” Westminster Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/wlr16.php

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Danish 13, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B.(H) National University of Advanced Legal Studies, India, October 2013, “WTO Dispute Resolution and Cross Retaliation under Trips: Is it Sanctioned Piracy of Intellectual Property? A Case Study of the US - Gambling (Antigua) Case,” Westminster Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/wlr16.php fulltext: As of June 2013, Antigua had not initiated any proceedings aimed at profiting from suspension of the intellectual property obligations owed to the US. However, many reports seem to suggest that it may soon set up a website for the sale of American intellectual property, if the negotiations deadlock is not broken.44 In the decade that has passed since the initiation of this case, there has not been any significant shift in the American position regarding its obligations under the GATS. Antigua is still engaged in the use of pressure tactics in the hope of getting the US to comply with the rulings. However, whenever Antigua has shown signs of putting its ruling into action, the Americans have responded with threats, claiming intellectual property piracy and violation of international trade laws. The Antiguan action has been authorised by the DSB after all the procedures laid down in the DSU were followed to the letter without any breach in its legality. Further, the way in which Antigua has proceeded against the US has conformed to all the standards expected of a country using an international trade dispute redressal forum. Yet there have been aspersions on Antiguan conduct by American authorities. Notwithstanding extant jurisprudence, the levelling of such allegations constitutes a severe breach of trust in WTO procedures. Irrespective of its non compliance with the WTO rulings and disregard of the threat of cross retaliation, the despicable way in which the US has besmirched Antiguan reputation to cast it as a promulgator of intellectual property piracy has also raised questions on the legality of cross retaliation under TRIPs. [/INST] <h4>Solves trade and creates TRIP credibility </h4><p><strong>Danish 13</strong>, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B.(H) National University of Advanced Legal Studies, India, October 2013, “WTO Dispute Resolution and Cross Retaliation under Trips: Is it Sanctioned Piracy of Intellectual Property? A Case Study of the US - Gambling (Antigua) Case,” Westminster Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/wlr16.php</p><p>As of June 2013, <u><strong><mark>Antigua had not initiated</mark> any proceedings aimed at profiting from <mark>suspension of</mark> the <mark>i</mark>ntellectual <mark>p</mark>roperty obligations</u></strong> owed to the US. <u><strong><mark>However, many reports</u></strong></mark> seem to <u><strong><mark>suggest</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>it may soon set up</mark> a website for the <mark>sale of American</mark> <mark>i</mark>ntellectual <mark>p</mark>roperty, if the negotiations deadlock is not broken</u></strong>.44 In the decade that has passed since the initiation of this case, there has not been any significant shift in the American position regarding its obligations under the GATS. <u><strong><mark>Antigua is still engaged in</mark> the use of <mark>pressure tactics in the hope of getting the US to comply</mark> with the rulings</u></strong>. However, <u><strong><mark>whenever Antigua has shown signs of putting</mark> its <mark>ruling into action,</u></strong> <u><strong>the Americans have responded with threats</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>claiming intellectual property piracy and violation of international trade laws</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The Antiguan action has been authorised by the DSB</mark> after all the procedures laid down in the DSU were followed to the letter</u></strong> without any breach in its legality. Further, <u><strong>the way in which Antigua has proceeded against the US has conformed to all the standards expected of a country using an international trade dispute redressal forum</u></strong>. <u><strong>Yet <mark>there have been aspersions on Antiguan conduct by American authorities</u></strong></mark>. Notwithstanding extant jurisprudence, <u><strong>the <mark>levelling</mark> of <mark>such allegations constitutes a severe breach of trust in WTO procedures</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Irrespective of its non compliance with the</mark> WTO <mark>rulings</u></strong></mark> and disregard of the threat of cross retaliation, <u><strong><mark>the despicable way</mark> in which <mark>the US has besmirched Antiguan reputation</mark> to cast it as a promulgator of intellectual property piracy <mark>has</u></strong></mark> also <u><strong><mark>raised questions on the legality of cross retaliation under TRIPs</u></strong></mark>.</p> </s>

Even best case scenario, still happens

I approached the problem by placing myself in the role of a money launderer working with a terror organization seeking to move money from the United States to Europe and beyond I developed a list of constraints. The most limiting was the assumption that internet poker websites were following every law and regulation to the letter and that they employed both automated and human anticollusion systems I considered a countermeasure that the website might deploy against me and then built a counter-countermeasure to overcome it. I kept escalating the possible countermeasures until, I discovered a counter-countermeasure that neither the poker websites nor their regulators could stop.//// I abandoned any notion of helping the legalization effort as I could not in good conscience promote an activity that I knew would eventually be exploited by criminals or terrorists.

I approached the problem by placing myself in the role of a money launderer working with a terror organization I developed a list of constraints. The most limiting was the assumption that internet poker websites were following every law and regulation to the letter and that they employed both automated and human anticollusion systems. I discovered a counter-countermeasure that neither the poker websites nor their regulators could stop. I abandoned any notion of helping the legalization effort as I could not in good conscience promote an activity that I knew would eventually be exploited by criminals or terrorists.

I approached the problem by placing myself in the role of a money launderer working with a terror organization seeking to move money from the United States to Europe and beyond. On the basis that the activity must remain undetected by law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities as well as the internet poker websites operators and their regulators, I developed a list of constraints. The most limiting was the assumption that internet poker websites were following every law and regulation to the letter and that they employed both automated and human anticollusion systems. I considered a countermeasure that the website might deploy against me and then built a counter-countermeasure to overcome it. I kept escalating the possible countermeasures until, in November 2007, I discovered a counter-countermeasure that neither the poker websites nor their regulators could stop.//// In light of this discovery, I abandoned any notion of helping the legalization effort as I could not in good conscience promote an activity that I knew would eventually be exploited by criminals or terrorists.

<h4>Even best case scenario, still happens</h4><p><strong>Thackston 13</strong> <Jim, Independent Software Engineer, “FOR THE RECORD, HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE HEARING,” December 13, http://www.undetectablelaundering.com/docs/WRITTEN_REMARKS_OF_JIM_THACKSTON_120413.pdf<u><strong>>#SPS</p><p><mark>I approached the problem by placing myself in the role of a money launderer working with a terror organization</mark> seeking to move money from the United States to Europe and beyond</u></strong>. On the basis that the activity must remain undetected by law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities as well as the internet poker websites operators and their regulators, <u><strong><mark>I developed a list of constraints. The most limiting was the assumption that internet poker websites were following every law and regulation to the letter and that they employed both automated and human anticollusion systems</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong>I considered a countermeasure that the website might deploy against me and then built a counter-countermeasure to overcome it.</u></strong> <u><strong>I kept escalating the possible countermeasures until,</u></strong> in November 2007, <u><strong><mark>I discovered a counter-countermeasure that neither the poker websites nor their regulators could stop.</mark>////</u></strong> In light of this discovery, <u><strong><mark>I abandoned any notion of helping the legalization effort as I could not in good conscience promote an activity that I knew would eventually be exploited by criminals or terrorists.</p></u></strong></mark>

Thackston 13 <Jim, Independent Software Engineer, “FOR THE RECORD, HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE HEARING,” December 13, http://www.undetectablelaundering.com/docs/WRITTEN_REMARKS_OF_JIM_THACKSTON_120413.pdf>#SPS

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Thackston 13 <Jim, Independent Software Engineer, “FOR THE RECORD, HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE HEARING,” December 13, http://www.undetectablelaundering.com/docs/WRITTEN_REMARKS_OF_JIM_THACKSTON_120413.pdf>#SPS fulltext: I approached the problem by placing myself in the role of a money launderer working with a terror organization seeking to move money from the United States to Europe and beyond. On the basis that the activity must remain undetected by law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities as well as the internet poker websites operators and their regulators, I developed a list of constraints. The most limiting was the assumption that internet poker websites were following every law and regulation to the letter and that they employed both automated and human anticollusion systems. I considered a countermeasure that the website might deploy against me and then built a counter-countermeasure to overcome it. I kept escalating the possible countermeasures until, in November 2007, I discovered a counter-countermeasure that neither the poker websites nor their regulators could stop.//// In light of this discovery, I abandoned any notion of helping the legalization effort as I could not in good conscience promote an activity that I knew would eventually be exploited by criminals or terrorists. [/INST] <h4>Even best case scenario, still happens</h4><p><strong>Thackston 13</strong> <Jim, Independent Software Engineer, “FOR THE RECORD, HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE HEARING,” December 13, http://www.undetectablelaundering.com/docs/WRITTEN_REMARKS_OF_JIM_THACKSTON_120413.pdf<u><strong>>#SPS</p><p><mark>I approached the problem by placing myself in the role of a money launderer working with a terror organization</mark> seeking to move money from the United States to Europe and beyond</u></strong>. On the basis that the activity must remain undetected by law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities as well as the internet poker websites operators and their regulators, <u><strong><mark>I developed a list of constraints. The most limiting was the assumption that internet poker websites were following every law and regulation to the letter and that they employed both automated and human anticollusion systems</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong>I considered a countermeasure that the website might deploy against me and then built a counter-countermeasure to overcome it.</u></strong> <u><strong>I kept escalating the possible countermeasures until,</u></strong> in November 2007, <u><strong><mark>I discovered a counter-countermeasure that neither the poker websites nor their regulators could stop.</mark>////</u></strong> In light of this discovery, <u><strong><mark>I abandoned any notion of helping the legalization effort as I could not in good conscience promote an activity that I knew would eventually be exploited by criminals or terrorists.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Legalization overcomes any alternative causes

The United States is again in violation of international law But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step. ballot initiatives had the potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington that breach has now occurred the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US on I C C P R Nor would we tolerate violations of the Geneva Conventions the Torture Convention, the N P T . Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour. Ending the war on drugs will be a victory for international human rights law It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer.

The U S is again in violation of i law With the votes in Colorado and Washington that breach has now occurred The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US on Geneva Torture the N P T there is a hierarchy in i law that is exposed Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice have won out over controls on behaviour Ending the war will be a victory for i h r l It will be a victory for i law for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition.

The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶ On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶ Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces.¶ Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs - and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is also bound. Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour. ¶ Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.

<h4>Legalization overcomes any alternative causes </h4><p>Damon <strong>Barrett 12</strong>, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html</p><p><u><mark>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>is again in violation of i</mark>nternational <mark>law</u></mark>. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ <u>But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.</u>¶ On 6 November various <u>ballot initiatives</u> were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three <u>had the</u> clearest <u>potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. <mark>With the votes in Colorado and Washington</u></mark> which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, <u><strong><mark>that breach has now occurred</u></strong></mark>.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, <u>the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. </u>¶ Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. <u><mark>The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma</mark> the US government now faces</u>.¶ <u>Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results</u> in Colorado and Washington <u>as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs</u> - <u>and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law</u>. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ <u><mark>We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US</u></mark> of the Convention <u><mark>on</u></mark> the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the <u><strong>I</u></strong>nternational <u><strong>C</u></strong>ovenant on <u><strong>C</u></strong>ivil and <u><strong>P</u></strong>olitical <u><strong>R</u></strong>ights, to which it is also bound. <u>Nor would we tolerate</u> (though they happen regularly) <u>violations of the <mark>Geneva</mark> Conventions</u>, <u>the <mark>Torture</mark> Convention, <mark>the</u></mark> Nuclear <u><strong><mark>N</u></strong></mark>on-<u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>roliferation <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>reaty or environmental protocols<u>. Indeed,<strong> <mark>there is a hierarchy in i</mark>nternational <mark>law that is exposed</mark> by the Colorado and Washington votes</u></strong>.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. <u><mark>Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice</mark>, not to mention democracy, <mark>have won out over</mark> arbitrary and unreasonable <mark>controls on </mark>human <mark>behaviour</mark>. </u>¶ <u><mark>Ending the war </mark>on drugs</u>, moreover, <u><mark>will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>h</mark>uman <mark>r</mark>ights <mark>l</mark>aw</u>. <u><strong><mark>It will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>law</mark> itself</strong> - <mark>for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for</mark> the achievement of international development agreements and <mark>improved health - <strong>all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition</strong>.</u></mark> <u>Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. </u><strong>For that we should all celebrate.</p></strong>

Damon Barrett 12, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Damon Barrett 12, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html fulltext: The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶ On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶ Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces.¶ Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs - and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is also bound. Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour. ¶ Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate. [/INST] <h4>Legalization overcomes any alternative causes </h4><p>Damon <strong>Barrett 12</strong>, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html</p><p><u><mark>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>is again in violation of i</mark>nternational <mark>law</u></mark>. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ <u>But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.</u>¶ On 6 November various <u>ballot initiatives</u> were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three <u>had the</u> clearest <u>potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. <mark>With the votes in Colorado and Washington</u></mark> which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, <u><strong><mark>that breach has now occurred</u></strong></mark>.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, <u>the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. </u>¶ Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. <u><mark>The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma</mark> the US government now faces</u>.¶ <u>Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results</u> in Colorado and Washington <u>as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs</u> - <u>and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law</u>. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ <u><mark>We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US</u></mark> of the Convention <u><mark>on</u></mark> the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the <u><strong>I</u></strong>nternational <u><strong>C</u></strong>ovenant on <u><strong>C</u></strong>ivil and <u><strong>P</u></strong>olitical <u><strong>R</u></strong>ights, to which it is also bound. <u>Nor would we tolerate</u> (though they happen regularly) <u>violations of the <mark>Geneva</mark> Conventions</u>, <u>the <mark>Torture</mark> Convention, <mark>the</u></mark> Nuclear <u><strong><mark>N</u></strong></mark>on-<u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>roliferation <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>reaty or environmental protocols<u>. Indeed,<strong> <mark>there is a hierarchy in i</mark>nternational <mark>law that is exposed</mark> by the Colorado and Washington votes</u></strong>.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. <u><mark>Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice</mark>, not to mention democracy, <mark>have won out over</mark> arbitrary and unreasonable <mark>controls on </mark>human <mark>behaviour</mark>. </u>¶ <u><mark>Ending the war </mark>on drugs</u>, moreover, <u><mark>will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>h</mark>uman <mark>r</mark>ights <mark>l</mark>aw</u>. <u><strong><mark>It will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>law</mark> itself</strong> - <mark>for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for</mark> the achievement of international development agreements and <mark>improved health - <strong>all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition</strong>.</u></mark> <u>Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. </u><strong>For that we should all celebrate.</p></strong> </s>

Extinction

the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in 30 minutes Just one can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. this would destroy the entire economic infrastructure on which we all depend Those who survived would inhabit a nightmare landscape blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms would loft tons of debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun Temperatures across the globe would fall to levels not seen on earth since the last ice age, Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including our own, would become extinct. We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack.

20,000 nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals can be fired within five minutes A war would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented the firestorms would blot out the sun Temperatures would fall Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse species including our own, would become extinct

President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.

<h4>Extinction</h4><p><strong>Helfand and Pastore 9</strong> [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]</p><p>President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of <u><strong>the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. </u></strong> Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. <u><strong>There remain in the world more than <mark>20,000 nuclear weapons</mark>.</u></strong> Alarmingly, <u><strong>more than 2,000 of these weapons <mark>in the U.S. and Russian arsenals</mark> remain on ready-alert status, </u></strong>commonly known as hair-trigger alert. <u><strong>They <mark>can be fired within five minutes</mark> and reach targets in </u></strong>the other country<u><strong> 30 minutes</u></strong> later.<u><strong> Just one</u></strong> of these weapons <u><strong>can destroy a city. <mark>A war</mark> involving a substantial number <mark>would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented</mark> in human history</u></strong>. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that<u><strong> </u></strong>if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities,<u><strong> 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes.</u></strong> An attack of <u><strong>this</u></strong> magnitude also <u><strong>would destroy the entire economic</u></strong>, communications and transportation <u><strong>infrastructure on which we all depend</u></strong>. <u><strong>Those who survived</u></strong> the initial attack <u><strong>would inhabit a nightmare landscape</u></strong> with huge swaths of the country <u><strong>blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant</u></strong>. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. <u><strong>If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, <mark>the firestorms</mark> </u></strong>they caused<u><strong> <mark>would</mark> loft</u></strong> 180 million <u><strong>tons of </u></strong>soot and <u><strong>debris into the upper atmosphere — <mark>blot</mark>ting <mark>out the sun</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Temperatures</mark> across the globe <mark>would fall</mark> </u></strong>an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit<u><strong> to levels not seen on earth since </u></strong>the depth of<u><strong> the last ice age, </u></strong>18,000 years ago. <u><strong><mark>Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse</mark>, and many <mark>species</mark>, <mark>including</mark> </u></strong>perhaps <u><strong><mark>our own, would become extinct</mark>.</u></strong> It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? <u><strong>We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack.</u></strong> The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.</p>

Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html] fulltext: President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge swaths of the country blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today. [/INST] <h4>Extinction</h4><p><strong>Helfand and Pastore 9</strong> [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility. March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]</p><p>President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep them from focusing on one of <u><strong>the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. </u></strong> Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not. <u><strong>There remain in the world more than <mark>20,000 nuclear weapons</mark>.</u></strong> Alarmingly, <u><strong>more than 2,000 of these weapons <mark>in the U.S. and Russian arsenals</mark> remain on ready-alert status, </u></strong>commonly known as hair-trigger alert. <u><strong>They <mark>can be fired within five minutes</mark> and reach targets in </u></strong>the other country<u><strong> 30 minutes</u></strong> later.<u><strong> Just one</u></strong> of these weapons <u><strong>can destroy a city. <mark>A war</mark> involving a substantial number <mark>would cause devastation on a scale unprecedented</mark> in human history</u></strong>. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that<u><strong> </u></strong>if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities,<u><strong> 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes.</u></strong> An attack of <u><strong>this</u></strong> magnitude also <u><strong>would destroy the entire economic</u></strong>, communications and transportation <u><strong>infrastructure on which we all depend</u></strong>. <u><strong>Those who survived</u></strong> the initial attack <u><strong>would inhabit a nightmare landscape</u></strong> with huge swaths of the country <u><strong>blanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant</u></strong>. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide. <u><strong>If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, <mark>the firestorms</mark> </u></strong>they caused<u><strong> <mark>would</mark> loft</u></strong> 180 million <u><strong>tons of </u></strong>soot and <u><strong>debris into the upper atmosphere — <mark>blot</mark>ting <mark>out the sun</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Temperatures</mark> across the globe <mark>would fall</mark> </u></strong>an average of 18 degrees Fahrenheit<u><strong> to levels not seen on earth since </u></strong>the depth of<u><strong> the last ice age, </u></strong>18,000 years ago. <u><strong><mark>Agriculture would stop, eco-systems would collapse</mark>, and many <mark>species</mark>, <mark>including</mark> </u></strong>perhaps <u><strong><mark>our own, would become extinct</mark>.</u></strong> It is common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? <u><strong>We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack.</u></strong> The most recent of these near misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995, was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.</p> </s>

Nuclear war turns warming

Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate impacting everyone on Earth. These conclusions are reported by a team of scientists from UCLA U of Colorado at Boulder and Rutgers, The new results represent the first comprehensive quantitative assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between small or emerging nuclear states, said Turco, professor in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. the potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term," A single low-yield nuclear detonation in an urban center could lead to more fatalities than occurred in major historical wars." cities attacked with nuclear devices would likely be abandoned indefinitely, inducing mass migration and long-term economic decline, The scientists estimated the quantities of soot that would be generated in urban firestorms ignited by nuclear detonations. The soot emitted was found to exceed 5 million metric tons , the smoke generated per explosive could be 100 times larger than previously estimated for a full-scale superpower nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons, While a regional nuclear confrontation among emerging nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, the environmental impacts could spread worldwide, nuclear soot could linger in the upper atmosphere for up to a decade, producing significant cooling and reduced precipitation, with the greatest changes occurring over land. The implications for global food supplies appear grim. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas "As was the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." nuclear-generated soot particles may remain suspended in the upper troposphere and stratosphere for up to a decade as a result of the strong interactions between solar heat absorption by the smoke and wind patterns in the upper atmosphere. results reveal average ozone losses exceeding 20 percent worldwide , Such ozone depletions would imply serious ecological consequences, a small nuclear state is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage, thus making such outcomes more plausible.

Even a small , regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate environmental impacts could spread worldwide nuclear soot could linger in the upper atmosphere producing significant cooling and reduced precipitation The implications for global food supplies appear results reveal average ozone losses exceeding 20 percent worldwide Such would imply serious ecological consequences

Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as occurred during all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, impacting nearly everyone on Earth. These conclusions are reported by a team of scientists from UCLA, the University of Colorado at Boulder and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in two research articles posted online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions and at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco. The new results represent the first comprehensive quantitative assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between small or emerging nuclear states, said Richard Turco, professor in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. The team of scientists reviewed the current status of nuclear weapons development, analyzed data on modern megacities and applied a state-of-the-science climate model. They calculated the local effects of individual "small," Hiroshima-size (15-kiloton) nuclear detonations in urban centers, including potential casualties from the blast and radioactive fallout, Turco said. Even the smallest nuclear powers today and in the near future may have as many as 50 or more Hiroshima-size weapons in their arsenals, according to the scientists. Moreover, about 40 countries possess enough plutonium and uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. "Considering the relatively small number and sizes of the weapons — perhaps less than one megaton in total yield — the potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term," Toon said. "A single low-yield nuclear detonation in an urban center could lead to more fatalities, in some cases by orders of magnitude, than occurred in major historical wars." Megacities attacked with nuclear devices, through war or terrorism, would likely be abandoned indefinitely, inducing mass migration and long-term economic decline, Turco said.  Turco in the 1980s headed a group — whose members included Owen "Brian" Toon, a co-author on the current research, and the late Carl Sagan — that originally defined the "nuclear winter" phenomenon, a phrase that Turco coined. For a regional-scale nuclear conflict, fatality estimates range from 2.6 million to 16.7 million, Turco said. The scientists estimated the quantities of soot — the highly absorbing component of smoke — that would be generated in urban firestorms ignited by nuclear detonations. This effort was led by Toon, professor and chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, together with Turco and University of Colorado student Charles Bardeen. At Rutgers, Alan Robock, professor of environmental sciences and associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College, professor Georgiy Stenchikov and postdoctoral associate Luke Oman (now at Johns Hopkins University) employed a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to simulate the effects of the putative smoke emissions in perturbing the global climate system and causing regional climatic anomalies. The amount of soot emitted by firestorms was found to exceed 5 million metric tons in many cases. Because so many people live in megacities, the quantity of black smoke generated per kiloton of explosive yield could be more than 100 times larger than previously estimated for a full-scale superpower nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons, according to one of the journal papers. While a regional nuclear confrontation among emerging nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, the environmental impacts could spread worldwide, Robock and his colleagues conclude. "We examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other's most populated urban areas," Robock said. The post-war climate simulations used soot emissions provided by Toon, Turco and Bardeen. As had been suggested in earlier nuclear winter studies, and more recently by observations of large wildfire smoke plumes, Robock's calculations indicate that a large fraction of the nuclear soot could linger in the upper atmosphere for up to a decade, producing significant cooling and reduced precipitation, with the greatest changes occurring over land. The implications for global food supplies appear grim. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions," Robock said. "As was the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." When Robock and his team calibrated their climate model against the recorded response to the 1912 eruptions of Katmai volcano in Alaska, they found that observed temperature anomalies were accurately reproduced. On a grander scale, the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, the largest in the last 500 years, was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816 during what has become known as "the year without a summer." The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and starvation stalked most of the continent. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict. The researchers emphasized that known climatic anomalies associated with major volcanic eruptions such as Tambora typically last for a year or so because volcanic particles tend to fall out of the atmosphere relatively quickly. By contrast, nuclear-generated soot particles may remain suspended in the upper troposphere and stratosphere for up to a decade as a result of the strong interactions between solar heat absorption by the smoke and wind patterns in the upper atmosphere. Consequently, the climatic effects can be significantly greater and longer lasting than those associated with any historical volcanic eruption. "With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in our baseline scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any experienced in recorded history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." In related research, researcher Michael Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder led a broad team, including Toon and Turco, in defining the impacts of a regional nuclear conflict on the stratospheric ozone layer. Mills' results, based on detailed simulations with a two-dimensional global chemical-transport model, reveal average column ozone losses exceeding 20 percent worldwide and persisting for at least three to four years, with mid-latitude losses as large as 30 to 40 percent and polar reductions up to 70 percent. Such ozone depletions would be unprecedented in human history and imply serious ecological and human consequences, Turco said. The primary effects on ozone are due to accelerated catalytic chemical cycles, which are caused by the heating of the stratosphere as injected soot absorbs sunlight, and to severely perturbed dynamics of the region, again owing to the soot heating. Previous studies, carried out in the 1980s with less sophisticated models, had indicated comparable or smaller ozone losses for a full superpower nuclear exchange, Mills noted. Turco said that a small nuclear state is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage, thus making such outcomes more plausible. The research team concludes that the confluence of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics forms perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of civilization. Obviously also turns Russian adventurism – we are the only ones with an internal link to the confrontation between the US and Russia

<h4><strong>Nuclear war turns warming</h4><p>UCLA International Institute ‘6</p><p></strong>(UCLA News releas, “Nuclear War Can't Be 'Regional,'” 12-11, UCLA International Institute, http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=59428) </p><p><u><strong><mark>Even a small</mark>-scale<mark>, regional nuclear war could </u></strong></mark>produce as many direct fatalities as occurred during all of World War II and <u><strong><mark>disrupt the global climate</u></strong> </mark>for a decade or more, <u><strong>impacting </u></strong>nearly <u><strong>everyone on Earth. These conclusions are reported by a team of scientists from UCLA</u></strong>, the <u><strong>U</u></strong>niversity <u><strong>of Colorado at Boulder and Rutgers,</u></strong> The State University of New Jersey in two research articles posted online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions and at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco. <u><strong>The new results represent the first comprehensive quantitative assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between small or emerging nuclear states, said </u></strong>Richard<u><strong> Turco, professor in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. </u></strong>The team of scientists reviewed the current status of nuclear weapons development, analyzed data on modern megacities and applied a state-of-the-science climate model. They calculated the local effects of individual "small," Hiroshima-size (15-kiloton) nuclear detonations in urban centers, including potential casualties from the blast and radioactive fallout, Turco said. Even the smallest nuclear powers today and in the near future may have as many as 50 or more Hiroshima-size weapons in their arsenals, according to the scientists. Moreover, about 40 countries possess enough plutonium and uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. "Considering the relatively small number and sizes of the weapons — perhaps less than one megaton in total yield — <u><strong>the potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term,"</u></strong> Toon said. "<u><strong>A single low-yield nuclear detonation in an urban center could lead to more fatalities</u></strong>, in some cases by orders of magnitude,<u><strong> than occurred in major historical wars."</u></strong> Mega<u><strong>cities attacked with nuclear devices</u></strong>, through war or terrorism,<u><strong> would likely be abandoned indefinitely, inducing mass migration and long-term economic decline,</u></strong> Turco said.  Turco in the 1980s headed a group — whose members included Owen "Brian" Toon, a co-author on the current research, and the late Carl Sagan — that originally defined the "nuclear winter" phenomenon, a phrase that Turco coined. For a regional-scale nuclear conflict, fatality estimates range from 2.6 million to 16.7 million, Turco said. <u><strong>The scientists estimated the quantities of soot</u></strong> — the highly absorbing component of smoke —<u><strong> that would be generated in urban firestorms ignited by nuclear detonations.</u></strong> This effort was led by Toon, professor and chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, together with Turco and University of Colorado student Charles Bardeen. At Rutgers, Alan Robock, professor of environmental sciences and associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College, professor Georgiy Stenchikov and postdoctoral associate Luke Oman (now at Johns Hopkins University) employed a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to simulate the effects of the putative smoke emissions in perturbing the global climate system and causing regional climatic anomalies. <u><strong>The </u></strong>amount of <u><strong>soot emitted </u></strong>by firestorms <u><strong>was found to exceed 5 million metric tons</u></strong> in many cases. Because so many people live<u><strong> </u></strong>in megacities<u><strong>, the </u></strong>quantity of black <u><strong>smoke generated per </u></strong>kiloton of <u><strong>explosive </u></strong>yield <u><strong>could be </u></strong>more than <u><strong>100 times larger than previously estimated for a full-scale superpower nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons,</u></strong> according to one of the journal papers. <u><strong>While a regional nuclear confrontation among emerging nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, the <mark>environmental impacts could spread worldwide</mark>, </u></strong>Robock and his colleagues conclude. "We examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other's most populated urban areas," Robock said. The post-war climate simulations used soot emissions provided by Toon, Turco and Bardeen.<u><strong> </u></strong>As had been suggested in earlier nuclear winter studies, and more recently by observations of large wildfire smoke plumes, Robock's calculations indicate that a large fraction of the <u><strong><mark>nuclear soot could linger in the upper atmosphere </mark>for up to a decade, <mark>producing significant cooling and reduced precipitation</mark>, with the greatest changes occurring over land. <mark>The implications for global food supplies appear </mark>grim. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas </u></strong>of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions," Robock said.<u><strong> "As was the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." </u></strong>When Robock and his team calibrated their climate model against the recorded response to the 1912 eruptions of Katmai volcano in Alaska, they found that observed temperature anomalies were accurately reproduced. On a grander scale, the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, the largest in the last 500 years, was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816 during what has become known as "the year without a summer." The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and starvation stalked most of the continent. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict.<u><strong> </u></strong>The researchers emphasized that known climatic anomalies associated with major volcanic eruptions such as Tambora typically last for a year or so because volcanic particles tend to fall out of the atmosphere relatively quickly. By contrast, <u><strong>nuclear-generated soot particles may remain suspended in the upper troposphere and stratosphere for up to a decade as a result of the strong interactions between solar heat absorption by the smoke and wind patterns in the upper atmosphere. </u></strong>Consequently, the climatic effects can be significantly greater and longer lasting than those associated with any historical volcanic eruption.<u><strong> </u></strong>"With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in our baseline scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any experienced in recorded history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." In related research, researcher Michael Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder led a broad team, including Toon and Turco, in defining the impacts of a regional nuclear conflict on the stratospheric ozone layer. Mills' <u><strong><mark>results</u></strong></mark>, based on detailed simulations with a two-dimensional global chemical-transport model, <u><strong><mark>reveal average </u></strong></mark>column<u><strong> <mark>ozone losses exceeding 20 percent worldwide </u></strong></mark>and persisting for at least three to four years<u><strong>, </u></strong>with mid-latitude losses as large as 30 to 40 percent and polar reductions up to 70 percent. <u><strong><mark>Such </mark>ozone depletions <mark>would </u></strong></mark>be unprecedented in human history and<u><strong> <mark>imply serious ecological </u></strong></mark>and human<u><strong> <mark>consequences</mark>,</u></strong> Turco said. The primary effects on ozone are due to accelerated catalytic chemical cycles, which are caused by the heating of the stratosphere as injected soot absorbs sunlight, and to severely perturbed dynamics of the region, again owing to the soot heating. Previous studies, carried out in the 1980s with less sophisticated models, had indicated comparable or smaller ozone losses for a full superpower nuclear exchange, Mills noted. Turco said that <u><strong>a small nuclear state is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage, thus making such outcomes more plausible.</u></strong> The research team concludes that the confluence of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics forms perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of civilization.</p><p>Obviously also turns Russian adventurism – we are the only ones with an internal link to the confrontation between the US and Russia</p>

UCLA International Institute ‘6 (UCLA News releas, “Nuclear War Can't Be 'Regional,'” 12-11, UCLA International Institute, http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=59428)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: UCLA International Institute ‘6 (UCLA News releas, “Nuclear War Can't Be 'Regional,'” 12-11, UCLA International Institute, http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=59428) fulltext: Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as occurred during all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, impacting nearly everyone on Earth. These conclusions are reported by a team of scientists from UCLA, the University of Colorado at Boulder and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in two research articles posted online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions and at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco. The new results represent the first comprehensive quantitative assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between small or emerging nuclear states, said Richard Turco, professor in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. The team of scientists reviewed the current status of nuclear weapons development, analyzed data on modern megacities and applied a state-of-the-science climate model. They calculated the local effects of individual "small," Hiroshima-size (15-kiloton) nuclear detonations in urban centers, including potential casualties from the blast and radioactive fallout, Turco said. Even the smallest nuclear powers today and in the near future may have as many as 50 or more Hiroshima-size weapons in their arsenals, according to the scientists. Moreover, about 40 countries possess enough plutonium and uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. "Considering the relatively small number and sizes of the weapons — perhaps less than one megaton in total yield — the potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term," Toon said. "A single low-yield nuclear detonation in an urban center could lead to more fatalities, in some cases by orders of magnitude, than occurred in major historical wars." Megacities attacked with nuclear devices, through war or terrorism, would likely be abandoned indefinitely, inducing mass migration and long-term economic decline, Turco said.  Turco in the 1980s headed a group — whose members included Owen "Brian" Toon, a co-author on the current research, and the late Carl Sagan — that originally defined the "nuclear winter" phenomenon, a phrase that Turco coined. For a regional-scale nuclear conflict, fatality estimates range from 2.6 million to 16.7 million, Turco said. The scientists estimated the quantities of soot — the highly absorbing component of smoke — that would be generated in urban firestorms ignited by nuclear detonations. This effort was led by Toon, professor and chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, together with Turco and University of Colorado student Charles Bardeen. At Rutgers, Alan Robock, professor of environmental sciences and associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College, professor Georgiy Stenchikov and postdoctoral associate Luke Oman (now at Johns Hopkins University) employed a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to simulate the effects of the putative smoke emissions in perturbing the global climate system and causing regional climatic anomalies. The amount of soot emitted by firestorms was found to exceed 5 million metric tons in many cases. Because so many people live in megacities, the quantity of black smoke generated per kiloton of explosive yield could be more than 100 times larger than previously estimated for a full-scale superpower nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons, according to one of the journal papers. While a regional nuclear confrontation among emerging nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, the environmental impacts could spread worldwide, Robock and his colleagues conclude. "We examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other's most populated urban areas," Robock said. The post-war climate simulations used soot emissions provided by Toon, Turco and Bardeen. As had been suggested in earlier nuclear winter studies, and more recently by observations of large wildfire smoke plumes, Robock's calculations indicate that a large fraction of the nuclear soot could linger in the upper atmosphere for up to a decade, producing significant cooling and reduced precipitation, with the greatest changes occurring over land. The implications for global food supplies appear grim. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions," Robock said. "As was the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." When Robock and his team calibrated their climate model against the recorded response to the 1912 eruptions of Katmai volcano in Alaska, they found that observed temperature anomalies were accurately reproduced. On a grander scale, the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, the largest in the last 500 years, was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816 during what has become known as "the year without a summer." The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and starvation stalked most of the continent. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict. The researchers emphasized that known climatic anomalies associated with major volcanic eruptions such as Tambora typically last for a year or so because volcanic particles tend to fall out of the atmosphere relatively quickly. By contrast, nuclear-generated soot particles may remain suspended in the upper troposphere and stratosphere for up to a decade as a result of the strong interactions between solar heat absorption by the smoke and wind patterns in the upper atmosphere. Consequently, the climatic effects can be significantly greater and longer lasting than those associated with any historical volcanic eruption. "With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in our baseline scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any experienced in recorded history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." In related research, researcher Michael Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder led a broad team, including Toon and Turco, in defining the impacts of a regional nuclear conflict on the stratospheric ozone layer. Mills' results, based on detailed simulations with a two-dimensional global chemical-transport model, reveal average column ozone losses exceeding 20 percent worldwide and persisting for at least three to four years, with mid-latitude losses as large as 30 to 40 percent and polar reductions up to 70 percent. Such ozone depletions would be unprecedented in human history and imply serious ecological and human consequences, Turco said. The primary effects on ozone are due to accelerated catalytic chemical cycles, which are caused by the heating of the stratosphere as injected soot absorbs sunlight, and to severely perturbed dynamics of the region, again owing to the soot heating. Previous studies, carried out in the 1980s with less sophisticated models, had indicated comparable or smaller ozone losses for a full superpower nuclear exchange, Mills noted. Turco said that a small nuclear state is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage, thus making such outcomes more plausible. The research team concludes that the confluence of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics forms perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of civilization. Obviously also turns Russian adventurism – we are the only ones with an internal link to the confrontation between the US and Russia [/INST] <h4><strong>Nuclear war turns warming</h4><p>UCLA International Institute ‘6</p><p></strong>(UCLA News releas, “Nuclear War Can't Be 'Regional,'” 12-11, UCLA International Institute, http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=59428) </p><p><u><strong><mark>Even a small</mark>-scale<mark>, regional nuclear war could </u></strong></mark>produce as many direct fatalities as occurred during all of World War II and <u><strong><mark>disrupt the global climate</u></strong> </mark>for a decade or more, <u><strong>impacting </u></strong>nearly <u><strong>everyone on Earth. These conclusions are reported by a team of scientists from UCLA</u></strong>, the <u><strong>U</u></strong>niversity <u><strong>of Colorado at Boulder and Rutgers,</u></strong> The State University of New Jersey in two research articles posted online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions and at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco. <u><strong>The new results represent the first comprehensive quantitative assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between small or emerging nuclear states, said </u></strong>Richard<u><strong> Turco, professor in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a member and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. </u></strong>The team of scientists reviewed the current status of nuclear weapons development, analyzed data on modern megacities and applied a state-of-the-science climate model. They calculated the local effects of individual "small," Hiroshima-size (15-kiloton) nuclear detonations in urban centers, including potential casualties from the blast and radioactive fallout, Turco said. Even the smallest nuclear powers today and in the near future may have as many as 50 or more Hiroshima-size weapons in their arsenals, according to the scientists. Moreover, about 40 countries possess enough plutonium and uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. "Considering the relatively small number and sizes of the weapons — perhaps less than one megaton in total yield — <u><strong>the potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term,"</u></strong> Toon said. "<u><strong>A single low-yield nuclear detonation in an urban center could lead to more fatalities</u></strong>, in some cases by orders of magnitude,<u><strong> than occurred in major historical wars."</u></strong> Mega<u><strong>cities attacked with nuclear devices</u></strong>, through war or terrorism,<u><strong> would likely be abandoned indefinitely, inducing mass migration and long-term economic decline,</u></strong> Turco said.  Turco in the 1980s headed a group — whose members included Owen "Brian" Toon, a co-author on the current research, and the late Carl Sagan — that originally defined the "nuclear winter" phenomenon, a phrase that Turco coined. For a regional-scale nuclear conflict, fatality estimates range from 2.6 million to 16.7 million, Turco said. <u><strong>The scientists estimated the quantities of soot</u></strong> — the highly absorbing component of smoke —<u><strong> that would be generated in urban firestorms ignited by nuclear detonations.</u></strong> This effort was led by Toon, professor and chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, together with Turco and University of Colorado student Charles Bardeen. At Rutgers, Alan Robock, professor of environmental sciences and associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College, professor Georgiy Stenchikov and postdoctoral associate Luke Oman (now at Johns Hopkins University) employed a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to simulate the effects of the putative smoke emissions in perturbing the global climate system and causing regional climatic anomalies. <u><strong>The </u></strong>amount of <u><strong>soot emitted </u></strong>by firestorms <u><strong>was found to exceed 5 million metric tons</u></strong> in many cases. Because so many people live<u><strong> </u></strong>in megacities<u><strong>, the </u></strong>quantity of black <u><strong>smoke generated per </u></strong>kiloton of <u><strong>explosive </u></strong>yield <u><strong>could be </u></strong>more than <u><strong>100 times larger than previously estimated for a full-scale superpower nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons,</u></strong> according to one of the journal papers. <u><strong>While a regional nuclear confrontation among emerging nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, the <mark>environmental impacts could spread worldwide</mark>, </u></strong>Robock and his colleagues conclude. "We examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other's most populated urban areas," Robock said. The post-war climate simulations used soot emissions provided by Toon, Turco and Bardeen.<u><strong> </u></strong>As had been suggested in earlier nuclear winter studies, and more recently by observations of large wildfire smoke plumes, Robock's calculations indicate that a large fraction of the <u><strong><mark>nuclear soot could linger in the upper atmosphere </mark>for up to a decade, <mark>producing significant cooling and reduced precipitation</mark>, with the greatest changes occurring over land. <mark>The implications for global food supplies appear </mark>grim. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas </u></strong>of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions," Robock said.<u><strong> "As was the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." </u></strong>When Robock and his team calibrated their climate model against the recorded response to the 1912 eruptions of Katmai volcano in Alaska, they found that observed temperature anomalies were accurately reproduced. On a grander scale, the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, the largest in the last 500 years, was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816 during what has become known as "the year without a summer." The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and starvation stalked most of the continent. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict.<u><strong> </u></strong>The researchers emphasized that known climatic anomalies associated with major volcanic eruptions such as Tambora typically last for a year or so because volcanic particles tend to fall out of the atmosphere relatively quickly. By contrast, <u><strong>nuclear-generated soot particles may remain suspended in the upper troposphere and stratosphere for up to a decade as a result of the strong interactions between solar heat absorption by the smoke and wind patterns in the upper atmosphere. </u></strong>Consequently, the climatic effects can be significantly greater and longer lasting than those associated with any historical volcanic eruption.<u><strong> </u></strong>"With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in our baseline scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any experienced in recorded history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." In related research, researcher Michael Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder led a broad team, including Toon and Turco, in defining the impacts of a regional nuclear conflict on the stratospheric ozone layer. Mills' <u><strong><mark>results</u></strong></mark>, based on detailed simulations with a two-dimensional global chemical-transport model, <u><strong><mark>reveal average </u></strong></mark>column<u><strong> <mark>ozone losses exceeding 20 percent worldwide </u></strong></mark>and persisting for at least three to four years<u><strong>, </u></strong>with mid-latitude losses as large as 30 to 40 percent and polar reductions up to 70 percent. <u><strong><mark>Such </mark>ozone depletions <mark>would </u></strong></mark>be unprecedented in human history and<u><strong> <mark>imply serious ecological </u></strong></mark>and human<u><strong> <mark>consequences</mark>,</u></strong> Turco said. The primary effects on ozone are due to accelerated catalytic chemical cycles, which are caused by the heating of the stratosphere as injected soot absorbs sunlight, and to severely perturbed dynamics of the region, again owing to the soot heating. Previous studies, carried out in the 1980s with less sophisticated models, had indicated comparable or smaller ozone losses for a full superpower nuclear exchange, Mills noted. Turco said that <u><strong>a small nuclear state is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage, thus making such outcomes more plausible.</u></strong> The research team concludes that the confluence of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics forms perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of civilization.</p><p>Obviously also turns Russian adventurism – we are the only ones with an internal link to the confrontation between the US and Russia</p> </s>

Vote Negative

<h4><u>Vote Negative</h4></u>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><u>Vote Negative</h4></u> </s>

The United States should make all online gambling in the United States illegal. The United States should clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing and all online gambling, amend the Interstate Horse trading Act to prohibit internet gambling on pari-mutuel wagering, adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception. The United States should repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, taking upon itself all responsibilities for enforcing anti-gambling legislation and provide all necessary resources to financial institutions to ensure its enforcement.

<h4>The United States should make all online gambling in the United States illegal. The United States should clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing and all online gambling, amend the Interstate Horse trading Act to prohibit internet gambling on pari-mutuel wagering, adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception. The United States should repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, taking upon itself all responsibilities for enforcing anti-gambling legislation and provide all necessary resources to financial institutions to ensure its enforcement. </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>The United States should make all online gambling in the United States illegal. The United States should clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing and all online gambling, amend the Interstate Horse trading Act to prohibit internet gambling on pari-mutuel wagering, adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception. The United States should repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, taking upon itself all responsibilities for enforcing anti-gambling legislation and provide all necessary resources to financial institutions to ensure its enforcement. </h4> </s>

Legalization benefits sustainable ag -- efficiency, irrigation strategies and fertilizer research

The growing availability of legalized marijuana may have implications for sustainable farming covert marijuana growers have earned themselves a bad rap environmentally speaking. From indoor growers' massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution, a lack of regulation have led to an "anything goes" mentality growers have learned to be resourceful their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights in particular is getting attention from mainstream farmers: Cary Mitchell thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture They've been doing this for years and years Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer runoff bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people into horticulture as a profession.

legalized marijuana have implications for sustainable farming covert growers have earned a bad rap environmentally speaking. From massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution a lack of regulation have led to an "anything goes" mentality their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights might have practical applications in mainstream ag Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They are ahead of the commercial industry Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit with legalization From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer runoff, bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation

The growing availability of legalized (and semi-legalized) marijuana may have implications for all of us — from a massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take sustainable farming, for instance. Traditionally, covert marijuana growers have earned themselves a bad rap, at least environmentally speaking. From indoor growers' massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution, a lack of regulation — combined with the promise of massive cash rewards — have led to an "anything goes" mentality, which has resulted in significant harm in the past. But growers have also learned to be resourceful, and The Guardian reports that their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights in particular is getting attention from mainstream farmers: Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. [...] "They've undoubtedly been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer runoff, bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation. As I've speculated before, marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people into horticulture as a profession.

<h4><strong>Legalization benefits sustainable ag -- efficiency, irrigation strategies and fertilizer research</h4><p>Grover 13</strong> (Sami, November 13th<u><strong>, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”, http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-good-for-agriculture, AB) </p><p>The growing availability of <mark>legalized</u></strong> </mark>(and semi-legalized) <u><strong><mark>marijuana </mark>may <mark>have implications for </u></strong></mark>all of us — from a massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take <u><strong><mark>sustainable farming</u></strong></mark>, for instance. Traditionally, <u><strong><mark>covert </mark>marijuana <mark>growers have earned</mark> themselves <mark>a bad rap</u></strong></mark>, at least <u><strong><mark>environmentally speaking. From</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>indoor growers' <mark>massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution</mark>, <mark>a lack of regulation </u></strong></mark>— combined with the promise of massive cash rewards — <u><strong><mark>have led to an "anything goes" mentality</u></strong></mark>, which has resulted in significant harm in the past. But <u><strong>growers</u></strong> <u><strong>have</u></strong> also <u><strong>learned to be resourceful</u></strong>, and The Guardian reports that <u><strong><mark>their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights </mark>in particular is getting attention from mainstream farmers: Cary Mitchell</u></strong>, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, <u><strong>thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology <mark>might have practical applications in mainstream </mark>commercial <mark>ag</mark>riculture</u></strong>. [...] "<u><strong>They've</u></strong> undoubtedly <u><strong>been doing this for years and years</u></strong>," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "<u><strong><mark>Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong><mark>They </mark>probably <mark>are ahead of the </mark>specialty crop <mark>commercial </mark>production <mark>industry</mark>." <mark>Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit </mark>that may come <mark>with legalization</mark>. <mark>From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer</u></strong> <u><strong>runoff</u></strong>, <u><strong>bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation</u></strong></mark>. As I've speculated before, <u><strong>marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people into horticulture as a profession.</p></u></strong>

Grover 13 (Sami, November 13th, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”, http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-good-for-agriculture, AB)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Grover 13 (Sami, November 13th, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”, http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-good-for-agriculture, AB) fulltext: The growing availability of legalized (and semi-legalized) marijuana may have implications for all of us — from a massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take sustainable farming, for instance. Traditionally, covert marijuana growers have earned themselves a bad rap, at least environmentally speaking. From indoor growers' massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution, a lack of regulation — combined with the promise of massive cash rewards — have led to an "anything goes" mentality, which has resulted in significant harm in the past. But growers have also learned to be resourceful, and The Guardian reports that their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights in particular is getting attention from mainstream farmers: Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. [...] "They've undoubtedly been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer runoff, bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation. As I've speculated before, marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people into horticulture as a profession. [/INST] <h4><strong>Legalization benefits sustainable ag -- efficiency, irrigation strategies and fertilizer research</h4><p>Grover 13</strong> (Sami, November 13th<u><strong>, “Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture”, http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-good-for-agriculture, AB) </p><p>The growing availability of <mark>legalized</u></strong> </mark>(and semi-legalized) <u><strong><mark>marijuana </mark>may <mark>have implications for </u></strong></mark>all of us — from a massive increase in tax revenues to new employment opportunities. Take <u><strong><mark>sustainable farming</u></strong></mark>, for instance. Traditionally, <u><strong><mark>covert </mark>marijuana <mark>growers have earned</mark> themselves <mark>a bad rap</u></strong></mark>, at least <u><strong><mark>environmentally speaking. From</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>indoor growers' <mark>massive consumption of electricity to deforestation and agricultural pollution</mark>, <mark>a lack of regulation </u></strong></mark>— combined with the promise of massive cash rewards — <u><strong><mark>have led to an "anything goes" mentality</u></strong></mark>, which has resulted in significant harm in the past. But <u><strong>growers</u></strong> <u><strong>have</u></strong> also <u><strong>learned to be resourceful</u></strong>, and The Guardian reports that <u><strong><mark>their use of energy-efficient LED grow lights </mark>in particular is getting attention from mainstream farmers: Cary Mitchell</u></strong>, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, <u><strong>thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology <mark>might have practical applications in mainstream </mark>commercial <mark>ag</mark>riculture</u></strong>. [...] "<u><strong>They've</u></strong> undoubtedly <u><strong>been doing this for years and years</u></strong>," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "<u><strong><mark>Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong><mark>They </mark>probably <mark>are ahead of the </mark>specialty crop <mark>commercial </mark>production <mark>industry</mark>." <mark>Energy-efficiency isn't the only benefit </mark>that may come <mark>with legalization</mark>. <mark>From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer</u></strong> <u><strong>runoff</u></strong>, <u><strong>bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation</u></strong></mark>. As I've speculated before, <u><strong>marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people into horticulture as a profession.</p></u></strong> </s>

Triggers all their impacts

We have long denounced the exploitation of the poverty of the 'other half of the world' We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty - charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence that material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. Other people's destitution becomes our adventure playground our own efforts to alleviate it merely function to secure the conditions of reproduction of the catastrophe market . But when the catastrophe market itself reaches crisis point when we run out of disasters from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee or other commodities, the West will be forced to produce its own catastrophe for itself, in order to meet its need for spectacle and that voracious appetite for symbols which characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food . Artificial catastrophes , progress much more quickly than natural ones we shall soon be at that of the pre-programmed catastrophe, deliberate and experimental paradoxically, it is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe which will take us there Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end which is uncertain or governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a species.

Other people's destitution becomes our adventure playground our own efforts to alleviate it function to secure the conditions of reproduction of the catastrophe market when catastrophe market reaches crisis point when we run out of disasters the West will produce its own catastrophe for itself to meet its need for spectacle and appetite for symbols Artificial catastrophes progress more quickly than natural ones. we shall soon be at that of the pre-programmed catastrophe it is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe which will take us there Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a species.

We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the 'other half of the world' [['autre monde]. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty - charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials, but as a waste-reprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the waste-products of history- the main thing is to recycle them to produce a new energy source. We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other, much more ferocious, form of moral predation. One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis, that material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. The 'Fourth World' (we are no longer dealing with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered, this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it, too, the waste-product of its own history. The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw materials and hence also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection, humanitarian interference, Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last phase of colonialism: the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World Order. Other people's destitution becomes our adventure playground. Thus, the humanitarian offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after allowing Saddam Hussein to crush them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the consumers of the ever delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving spectacle of our own efforts to alleviate it (which, in fact, merely function to secure the conditions of reproduction of the catastrophe market); there, at least, in the order of moral profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable: we see to it that extreme poverty is reproduced as a symbolic deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium of the West. In our defence, it might be said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it. There can be no finer proof that the distress of the rest of the world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense, with a sumptuous buffet laid on by the Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d' Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne? Just as the economic crisis of the West will not be complete so long as it can still exploit the resources of the rest of the world, so the symbolic crisis will be complete only when it is no longer able to feed on the other half's human and natural catastrophes (Eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Kurds, Bangladesh, etc.). We need this drug, which serves us as an aphrodisiac and hallucinogen. And the poor countries are the best suppliers - as, indeed, they are of other drugs. We provide them, through our media, with the means to exploit this paradoxical resource, just as we give them the means to exhaust their natural resources with our technologies. Our whole culture lives off this catastrophic cannibalism, relayed in cynical mode by the news media, and carried forward in moral mode by our humanitarian aid, which is a way of encouraging it and ensuring its continuity, just as economic aid is a strategy for perpetuating under-development. Up to now, the financial sacrifice has been compensated a hundredfold by the moral gain. But when the catastrophe market itself reaches crisis point, in accordance with the implacable logic of the market, when distress becomes scarce or the marginal returns on it fall from overexploitation, when we run out of disasters from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee or other commodities, the West will be forced to produce its own catastrophe for itself, in order to meet its need for spectacle and that voracious appetite for symbols which characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food. It will reach the point where it devours itself. When we have finished sucking out the destiny of others, we shall have to invent one for ourselves. The Great Crash, the symbolic crash, will come in the end from us Westerners, but only when we are no longer able to feed on the hallucinogenic misery which comes to us from the other half of the world. Yet they do not seem keen to give up their monopoly. The Middle East, Bangladesh, black Africa and Latin America are really going flat out in the distress and catastrophe stakes, and thus in providing symbolic nourishment for the rich world. They might be said to be overdoing it: heaping earthquakes, floods, famines and ecological disasters one upon another, and finding the means to massacre each other most of the time. The 'disaster show' goes on without any let-up and our sacrificial debt to them far exceeds their economic debt. The misery with which they generously overwhelm us is something we shall never be able to repay. The sacrifices we offer in return are laughable (a tornado or two, a few tiny holocausts on the roads, the odd financial sacrifice) and, moreover, by some infernal logic, these work out as much greater gains for us, whereas our kindnesses have merely added to the natural catastrophes another one immeasurably worse: the demographic catastrophe, a veritable epidemic which we deplore each day in pictures. In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic advantage of the South (a hundred thousand Iraqi dead against casualties numbered in tens on our side: in every case we are the losers), that one day everything will break down. One day, the West will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame, if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly decide to share out this symbolic privilege of misery and catastrophe. It is of course normal, since we refuse to allow the spread of nuclear weapons, that they should refuse to allow the spread of the catastrophe weapon. But it is not right that they should exert that monopoly indefinitely. In any case, the under-developed are only so by comparison with the Western system and its presumed success. In the light of its assumed failure, they are not under-developed at all. They are only so in terms of a dominant evolutionism which has always been the worst of colonial ideologies. The argument here is that there is a line of objective progress and everyone is supposed to pass through its various stages (we find the same eyewash with regard to the evolution of species and in that evolutionism which unilaterally sanctions the superiority of the human race). In the light of current upheavals, which put an end to any idea of history as a linear process, there are no longer either developed or under-developed peoples. Thus, to encourage hope of evolution - albeit by revolution - among the poor and to doom them, in keeping with the objective illusion of progress, to technological salvation is a criminal absurdity. In actual fact, it is their good fortune to be able to escape from evolution just at the point when we no longer know where it is leading. In any case, a majority of these peoples, including those of Eastern Europe, do not seem keen to enter this evolutionist modernity, and their weight in the balance is certainly no small factor in the West's repudiation of its own history, of its own utopias and its own modernity. It might be said that the routes of violence, historical or otherwise, are being turned around and that the viruses now pass from South to North, there being every chance that, five hundred years after America was conquered, 1992 and the end of the century will mark the comeback of the defeated and the sudden reversal of that modernity. The sense of pride is no longer on the side of wealth but of poverty, of those who - fortunately for them - have nothing to repent, and may indeed glory in being privileged in terms of catastrophes. Admittedly, this is a privilege they could hardly renounce, even if they wished to, but natural disasters merely reinforce the sense of guilt felt towards them by the wealthy – by those whom God visibly scorns since he no longer even strikes them down. One day it will be the Whites themselves who will give up their whiteness. It is a good bet that repentance will reach its highest pitch with the five-hundredth anniversary of the conquest of the Americas. We are going to have to lift the curse of the defeated - but symbolically victorious - peoples, which is insinuating itself five hundred years later, by way of repentance, into the heart of the white race. No solution has been found to the dramatic situation of the under-developed, and none will be found since their drama has now been overtaken by that of the overdeveloped, of the rich nations. The psychodrama of congestion, saturation, super abundance, neurosis and the breaking of blood vessels which haunts us - the drama of the excess of means over ends – calls more urgently for attention than that of penury, lack and poverty. That is where the most imminent danger of catastrophe resides, in the societies which have run out of emptiness. Artificial catastrophes, like the beneficial aspects of civilization, progress much more quickly than natural ones. The underdeveloped are still at the primary stage of the natural, unforeseeable catastrophe. We are already at the second stage, that of the manufactured catastrophe - imminent and foreseeable - and we shall soon be at that of the pre-programmed catastrophe, the catastrophe of the third kind, deliberate and experimental. And, paradoxically, it is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe - the unpredictable form of destiny - which will take us there. Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny. Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end which is uncertain or governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a species.

<h4>Triggers all their impacts </h4><p><strong>Baudrillard 94</strong> <u>[Jean, “The Illusion of the End” p. 66-71]</p><p>We have long denounced the</u> capitalistic, economic <u>exploitation of the poverty of the 'other half of the world'</u> [['autre monde]. <u>We must today denounce the moral and sentimental <strong>exploitation</strong> of that poverty - charity cannibalism being <strong>worse</strong> than oppressive violence</u>. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials, but as a waste-reprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the waste-products of history- the main thing is to recycle them to produce a new energy source. We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other, much more ferocious, form of moral predation. One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis, <u>that material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. </u>The 'Fourth World' (we are no longer dealing with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered, this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it, too, the waste-product of its own history. The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw materials and hence also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection, humanitarian interference, Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last phase of colonialism: the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World Order. <u><mark>Other</mark> <mark>people's destitution becomes our adventure <strong>playground</u></strong></mark>. Thus, the humanitarian offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after allowing Saddam Hussein to crush them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the consumers of the ever delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving spectacle of <u><mark>our own efforts to alleviate it</mark> </u>(which, in fact, <u>merely <mark>function to secure the conditions of <strong>reproduction</strong> of the catastrophe market</u></mark>); there, at least, in the order of moral profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable: we see to it that extreme poverty is reproduced as a symbolic deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium of the West. In our defence, it might be said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it. There can be no finer proof that the distress of the rest of the world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense, with a sumptuous buffet laid on by the Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d' Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne? Just as the economic crisis of the West will not be complete so long as it can still exploit the resources of the rest of the world, so the symbolic crisis will be complete only when it is no longer able to feed on the other half's human and natural catastrophes (Eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Kurds, Bangladesh, etc.). We need this drug, which serves us as an aphrodisiac and hallucinogen. And the poor countries are the best suppliers - as, indeed, they are of other drugs. We provide them, through our media, with the means to exploit this paradoxical resource, just as we give them the means to exhaust their natural resources with our technologies. Our whole culture lives off this catastrophic cannibalism, relayed in cynical mode by the news media, and carried forward in moral mode by our humanitarian aid, which is a way of encouraging it and ensuring its continuity, just as economic aid is a strategy for perpetuating under-development. Up to now, the financial sacrifice has been compensated a hundredfold by the moral gain<u>. But <mark>when</mark> the <mark>catastrophe market</mark> itself <mark>reaches crisis point</u></mark>, in accordance with the implacable logic of the market, when distress becomes scarce or the marginal returns on it fall from overexploitation, <u><mark>when we run out of disasters</mark> from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee or other commodities, <mark>the West will</mark> be forced to <mark>produce its own catastrophe for <strong>itself</strong></mark>,</u> <u>in order <mark>to meet its need for spectacle and</mark> that <strong>voracious <mark>appetite </strong>for symbols</mark> which characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food</u>. It will reach the point where it devours itself. When we have finished sucking out the destiny of others, we shall have to invent one for ourselves. The Great Crash, the symbolic crash, will come in the end from us Westerners, but only when we are no longer able to feed on the hallucinogenic misery which comes to us from the other half of the world. Yet they do not seem keen to give up their monopoly. The Middle East, Bangladesh, black Africa and Latin America are really going flat out in the distress and catastrophe stakes, and thus in providing symbolic nourishment for the rich world. They might be said to be overdoing it: heaping earthquakes, floods, famines and ecological disasters one upon another, and finding the means to massacre each other most of the time. The 'disaster show' goes on without any let-up and our sacrificial debt to them far exceeds their economic debt. The misery with which they generously overwhelm us is something we shall never be able to repay. The sacrifices we offer in return are laughable (a tornado or two, a few tiny holocausts on the roads, the odd financial sacrifice) and, moreover, by some infernal logic, these work out as much greater gains for us, whereas our kindnesses have merely added to the natural catastrophes another one immeasurably worse: the demographic catastrophe, a veritable epidemic which we deplore each day in pictures. In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic advantage of the South (a hundred thousand Iraqi dead against casualties numbered in tens on our side: in every case we are the losers), that one day everything will break down. One day, the West will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame, if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly decide to share out this symbolic privilege of misery and catastrophe. It is of course normal, since we refuse to allow the spread of nuclear weapons, that they should refuse to allow the spread of the catastrophe weapon. But it is not right that they should exert that monopoly indefinitely. In any case, the under-developed are only so by comparison with the Western system and its presumed success. In the light of its assumed failure, they are not under-developed at all. They are only so in terms of a dominant evolutionism which has always been the worst of colonial ideologies. The argument here is that there is a line of objective progress and everyone is supposed to pass through its various stages (we find the same eyewash with regard to the evolution of species and in that evolutionism which unilaterally sanctions the superiority of the human race). In the light of current upheavals, which put an end to any idea of history as a linear process, there are no longer either developed or under-developed peoples. Thus, to encourage hope of evolution - albeit by revolution - among the poor and to doom them, in keeping with the objective illusion of progress, to technological salvation is a criminal absurdity. In actual fact, it is their good fortune to be able to escape from evolution just at the point when we no longer know where it is leading. In any case, a majority of these peoples, including those of Eastern Europe, do not seem keen to enter this evolutionist modernity, and their weight in the balance is certainly no small factor in the West's repudiation of its own history, of its own utopias and its own modernity. It might be said that the routes of violence, historical or otherwise, are being turned around and that the viruses now pass from South to North, there being every chance that, five hundred years after America was conquered, 1992 and the end of the century will mark the comeback of the defeated and the sudden reversal of that modernity. The sense of pride is no longer on the side of wealth but of poverty, of those who - fortunately for them - have nothing to repent, and may indeed glory in being privileged in terms of catastrophes. Admittedly, this is a privilege they could hardly renounce, even if they wished to, but natural disasters merely reinforce the sense of guilt felt towards them by the wealthy – by those whom God visibly scorns since he no longer even strikes them down. One day it will be the Whites themselves who will give up their whiteness. It is a good bet that repentance will reach its highest pitch with the five-hundredth anniversary of the conquest of the Americas. We are going to have to lift the curse of the defeated - but symbolically victorious - peoples, which is insinuating itself five hundred years later, by way of repentance, into the heart of the white race. No solution has been found to the dramatic situation of the under-developed, and none will be found since their drama has now been overtaken by that of the overdeveloped, of the rich nations. The psychodrama of congestion, saturation, super abundance, neurosis and the breaking of blood vessels which haunts us - the drama of the excess of means over ends – calls more urgently for attention than that of penury, lack and poverty. That is where the most imminent danger of catastrophe resides, in the societies which have run out of emptiness<u>. <mark>Artificial catastrophes</u></mark>, like the beneficial aspects of civilization<u>, <mark>progress</mark> much <mark>more quickly than natural ones</u>.</mark> The underdeveloped are still at the primary stage of the natural, unforeseeable catastrophe. We are already at the second stage, that of the manufactured catastrophe - imminent and foreseeable - and <u><mark>we shall soon be at that of the</mark> <mark>pre-programmed catastrophe</mark>,</u> the catastrophe of the third kind, <u>deliberate and experimental</u>. And, <u>paradoxically, <mark>it <strong>is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe</u></strong></mark> - the unpredictable form of destiny - <u><mark>which will take us there</u></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end</mark> which is uncertain or <mark>governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a <strong>species</strong>.</mark> </p></u>

Baudrillard 94 [Jean, “The Illusion of the End” p. 66-71]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Baudrillard 94 [Jean, “The Illusion of the End” p. 66-71] fulltext: We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the 'other half of the world' [['autre monde]. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty - charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials, but as a waste-reprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the waste-products of history- the main thing is to recycle them to produce a new energy source. We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other, much more ferocious, form of moral predation. One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis, that material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. The 'Fourth World' (we are no longer dealing with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered, this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it, too, the waste-product of its own history. The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw materials and hence also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection, humanitarian interference, Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last phase of colonialism: the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World Order. Other people's destitution becomes our adventure playground. Thus, the humanitarian offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after allowing Saddam Hussein to crush them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the consumers of the ever delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving spectacle of our own efforts to alleviate it (which, in fact, merely function to secure the conditions of reproduction of the catastrophe market); there, at least, in the order of moral profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable: we see to it that extreme poverty is reproduced as a symbolic deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium of the West. In our defence, it might be said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it. There can be no finer proof that the distress of the rest of the world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense, with a sumptuous buffet laid on by the Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d' Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne? Just as the economic crisis of the West will not be complete so long as it can still exploit the resources of the rest of the world, so the symbolic crisis will be complete only when it is no longer able to feed on the other half's human and natural catastrophes (Eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Kurds, Bangladesh, etc.). We need this drug, which serves us as an aphrodisiac and hallucinogen. And the poor countries are the best suppliers - as, indeed, they are of other drugs. We provide them, through our media, with the means to exploit this paradoxical resource, just as we give them the means to exhaust their natural resources with our technologies. Our whole culture lives off this catastrophic cannibalism, relayed in cynical mode by the news media, and carried forward in moral mode by our humanitarian aid, which is a way of encouraging it and ensuring its continuity, just as economic aid is a strategy for perpetuating under-development. Up to now, the financial sacrifice has been compensated a hundredfold by the moral gain. But when the catastrophe market itself reaches crisis point, in accordance with the implacable logic of the market, when distress becomes scarce or the marginal returns on it fall from overexploitation, when we run out of disasters from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee or other commodities, the West will be forced to produce its own catastrophe for itself, in order to meet its need for spectacle and that voracious appetite for symbols which characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food. It will reach the point where it devours itself. When we have finished sucking out the destiny of others, we shall have to invent one for ourselves. The Great Crash, the symbolic crash, will come in the end from us Westerners, but only when we are no longer able to feed on the hallucinogenic misery which comes to us from the other half of the world. Yet they do not seem keen to give up their monopoly. The Middle East, Bangladesh, black Africa and Latin America are really going flat out in the distress and catastrophe stakes, and thus in providing symbolic nourishment for the rich world. They might be said to be overdoing it: heaping earthquakes, floods, famines and ecological disasters one upon another, and finding the means to massacre each other most of the time. The 'disaster show' goes on without any let-up and our sacrificial debt to them far exceeds their economic debt. The misery with which they generously overwhelm us is something we shall never be able to repay. The sacrifices we offer in return are laughable (a tornado or two, a few tiny holocausts on the roads, the odd financial sacrifice) and, moreover, by some infernal logic, these work out as much greater gains for us, whereas our kindnesses have merely added to the natural catastrophes another one immeasurably worse: the demographic catastrophe, a veritable epidemic which we deplore each day in pictures. In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic advantage of the South (a hundred thousand Iraqi dead against casualties numbered in tens on our side: in every case we are the losers), that one day everything will break down. One day, the West will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame, if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly decide to share out this symbolic privilege of misery and catastrophe. It is of course normal, since we refuse to allow the spread of nuclear weapons, that they should refuse to allow the spread of the catastrophe weapon. But it is not right that they should exert that monopoly indefinitely. In any case, the under-developed are only so by comparison with the Western system and its presumed success. In the light of its assumed failure, they are not under-developed at all. They are only so in terms of a dominant evolutionism which has always been the worst of colonial ideologies. The argument here is that there is a line of objective progress and everyone is supposed to pass through its various stages (we find the same eyewash with regard to the evolution of species and in that evolutionism which unilaterally sanctions the superiority of the human race). In the light of current upheavals, which put an end to any idea of history as a linear process, there are no longer either developed or under-developed peoples. Thus, to encourage hope of evolution - albeit by revolution - among the poor and to doom them, in keeping with the objective illusion of progress, to technological salvation is a criminal absurdity. In actual fact, it is their good fortune to be able to escape from evolution just at the point when we no longer know where it is leading. In any case, a majority of these peoples, including those of Eastern Europe, do not seem keen to enter this evolutionist modernity, and their weight in the balance is certainly no small factor in the West's repudiation of its own history, of its own utopias and its own modernity. It might be said that the routes of violence, historical or otherwise, are being turned around and that the viruses now pass from South to North, there being every chance that, five hundred years after America was conquered, 1992 and the end of the century will mark the comeback of the defeated and the sudden reversal of that modernity. The sense of pride is no longer on the side of wealth but of poverty, of those who - fortunately for them - have nothing to repent, and may indeed glory in being privileged in terms of catastrophes. Admittedly, this is a privilege they could hardly renounce, even if they wished to, but natural disasters merely reinforce the sense of guilt felt towards them by the wealthy – by those whom God visibly scorns since he no longer even strikes them down. One day it will be the Whites themselves who will give up their whiteness. It is a good bet that repentance will reach its highest pitch with the five-hundredth anniversary of the conquest of the Americas. We are going to have to lift the curse of the defeated - but symbolically victorious - peoples, which is insinuating itself five hundred years later, by way of repentance, into the heart of the white race. No solution has been found to the dramatic situation of the under-developed, and none will be found since their drama has now been overtaken by that of the overdeveloped, of the rich nations. The psychodrama of congestion, saturation, super abundance, neurosis and the breaking of blood vessels which haunts us - the drama of the excess of means over ends – calls more urgently for attention than that of penury, lack and poverty. That is where the most imminent danger of catastrophe resides, in the societies which have run out of emptiness. Artificial catastrophes, like the beneficial aspects of civilization, progress much more quickly than natural ones. The underdeveloped are still at the primary stage of the natural, unforeseeable catastrophe. We are already at the second stage, that of the manufactured catastrophe - imminent and foreseeable - and we shall soon be at that of the pre-programmed catastrophe, the catastrophe of the third kind, deliberate and experimental. And, paradoxically, it is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe - the unpredictable form of destiny - which will take us there. Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny. Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end which is uncertain or governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a species. [/INST] <h4>Triggers all their impacts </h4><p><strong>Baudrillard 94</strong> <u>[Jean, “The Illusion of the End” p. 66-71]</p><p>We have long denounced the</u> capitalistic, economic <u>exploitation of the poverty of the 'other half of the world'</u> [['autre monde]. <u>We must today denounce the moral and sentimental <strong>exploitation</strong> of that poverty - charity cannibalism being <strong>worse</strong> than oppressive violence</u>. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials, but as a waste-reprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the waste-products of history- the main thing is to recycle them to produce a new energy source. We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other, much more ferocious, form of moral predation. One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis, <u>that material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. </u>The 'Fourth World' (we are no longer dealing with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered, this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it, too, the waste-product of its own history. The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw materials and hence also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection, humanitarian interference, Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last phase of colonialism: the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World Order. <u><mark>Other</mark> <mark>people's destitution becomes our adventure <strong>playground</u></strong></mark>. Thus, the humanitarian offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after allowing Saddam Hussein to crush them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the consumers of the ever delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving spectacle of <u><mark>our own efforts to alleviate it</mark> </u>(which, in fact, <u>merely <mark>function to secure the conditions of <strong>reproduction</strong> of the catastrophe market</u></mark>); there, at least, in the order of moral profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable: we see to it that extreme poverty is reproduced as a symbolic deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium of the West. In our defence, it might be said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it. There can be no finer proof that the distress of the rest of the world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense, with a sumptuous buffet laid on by the Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d' Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne? Just as the economic crisis of the West will not be complete so long as it can still exploit the resources of the rest of the world, so the symbolic crisis will be complete only when it is no longer able to feed on the other half's human and natural catastrophes (Eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Kurds, Bangladesh, etc.). We need this drug, which serves us as an aphrodisiac and hallucinogen. And the poor countries are the best suppliers - as, indeed, they are of other drugs. We provide them, through our media, with the means to exploit this paradoxical resource, just as we give them the means to exhaust their natural resources with our technologies. Our whole culture lives off this catastrophic cannibalism, relayed in cynical mode by the news media, and carried forward in moral mode by our humanitarian aid, which is a way of encouraging it and ensuring its continuity, just as economic aid is a strategy for perpetuating under-development. Up to now, the financial sacrifice has been compensated a hundredfold by the moral gain<u>. But <mark>when</mark> the <mark>catastrophe market</mark> itself <mark>reaches crisis point</u></mark>, in accordance with the implacable logic of the market, when distress becomes scarce or the marginal returns on it fall from overexploitation, <u><mark>when we run out of disasters</mark> from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee or other commodities, <mark>the West will</mark> be forced to <mark>produce its own catastrophe for <strong>itself</strong></mark>,</u> <u>in order <mark>to meet its need for spectacle and</mark> that <strong>voracious <mark>appetite </strong>for symbols</mark> which characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food</u>. It will reach the point where it devours itself. When we have finished sucking out the destiny of others, we shall have to invent one for ourselves. The Great Crash, the symbolic crash, will come in the end from us Westerners, but only when we are no longer able to feed on the hallucinogenic misery which comes to us from the other half of the world. Yet they do not seem keen to give up their monopoly. The Middle East, Bangladesh, black Africa and Latin America are really going flat out in the distress and catastrophe stakes, and thus in providing symbolic nourishment for the rich world. They might be said to be overdoing it: heaping earthquakes, floods, famines and ecological disasters one upon another, and finding the means to massacre each other most of the time. The 'disaster show' goes on without any let-up and our sacrificial debt to them far exceeds their economic debt. The misery with which they generously overwhelm us is something we shall never be able to repay. The sacrifices we offer in return are laughable (a tornado or two, a few tiny holocausts on the roads, the odd financial sacrifice) and, moreover, by some infernal logic, these work out as much greater gains for us, whereas our kindnesses have merely added to the natural catastrophes another one immeasurably worse: the demographic catastrophe, a veritable epidemic which we deplore each day in pictures. In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic advantage of the South (a hundred thousand Iraqi dead against casualties numbered in tens on our side: in every case we are the losers), that one day everything will break down. One day, the West will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame, if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly decide to share out this symbolic privilege of misery and catastrophe. It is of course normal, since we refuse to allow the spread of nuclear weapons, that they should refuse to allow the spread of the catastrophe weapon. But it is not right that they should exert that monopoly indefinitely. In any case, the under-developed are only so by comparison with the Western system and its presumed success. In the light of its assumed failure, they are not under-developed at all. They are only so in terms of a dominant evolutionism which has always been the worst of colonial ideologies. The argument here is that there is a line of objective progress and everyone is supposed to pass through its various stages (we find the same eyewash with regard to the evolution of species and in that evolutionism which unilaterally sanctions the superiority of the human race). In the light of current upheavals, which put an end to any idea of history as a linear process, there are no longer either developed or under-developed peoples. Thus, to encourage hope of evolution - albeit by revolution - among the poor and to doom them, in keeping with the objective illusion of progress, to technological salvation is a criminal absurdity. In actual fact, it is their good fortune to be able to escape from evolution just at the point when we no longer know where it is leading. In any case, a majority of these peoples, including those of Eastern Europe, do not seem keen to enter this evolutionist modernity, and their weight in the balance is certainly no small factor in the West's repudiation of its own history, of its own utopias and its own modernity. It might be said that the routes of violence, historical or otherwise, are being turned around and that the viruses now pass from South to North, there being every chance that, five hundred years after America was conquered, 1992 and the end of the century will mark the comeback of the defeated and the sudden reversal of that modernity. The sense of pride is no longer on the side of wealth but of poverty, of those who - fortunately for them - have nothing to repent, and may indeed glory in being privileged in terms of catastrophes. Admittedly, this is a privilege they could hardly renounce, even if they wished to, but natural disasters merely reinforce the sense of guilt felt towards them by the wealthy – by those whom God visibly scorns since he no longer even strikes them down. One day it will be the Whites themselves who will give up their whiteness. It is a good bet that repentance will reach its highest pitch with the five-hundredth anniversary of the conquest of the Americas. We are going to have to lift the curse of the defeated - but symbolically victorious - peoples, which is insinuating itself five hundred years later, by way of repentance, into the heart of the white race. No solution has been found to the dramatic situation of the under-developed, and none will be found since their drama has now been overtaken by that of the overdeveloped, of the rich nations. The psychodrama of congestion, saturation, super abundance, neurosis and the breaking of blood vessels which haunts us - the drama of the excess of means over ends – calls more urgently for attention than that of penury, lack and poverty. That is where the most imminent danger of catastrophe resides, in the societies which have run out of emptiness<u>. <mark>Artificial catastrophes</u></mark>, like the beneficial aspects of civilization<u>, <mark>progress</mark> much <mark>more quickly than natural ones</u>.</mark> The underdeveloped are still at the primary stage of the natural, unforeseeable catastrophe. We are already at the second stage, that of the manufactured catastrophe - imminent and foreseeable - and <u><mark>we shall soon be at that of the</mark> <mark>pre-programmed catastrophe</mark>,</u> the catastrophe of the third kind, <u>deliberate and experimental</u>. And, <u>paradoxically, <mark>it <strong>is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe</u></strong></mark> - the unpredictable form of destiny - <u><mark>which will take us there</u></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end</mark> which is uncertain or <mark>governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a <strong>species</strong>.</mark> </p></u> </s>

Prohibition is worse for I-Law

The United States is again in violation of international law But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶ ballot initiatives had the potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington that breach has now occurred the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶ The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US on I C C P R Nor would we tolerate violations of the Geneva Conventions the Torture Convention, the N P T . Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour. ¶ Ending the war on drugs will be a victory for international human rights law It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer.

The U S is again in violation of i law With the votes in Colorado and Washington that breach has now occurred The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US on Geneva Torture the N P T there is a hierarchy in i law that is exposed Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice have won out over controls on behaviour Ending the war on drugs will be a victory for i h r l It will be a victory for i law for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition

The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶ On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶ Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces.¶ Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs - and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is also bound. Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour. ¶ Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.

<h4>Prohibition is worse for I-Law </h4><p><strong>Barrett 12</strong><mark> [Damon, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html]</p><p><u><strong>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>is again in violation of i</mark>nternational <mark>law</u></strong></mark>. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ <u><strong>But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶</u></strong> On 6 November various <u><strong>ballot initiatives</u></strong> were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three <u><strong>had the</u></strong> clearest <u><strong>potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. <mark>With the votes in Colorado and Washington</u></strong></mark> which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, <u><strong><mark>that breach has now occurred</u></strong></mark>.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, <u><strong>the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶</u></strong> Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. <u><strong><mark>The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma</mark> the US government now faces</u></strong>.¶ <u><strong>Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results</u></strong> in Colorado and Washington <u><strong>as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs</u></strong> - <u><strong>and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law</u></strong>. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ <u><strong><mark>We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US</u></strong></mark> of the Convention <u><strong><mark>on</u></strong></mark> the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the <u><strong>I</u></strong>nternational <u><strong>C</u></strong>ovenant on <u><strong>C</u></strong>ivil and <u><strong>P</u></strong>olitical <u><strong>R</u></strong>ights, to which it is also bound. <u><strong>Nor would we tolerate</u></strong> (though they happen regularly) <u><strong>violations of the <mark>Geneva</mark> Conventions</u></strong>, <u><strong>the <mark>Torture</mark> Convention, <mark>the</u></strong></mark> Nuclear <u><strong><mark>N</u></strong></mark>on-<u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>roliferation <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>reaty or environmental protocols<u><strong>. Indeed, <mark>there is a hierarchy in i</mark>nternational <mark>law that is exposed</mark> by the Colorado and Washington votes</u></strong>.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. <u><strong><mark>Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice</mark>, not to mention democracy, <mark>have won out over</mark> arbitrary and unreasonable <mark>controls on </mark>human <mark>behaviour</mark>. ¶</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Ending the war on drugs</u></strong></mark>, moreover, <u><strong><mark>will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>h</mark>uman <mark>r</mark>ights <mark>l</mark>aw</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>It will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>law</mark> itself - <mark>for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for</mark> the achievement of international development agreements and <mark>improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. </u></strong>For that we should all celebrate.</p>

Barrett 12 [Damon, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Barrett 12 [Damon, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html] fulltext: The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶ On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶ Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces.¶ Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs - and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is also bound. Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour. ¶ Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate. [/INST] <h4>Prohibition is worse for I-Law </h4><p><strong>Barrett 12</strong><mark> [Damon, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration, 08/11/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/damon-barett/marijuana-legalisation_b_2087887.html]</p><p><u><strong>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>is again in violation of i</mark>nternational <mark>law</u></strong></mark>. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.¶ <u><strong>But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.¶</u></strong> On 6 November various <u><strong>ballot initiatives</u></strong> were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three <u><strong>had the</u></strong> clearest <u><strong>potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. <mark>With the votes in Colorado and Washington</u></strong></mark> which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, <u><strong><mark>that breach has now occurred</u></strong></mark>.¶ The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.¶ Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.¶ But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It's what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties ('cannabis' is the term used).¶ The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to 'limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs'.¶ There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a 'general obligation' of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, <u><strong>the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition. ¶</u></strong> Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I'm from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. <u><strong><mark>The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma</mark> the US government now faces</u></strong>.¶ <u><strong>Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results</u></strong> in Colorado and Washington <u><strong>as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs</u></strong> - <u><strong>and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law</u></strong>. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.¶ There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect. ¶ So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.¶ <u><strong><mark>We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US</u></strong></mark> of the Convention <u><strong><mark>on</u></strong></mark> the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the <u><strong>I</u></strong>nternational <u><strong>C</u></strong>ovenant on <u><strong>C</u></strong>ivil and <u><strong>P</u></strong>olitical <u><strong>R</u></strong>ights, to which it is also bound. <u><strong>Nor would we tolerate</u></strong> (though they happen regularly) <u><strong>violations of the <mark>Geneva</mark> Conventions</u></strong>, <u><strong>the <mark>Torture</mark> Convention, <mark>the</u></strong></mark> Nuclear <u><strong><mark>N</u></strong></mark>on-<u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>roliferation <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>reaty or environmental protocols<u><strong>. Indeed, <mark>there is a hierarchy in i</mark>nternational <mark>law that is exposed</mark> by the Colorado and Washington votes</u></strong>.¶ But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an 'evil' to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. 'The three United Nations drug control conventions...set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement' said the President of the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States' implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.¶ There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.¶ The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States' pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.¶ The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. <u><strong><mark>Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice</mark>, not to mention democracy, <mark>have won out over</mark> arbitrary and unreasonable <mark>controls on </mark>human <mark>behaviour</mark>. ¶</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Ending the war on drugs</u></strong></mark>, moreover, <u><strong><mark>will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>h</mark>uman <mark>r</mark>ights <mark>l</mark>aw</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>It will be a victory for i</mark>nternational <mark>law</mark> itself - <mark>for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for</mark> the achievement of international development agreements and <mark>improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. </u></strong>For that we should all celebrate.</p> </s>

The disad swamps the case on a massive scale---escalation over Ukraine breaks the back of global economic integration—turns trade, China, and terror

The Ukraine crisis will be a turning point for how states think about globalization Global integration held the promise of peace, stability, and mutual prosperity It took the Ukraine crisis to bring the world to the cusp of a period of de-globalization The logical response to the prospect of economic warfare is for states to hedge against vulnerabilities created by interdependence. They will adopt a strategic approach to integration This will be a sea change in international economic policy The Ukraine crisis will have implications far beyond Europe. Major states are increasingly in geopolitical competition China is a geopolitical competitor of the U S In Asia, countries will take careful notes about the effectiveness of new economic weapons to utilize in contingencies in their own neighborhood China will be watching closely to see what actions may be used against it in the event of a harsh crackdown domestically If Russia retaliates succeeds in imposing significant economic costs of its own on the west, reducing U.S. and European exposure to potential rivals will become a priority Handled properly this limited unwinding should not lead to a new era of protectionism Major powers will identify areas where interdependence creates a real strategic vulnerability especially on finance, energy, and cyber and reduce them gradually over time As they look to deter Russia the U S should be cognizant about the precedent they are setting

The Ukraine crisis will be or how states think about globalization Major states are increasingly in geopolitical competition China will take careful notes will be watching closely t Major powers will identify areas where interdependence creates a real strategic vulnerability—especially finance, and cyber As they look to deter Russia, the United States and Europe should also be cognizant about the precedent they are setti

The Ukraine crisis will be a turning point for how states think about globalization. For almost twenty years, the United States and all major powers have pursued greater economic, financial, and technological integration as an end in itself. Global integration held the promise of peace, stability, and mutual prosperity. On several occasions, most notably after the financial crisis in 2008, experts predicted the end of integration and the return of protectionism but it never came. It took the Ukraine crisis to bring the world to the cusp of a period of de-globalization. The Ukraine crisis shows that at a moment of high tension the major powers will use the leverage they gain from interdependence as a weapon against each other. Thus, this week, the United States imposed sanctions against Russian banks and oligarchs. Russia is employing its own economic weapons against Ukraine and is reportedly considering retaliation of its own against the European Union and America. The logical response to the prospect of economic warfare is for states and major companies to hedge against the risk of vulnerabilities created by interdependence. They will adopt a strategic approach to integration—pursuing it where it works to their benefit, but stepping away from it when it exposes them to potential actions by a hostile government. This will be a sea change in international economic policy and U.S. grand strategy more generally. Russian companies have already pulled billions of dollars from western banks, presumably to preempt sanctions, while Putin demanded that Russian companies register “onshore” instead of abroad. Western European governments are acutely aware of their exposure to Russia and are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Western banks are already paying a price while companies like Boeing and General Electric are closely tracking how sanctions on Russia may detrimentally impact upon their interests there. We saw some signs of hedging even before the Ukraine crisis. The United States and many of its allies prevented Huawei, a Chinese technology company, from investing in critical infrastructure because of concerns it could be influenced by the Chinese government. Some U.S. analysts have warned against being overly reliant on China’s purchase of U.S. treasuries. Meanwhile, China was seeking means of reducing its energy dependence on routes controlled by the U.S. Navy while Russia reduced its dependence on foreign sources of finance. Russia even considered economic warfare to destabilize the U.S. economy after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. According to former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Russia asked China to dump its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 to ruin the U.S. mortgage-finance companies. China declined and promptly informed the United States. The Ukraine crisis will have implications far beyond Europe. Major states are increasingly in geopolitical competition with each other. In Asia, China, the world’s second-largest economy, is a geopolitical competitor of the United States, Japan, and India, and it also has significant disputes with many of its neighbors in South East Asia. By demonstrating the risks of interdependence within geopolitics, the Ukraine crisis will be a catalyst for what would have happened anyway over the course of the next decade. In Asia, countries will take careful notes about the effectiveness of new economic weapons to utilize in contingencies in their own neighborhood. China will be watching closely to see what actions may be used against it in the event of a harsh crackdown domestically or a conflict over disputed territories in which it is widely perceived as the aggressor. If Russia retaliates succeeds in imposing significant economic costs of its own on the west, reducing U.S. and European exposure to potential rivals will become a priority. Western companies that are collateral damage in U.S. and European sanctions will be more reluctant to invest in countries that could become future adversaries in an economic war. Globalization was always especially vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. The great power comity of 1991 to 2008 was never going to be permanent. It is perhaps better that this realization comes in a stand-off with Russia, the world’s eighth largest economy and one that has already been distancing itself from the global economy, than a crisis involving China, the second largest economy, which could do real damage to the United States and its allies. Handled properly, this limited unwinding should not lead to a new era of protectionism. Most trade, as long as it is diversified, is genuinely mutually beneficial and is hard to weaponize. Where countries have tried to do so—such as China with rare earth metals—they have failed. Major powers will identify areas where interdependence creates a real strategic vulnerability—especially on finance, energy, and cyber—and reduce them gradually over time. Rather than erecting barriers, diversification could achieve the same effect with much less cost. As they look to deter Russia, the United States and Europe should also be cognizant about the precedent they are setting.

<h4>The disad <u>swamps the case on a massive scale</u>---escalation over Ukraine <u>breaks the back</u> of global economic integration—turns trade, China, and terror </h4><p>Tom <strong>Wright 14</strong>, Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 3/25/14, “WHY THE UKRAINE CRISIS PUTS GLOBALIZATION AT RISK,” </p><p><u><strong><mark>The Ukraine crisis will be</mark> a</u></strong> <u><strong>turning point f<mark>or how states think about globalization</u></strong></mark>. For almost twenty years, the United States and all major powers have pursued greater economic, financial, and technological integration as an end in itself. <u><strong>Global integration held the promise of peace, stability, and mutual prosperity</u></strong>. On several occasions, most notably after the financial crisis in 2008, experts predicted the end of integration and the return of protectionism but it never came. <u><strong>It took the Ukraine crisis to bring the world to</u></strong> <u><strong>the cusp of a period of de-globalization</u></strong>. The Ukraine crisis shows that at a moment of high tension the major powers will use the leverage they gain from interdependence as a weapon against each other. Thus, this week, the United States imposed sanctions against Russian banks and oligarchs. Russia is employing its own economic weapons against Ukraine and is reportedly considering retaliation of its own against the European Union and America. <u><strong>The logical response to</u></strong> <u><strong>the prospect of economic warfare</u></strong> <u><strong>is for states</u></strong> and major companies <u><strong>to hedge against</u></strong> the risk of <u><strong>vulnerabilities created by interdependence.</u></strong> <u><strong>They will adopt a strategic approach to integration</u></strong>—pursuing it where it works to their benefit, but stepping away from it when it exposes them to potential actions by a hostile government. <u><strong>This will be a</u></strong> <u><strong>sea change in international economic policy</u></strong> and U.S. grand strategy more generally. Russian companies have already pulled billions of dollars from western banks, presumably to preempt sanctions, while Putin demanded that Russian companies register “onshore” instead of abroad. Western European governments are acutely aware of their exposure to Russia and are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Western banks are already paying a price while companies like Boeing and General Electric are closely tracking how sanctions on Russia may detrimentally impact upon their interests there. We saw some signs of hedging even before the Ukraine crisis. The United States and many of its allies prevented Huawei, a Chinese technology company, from investing in critical infrastructure because of concerns it could be influenced by the Chinese government. Some U.S. analysts have warned against being overly reliant on China’s purchase of U.S. treasuries. Meanwhile, China was seeking means of reducing its energy dependence on routes controlled by the U.S. Navy while Russia reduced its dependence on foreign sources of finance. Russia even considered economic warfare to destabilize the U.S. economy after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. According to former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Russia asked China to dump its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 to ruin the U.S. mortgage-finance companies. China declined and promptly informed the United States. <u><strong>The Ukraine crisis will have implications far beyond Europe.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Major states are increasingly in geopolitical competition</u></strong></mark> with each other. In Asia, <u><strong><mark>China</u></strong></mark>, the world’s second-largest economy, <u><strong>is a geopolitical competitor of the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, Japan, and India, and it also has significant disputes with many of its neighbors in South East Asia. By demonstrating the risks of interdependence within geopolitics, the Ukraine crisis will be a catalyst for what would have happened anyway over the course of the next decade. <u><strong>In Asia, countries <mark>will take careful notes</mark> about the</u></strong> <u><strong>effectiveness of new economic weapons</u></strong> <u><strong>to utilize in contingencies in their own neighborhood</u></strong>. <u><strong>China <mark>will be watching closely</u></strong> <u><strong>t</mark>o see what actions may be used against it in the event of a harsh crackdown domestically</u></strong> or a conflict over disputed territories in which it is widely perceived as the aggressor. <u><strong>If Russia retaliates succeeds in imposing significant economic costs of its own on the west,</u></strong> <u><strong>reducing U.S. and European exposure to potential rivals will become a priority</u></strong>. Western companies that are collateral damage in U.S. and European sanctions will be more reluctant to invest in countries that could become future adversaries in an economic war. Globalization was always especially vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. The great power comity of 1991 to 2008 was never going to be permanent. It is perhaps better that this realization comes in a stand-off with Russia, the world’s eighth largest economy and one that has already been distancing itself from the global economy, than a crisis involving China, the second largest economy, which could do real damage to the United States and its allies. <u><strong>Handled properly</u></strong>, <u><strong>this limited unwinding</u></strong> <u><strong>should not lead to a new era of protectionism</u></strong>. Most trade, as long as it is diversified, is genuinely mutually beneficial and is hard to weaponize. Where countries have tried to do so—such as China with rare earth metals—they have failed. <u><strong><mark>Major powers will identify areas where interdependence creates a real strategic vulnerability</u></strong>—<u><strong>especially</mark> on <mark>finance,</mark> energy, <mark>and cyber</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong>and reduce them gradually over time</u></strong>. Rather than erecting barriers, diversification could achieve the same effect with much less cost. <u><strong><mark>As they look to deter Russia</u></strong>, <u><strong>the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates and Europe <u><strong>should</u></strong> also <u><strong>be cognizant about the precedent they are setti</mark>ng</u></strong>.</p>

Tom Wright 14, Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 3/25/14, “WHY THE UKRAINE CRISIS PUTS GLOBALIZATION AT RISK,”

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tom Wright 14, Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 3/25/14, “WHY THE UKRAINE CRISIS PUTS GLOBALIZATION AT RISK,” fulltext: The Ukraine crisis will be a turning point for how states think about globalization. For almost twenty years, the United States and all major powers have pursued greater economic, financial, and technological integration as an end in itself. Global integration held the promise of peace, stability, and mutual prosperity. On several occasions, most notably after the financial crisis in 2008, experts predicted the end of integration and the return of protectionism but it never came. It took the Ukraine crisis to bring the world to the cusp of a period of de-globalization. The Ukraine crisis shows that at a moment of high tension the major powers will use the leverage they gain from interdependence as a weapon against each other. Thus, this week, the United States imposed sanctions against Russian banks and oligarchs. Russia is employing its own economic weapons against Ukraine and is reportedly considering retaliation of its own against the European Union and America. The logical response to the prospect of economic warfare is for states and major companies to hedge against the risk of vulnerabilities created by interdependence. They will adopt a strategic approach to integration—pursuing it where it works to their benefit, but stepping away from it when it exposes them to potential actions by a hostile government. This will be a sea change in international economic policy and U.S. grand strategy more generally. Russian companies have already pulled billions of dollars from western banks, presumably to preempt sanctions, while Putin demanded that Russian companies register “onshore” instead of abroad. Western European governments are acutely aware of their exposure to Russia and are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Western banks are already paying a price while companies like Boeing and General Electric are closely tracking how sanctions on Russia may detrimentally impact upon their interests there. We saw some signs of hedging even before the Ukraine crisis. The United States and many of its allies prevented Huawei, a Chinese technology company, from investing in critical infrastructure because of concerns it could be influenced by the Chinese government. Some U.S. analysts have warned against being overly reliant on China’s purchase of U.S. treasuries. Meanwhile, China was seeking means of reducing its energy dependence on routes controlled by the U.S. Navy while Russia reduced its dependence on foreign sources of finance. Russia even considered economic warfare to destabilize the U.S. economy after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. According to former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Russia asked China to dump its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 to ruin the U.S. mortgage-finance companies. China declined and promptly informed the United States. The Ukraine crisis will have implications far beyond Europe. Major states are increasingly in geopolitical competition with each other. In Asia, China, the world’s second-largest economy, is a geopolitical competitor of the United States, Japan, and India, and it also has significant disputes with many of its neighbors in South East Asia. By demonstrating the risks of interdependence within geopolitics, the Ukraine crisis will be a catalyst for what would have happened anyway over the course of the next decade. In Asia, countries will take careful notes about the effectiveness of new economic weapons to utilize in contingencies in their own neighborhood. China will be watching closely to see what actions may be used against it in the event of a harsh crackdown domestically or a conflict over disputed territories in which it is widely perceived as the aggressor. If Russia retaliates succeeds in imposing significant economic costs of its own on the west, reducing U.S. and European exposure to potential rivals will become a priority. Western companies that are collateral damage in U.S. and European sanctions will be more reluctant to invest in countries that could become future adversaries in an economic war. Globalization was always especially vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. The great power comity of 1991 to 2008 was never going to be permanent. It is perhaps better that this realization comes in a stand-off with Russia, the world’s eighth largest economy and one that has already been distancing itself from the global economy, than a crisis involving China, the second largest economy, which could do real damage to the United States and its allies. Handled properly, this limited unwinding should not lead to a new era of protectionism. Most trade, as long as it is diversified, is genuinely mutually beneficial and is hard to weaponize. Where countries have tried to do so—such as China with rare earth metals—they have failed. Major powers will identify areas where interdependence creates a real strategic vulnerability—especially on finance, energy, and cyber—and reduce them gradually over time. Rather than erecting barriers, diversification could achieve the same effect with much less cost. As they look to deter Russia, the United States and Europe should also be cognizant about the precedent they are setting. [/INST] <h4>The disad <u>swamps the case on a massive scale</u>---escalation over Ukraine <u>breaks the back</u> of global economic integration—turns trade, China, and terror </h4><p>Tom <strong>Wright 14</strong>, Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 3/25/14, “WHY THE UKRAINE CRISIS PUTS GLOBALIZATION AT RISK,” </p><p><u><strong><mark>The Ukraine crisis will be</mark> a</u></strong> <u><strong>turning point f<mark>or how states think about globalization</u></strong></mark>. For almost twenty years, the United States and all major powers have pursued greater economic, financial, and technological integration as an end in itself. <u><strong>Global integration held the promise of peace, stability, and mutual prosperity</u></strong>. On several occasions, most notably after the financial crisis in 2008, experts predicted the end of integration and the return of protectionism but it never came. <u><strong>It took the Ukraine crisis to bring the world to</u></strong> <u><strong>the cusp of a period of de-globalization</u></strong>. The Ukraine crisis shows that at a moment of high tension the major powers will use the leverage they gain from interdependence as a weapon against each other. Thus, this week, the United States imposed sanctions against Russian banks and oligarchs. Russia is employing its own economic weapons against Ukraine and is reportedly considering retaliation of its own against the European Union and America. <u><strong>The logical response to</u></strong> <u><strong>the prospect of economic warfare</u></strong> <u><strong>is for states</u></strong> and major companies <u><strong>to hedge against</u></strong> the risk of <u><strong>vulnerabilities created by interdependence.</u></strong> <u><strong>They will adopt a strategic approach to integration</u></strong>—pursuing it where it works to their benefit, but stepping away from it when it exposes them to potential actions by a hostile government. <u><strong>This will be a</u></strong> <u><strong>sea change in international economic policy</u></strong> and U.S. grand strategy more generally. Russian companies have already pulled billions of dollars from western banks, presumably to preempt sanctions, while Putin demanded that Russian companies register “onshore” instead of abroad. Western European governments are acutely aware of their exposure to Russia and are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Western banks are already paying a price while companies like Boeing and General Electric are closely tracking how sanctions on Russia may detrimentally impact upon their interests there. We saw some signs of hedging even before the Ukraine crisis. The United States and many of its allies prevented Huawei, a Chinese technology company, from investing in critical infrastructure because of concerns it could be influenced by the Chinese government. Some U.S. analysts have warned against being overly reliant on China’s purchase of U.S. treasuries. Meanwhile, China was seeking means of reducing its energy dependence on routes controlled by the U.S. Navy while Russia reduced its dependence on foreign sources of finance. Russia even considered economic warfare to destabilize the U.S. economy after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. According to former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Russia asked China to dump its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 to ruin the U.S. mortgage-finance companies. China declined and promptly informed the United States. <u><strong>The Ukraine crisis will have implications far beyond Europe.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Major states are increasingly in geopolitical competition</u></strong></mark> with each other. In Asia, <u><strong><mark>China</u></strong></mark>, the world’s second-largest economy, <u><strong>is a geopolitical competitor of the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, Japan, and India, and it also has significant disputes with many of its neighbors in South East Asia. By demonstrating the risks of interdependence within geopolitics, the Ukraine crisis will be a catalyst for what would have happened anyway over the course of the next decade. <u><strong>In Asia, countries <mark>will take careful notes</mark> about the</u></strong> <u><strong>effectiveness of new economic weapons</u></strong> <u><strong>to utilize in contingencies in their own neighborhood</u></strong>. <u><strong>China <mark>will be watching closely</u></strong> <u><strong>t</mark>o see what actions may be used against it in the event of a harsh crackdown domestically</u></strong> or a conflict over disputed territories in which it is widely perceived as the aggressor. <u><strong>If Russia retaliates succeeds in imposing significant economic costs of its own on the west,</u></strong> <u><strong>reducing U.S. and European exposure to potential rivals will become a priority</u></strong>. Western companies that are collateral damage in U.S. and European sanctions will be more reluctant to invest in countries that could become future adversaries in an economic war. Globalization was always especially vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. The great power comity of 1991 to 2008 was never going to be permanent. It is perhaps better that this realization comes in a stand-off with Russia, the world’s eighth largest economy and one that has already been distancing itself from the global economy, than a crisis involving China, the second largest economy, which could do real damage to the United States and its allies. <u><strong>Handled properly</u></strong>, <u><strong>this limited unwinding</u></strong> <u><strong>should not lead to a new era of protectionism</u></strong>. Most trade, as long as it is diversified, is genuinely mutually beneficial and is hard to weaponize. Where countries have tried to do so—such as China with rare earth metals—they have failed. <u><strong><mark>Major powers will identify areas where interdependence creates a real strategic vulnerability</u></strong>—<u><strong>especially</mark> on <mark>finance,</mark> energy, <mark>and cyber</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong>and reduce them gradually over time</u></strong>. Rather than erecting barriers, diversification could achieve the same effect with much less cost. <u><strong><mark>As they look to deter Russia</u></strong>, <u><strong>the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates and Europe <u><strong>should</u></strong> also <u><strong>be cognizant about the precedent they are setti</mark>ng</u></strong>.</p> </s>

A. Spec – if they make a we meet argument, then you should vote neg on the fact that they wouldn’t specify out of the 1AC – that makes it impossible to create negative strategy and re-starts the debate in the 2AC, tips the balnce in favor of the aff

<h4><u>A. Spec </u><strong>– if they make a we meet argument, then you should vote neg on the fact that they wouldn’t specify out of the 1AC – that makes it impossible to create negative strategy and re-starts the debate in the 2AC, tips the balnce in favor of the aff </h4></strong>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><u>A. Spec </u><strong>– if they make a we meet argument, then you should vote neg on the fact that they wouldn’t specify out of the 1AC – that makes it impossible to create negative strategy and re-starts the debate in the 2AC, tips the balnce in favor of the aff </h4></strong> </s>

Default ban brings in technical compliance

To comply with GATS, the U.S. should clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing, as well as amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception The following suggestions are the most practical measures for the U.S. to take yet are significant enough to prevent further internet gambling complaints from member countries Amending the UIGEA would put the U.S. in a better position should future complaints arise Currently, the IHA discriminates against foreign service suppliers a WTO panel would likely find that the UIGEA satisfies the first prong of the public morals test the U.S. should amend the statute to clarify that the purpose of the UIGEA is not only to target debt collection and to improve law enforcement, but to prevent fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling the U.S. should amend the UIGEA to ban all forms of remote internet gambling Prohibiting all offshore internet gambling is a more "WTO-consistent alternative measure" that the U.S. should take the best way for the U.S. to prohibit all forms of remote internet gambling is to apply the ban to horseracing to avoid future complaints and retaliation from member countries, and to support the legitimacy of the WTO compliance would help avoid future complaints from larger WTO member countries or the European Union Future complaints will most likely focus on whether the new UIGEA excludes betting on horseracing and meets the public morals exception complying with GATS is important to avoid patent retaliation WTO arbitration panel gave Antigua the right to disregard U.S. copyrights This will pose serious ramifications for the U.S. if larger WTO member countries bring internet gambling complaints a WTO panel might find that the public morals exception cannot encompass the UIGEA The problem with this argument is that the UIGEA's reference to money laundering and corruption in section 803 suggests that there are moral-based purposes behind the statute critics argue that prohibiting all types of internet gambling is not a less trade-restrictive alternative, because the Wire Act already prohibits internet gambling This reasoning conflicts with the A B Report as well as the In re MasterCard decision The UIGEA violates GATS To comply with GATS, the U.S. should modify the law to include interstate gambling on horseracing and to satisfy the public morals exception the U.S. should amend the UIGEA to avoid future WTO complaints

To comply with GATS, the U.S. should clarify that UIGEA applies to horseracing, as well as amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling the U.S. should adjust UIGEA to fit within GATS public morals exception The following suggestions are significant enough to prevent further complaints the IHA discriminates against foreign service suppliers the U.S. should ban all forms of internet gambling Prohibiting is a WTO-consistent alternative measure the U.S. should take to avoid future retaliation and support the legitimacy of the WTO Future complaints will focus on whether the UIGEA excludes horseracing and meets the morals exception the UIGEA's reference suggests there are moral-based purposes behind the statute critics argue prohibiting gambling is not less trade-restrictive because the Wire Act already prohibits gambling This conflicts with the A B Report the U.S. should modify the law to avoid future complaints

[*101] VI. PROPOSED MEASURES THE U.S. SHOULD TAKE TO COMPLY WITH GATS AND WHY COMPLIANCE IS NECESSARY A. PROPOSED MEASURES To comply with GATS, the U.S. should first clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing, as well as amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling on pari-mutuel wagering. Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception. The following suggestions are the most practical measures for the U.S. to take because they involve little change to existing U.S law, yet are significant enough to prevent further internet gambling complaints from member countries. n160 Amending the UIGEA would put the U.S. in a better position should future WTO complaints against the U.S. arise. Modifying existing U.S. law is necessary because it is difficult to amend the list of GATS commitments. n161 1. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE IHA AND UIGEA TO APPLY TO ONLINE WAGERING ON HORSERACING First, the U.S. should amend the IHA and clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing. n162 Currently, the IHA discriminates against foreign service suppliers: it permits "domestic, but not foreign, services suppliers to offer remote betting service in relation to certain horse races." n163 Despite the DOJ's position that all types of remote internet gambling are illegal under existing federal law, the U.S. should follow the Appellate Body's interpretation and modify the IHA and [*102] UIGEA. n164 The DOJ's position conflicts with (1) the Fifth Circuit's holding in In re MasterCard; n165 (2) general principles of statutory construction; n166 and (3) the exceptions carved out in the UIGEA. n167 2. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE UIGEA TO ENSURE THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the public morals exception. Although a WTO panel would likely find that the UIGEA satisfies the first prong of the public morals test, the scope of public morals exception, the U.S. should nevertheless amend the statute to clarify that the purpose of the UIGEA is not only to target debt collection and to improve law enforcement, but also to prevent fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling. n168 With respect to the second prong of the public morals test, the necessity requirement, the U.S. should amend the UIGEA to ban all forms of remote internet gambling. Prohibiting all offshore internet gambling is a more "WTO-consistent alternative measure" that the U.S. should take, given the likelihood that future complaints against the U.S. would focus on this second prong. n169 Thus, the best way for the U.S. to prohibit all forms of remote internet gambling is to apply the ban to horseracing. n170 [*103] b. The U.S should comply with the WTO to avoid future complaints and retaliation from member countries, and to support the legitimacy of the WTO The U.S. should comply with GATS and the Appellate Body's decision in the Antigua case for three reasons. First, compliance would help avoid future complaints from larger WTO member countries or the European Union. n171 For example, the European Union has already considered raising a prospective WTO claim regarding the new law. n172 Future complaints will most likely focus on whether the new UIGEA excludes pari-mutuel betting on horseracing and meets both prongs of the public morals exception. Second, complying with GATS is important to avoid patent retaliation from member countries. Under WTO law, if the U.S. ignores a WTO finding or decision, member countries will have the option to disregard treaties requiring them to comply with U.S. patent laws. n173 For example, because the U.S. refused to follow the Compliance Panel's findings in the Antigua case, WTO arbitration panel gave Antigua the right to disregard U.S. copyrights on (e.g.,) videos, music, electronics, or software. n174 This type of retaliation will pose serious ramifications for the U.S. if larger WTO member countries bring internet gambling complaints. Moreover, member countries [*104] might also retaliate by refusing to allow U.S. companies to use certain geographical indications. n175 Third, the U.S. has "interests in supporting the legitimacy of the WTO." n176 Continuing to ignore its commitments under the WTO with respect to the new law will cost the U.S. "significant trade capital" and lead to trade sanctions or concessions. n177 If the U.S. ignores its WTO obligations, then other countries might ignore their WTO obligations toward the U.S. n178 C. CRITICISM There are three main counterarguments in response to this proposal that focus on the public morals exception. First, critics might argue that a WTO panel should hold that the U.S. has not met the first prong of the public morals exception, and find that the U.S. intent behind the UIGEA is economic-based. Second, existing U.S. federal laws are the most WTO-consistent measures available. Third, the U.S. should not prohibit online wagering on horseracing. 1. THE U.S. HAS NOT MET THE FIRST PRONG OF THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION First, because the UIGEA presents no clear moral or cultural rationale in either its text or legislative history, a WTO panel might find that the public morals exception cannot encompass the UIGEA. Proponents of this view argue that the purpose behind the UIGEA is almost entirely "economic in nature." n179 The problem with this argument, however, is that the UIGEA's reference to money laundering and corruption in section 803 suggests that there are moral-based purposes behind the statute. n180 Moreover, because the WTO tends to [*105] loosely interpret the public morals exception's scope, section 803's reference to morals will be enough to satisfy this prong. n181 2. EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS ARE WTO-CONSISTENT Second, another area of contention centers on whether the U.S. could use any less trade-restrictive alternatives. n182 In line with the DOJ's position, critics argue that prohibiting all types of internet gambling is not a less trade-restrictive alternative, because the Wire Act already prohibits all forms of internet gambling. This reasoning, however, conflicts with the Appellate Body Report as well as the In re MasterCard decision. n183 3. THE U.S. SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT INTERNET WAGERING ON HORSERACING Lastly, the U.S. should not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing. n184 Proponents of the horseracing industry have argued that horseracing is a major industry in the United States, whose "fastest growing segment" is the pari-mutuel business. n185 Carving out an exception for the IHA, however, discriminates against foreign internet [*106] service providers. If the U.S. does not wish to outlaw online betting on horseracing, its only other option is to allow "foreign racebooks to take [horseracing] bets" from the U.S., which would have "virtually no [negative] impact" on the current status of internet gambling. n186 Yet, Congress is not likely to pass a law expanding the scope of legal internet gambling. n187 Thus, the most realistic option for the U.S. is to include pari-mutuel wagering on horses within the overall reach of the UIGEA. VII. CONCLUSION The UIGEA violates GATS, in particular as examined against the backdrop of the Appellate Body Report. To comply with GATS, the U.S. should modify the law to include interstate gambling on horseracing and to satisfy the public morals exception. Instead of evading its WTO commitments altogether, the U.S. should amend the UIGEA as soon as possible to avoid future WTO complaints from larger member countries or the European Union.

<h4>Default ban brings in technical compliance </h4><p>Heather A.<strong> Bloom 8</strong>, J.D. @ The George Washington University Law School; B.A., Georgetown University, “Upping The Ante: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act's Noncompliance With World Trade Organization Law”, Fall 2008, South Carolina Journal of International Law & Business, 5 S.C. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 75, Lexis</p><p>[*101] VI. PROPOSED MEASURES THE U.S. SHOULD TAKE TO COMPLY WITH GATS AND WHY COMPLIANCE IS NECESSARY A. PROPOSED MEASURES <u><mark>To <strong>comply with GATS</strong>, the U.S. should</u></mark> first <u><strong><mark>clarify that</mark> the <mark>UIGEA applies to</mark> betting on <mark>horseracing</strong>, as well as <strong>amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling</u></strong></mark> on pari-mutuel wagering. Second, <u><mark>the U.S. should <strong>adjust</mark> the <mark>UIGEA</strong> to fit within</mark> the <mark>GATS public morals exception</u></mark>. <u><mark>The following suggestions are</mark> the <strong>most practical measures</strong> for the U.S. to take</u> because they involve little change to existing U.S law, <u>yet are <strong><mark>significant enough</strong> to <strong>prevent further</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>internet gambling</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>complaints</strong></mark> from member countries</u>. n160 <u>Amending the UIGEA would put the U.S. in a better position should future</u> WTO <u>complaints</u> against the U.S. <u>arise</u>. Modifying existing U.S. law is necessary because it is difficult to amend the list of GATS commitments. n161 1. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE IHA AND UIGEA TO APPLY TO ONLINE WAGERING ON HORSERACING First, the U.S. should amend the IHA and clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing. n162 <u>Currently, <mark>the IHA <strong>discriminates against foreign service suppliers</u></strong></mark>: it permits "domestic, but not foreign, services suppliers to offer remote betting service in relation to certain horse races." n163 Despite the DOJ's position that all types of remote internet gambling are illegal under existing federal law, the U.S. should follow the Appellate Body's interpretation and modify the IHA and [*102] UIGEA. n164 The DOJ's position conflicts with (1) the Fifth Circuit's holding in In re MasterCard; n165 (2) general principles of statutory construction; n166 and (3) the exceptions carved out in the UIGEA. n167 2. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE UIGEA TO ENSURE THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the public morals exception. Although <u>a WTO panel would likely find that the UIGEA satisfies the first prong of the public morals test</u>, the scope of public morals exception, <u>the U.S. should</u> nevertheless <u>amend the statute to clarify that the purpose of the UIGEA is not only to target debt collection and to improve law enforcement, but</u> also <u>to prevent fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling</u>. n168 With respect to the second prong of the public morals test, the necessity requirement, <u><strong><mark>the U.S. should</mark> amend the UIGEA to <mark>ban all forms of</mark> remote <mark>internet gambling</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>Prohibiting</u></mark> <u><strong>all</u></strong> <u>offshore internet gambling <mark>is a</mark> more "<strong><mark>WTO-consistent alternative measure</strong></mark>" that <mark>the U.S. should take</u></mark>, given the likelihood that future complaints against the U.S. would focus on this second prong. n169 Thus, <u>the <strong>best way for the U.S. to prohibit all forms of remote internet gambling is</strong> to apply the ban to horseracing</u>. n170 [*103] b. The U.S should comply with the WTO <u><strong><mark>to avoid future</mark> complaints and <mark>retaliation</mark> from member countries, <mark>and</u></strong></mark> <u>to <strong><mark>support the legitimacy of the WTO</u></strong></mark> The U.S. should comply with GATS and the Appellate Body's decision in the Antigua case for three reasons. First, <u>compliance would help avoid future complaints from larger WTO member countries or the European Union</u>. n171 For example, the European Union has already considered raising a prospective WTO claim regarding the new law. n172 <u><strong><mark>Future complaints </strong>will</mark> most likely <mark>focus on whether the</mark> new <mark>UIGEA excludes</u></mark> pari-mutuel <u>betting on <mark>horseracing and</u></mark> <u><mark>meets</u></mark> both prongs of <u><mark>the</mark> public <mark>morals exception</u></mark>. Second, <u>complying with GATS is important to avoid patent retaliation</u> from member countries. Under WTO law, if the U.S. ignores a WTO finding or decision, member countries will have the option to disregard treaties requiring them to comply with U.S. patent laws. n173 For example, because the U.S. refused to follow the Compliance Panel's findings in the Antigua case, <u>WTO arbitration panel gave Antigua the right to disregard U.S. copyrights</u> on (e.g.,) videos, music, electronics, or software. n174 <u>This</u> type of retaliation <u>will pose serious ramifications for the U.S. if larger WTO member countries bring internet gambling complaints</u>. Moreover, member countries [*104] might also retaliate by refusing to allow U.S. companies to use certain geographical indications. n175 Third, the U.S. has "interests in supporting the legitimacy of the WTO." n176 Continuing to ignore its commitments under the WTO with respect to the new law will cost the U.S. "significant trade capital" and lead to trade sanctions or concessions. n177 If the U.S. ignores its WTO obligations, then other countries might ignore their WTO obligations toward the U.S. n178 C. CRITICISM There are three main counterarguments in response to this proposal that focus on the public morals exception. First, critics might argue that a WTO panel should hold that the U.S. has not met the first prong of the public morals exception, and find that the U.S. intent behind the UIGEA is economic-based. Second, existing U.S. federal laws are the most WTO-consistent measures available. Third, the U.S. should not prohibit online wagering on horseracing. 1. THE U.S. HAS NOT MET THE FIRST PRONG OF THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION First, because the UIGEA presents no clear moral or cultural rationale in either its text or legislative history, <u>a WTO panel might find that the public morals exception cannot encompass the UIGEA</u>. Proponents of this view argue that the purpose behind the UIGEA is almost entirely "economic in nature." n179 <u>The problem with this argument</u>, however, <u>is that <mark>the UIGEA's reference</mark> to money laundering and corruption in section 803 <mark>suggests</mark> that <mark>there are <strong>moral-based purposes</strong> behind the statute</u></mark>. n180 Moreover, because the WTO tends to [*105] loosely interpret the public morals exception's scope, section 803's reference to morals will be enough to satisfy this prong. n181 2. EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS ARE WTO-CONSISTENT Second, another area of contention centers on whether the U.S. could use any less trade-restrictive alternatives. n182 In line with the DOJ's position, <u><mark>critics argue</mark> that <mark>prohibiting</mark> all types of internet <mark>gambling is not</mark> a <mark>less trade-restrictive</mark> alternative, <mark>because the Wire Act already prohibits</u></mark> all forms of <u>internet <mark>gambling</u></mark>. <u><strong><mark>This</mark> reasoning</u></strong>, however, <u><strong><mark>conflicts with the A</u></strong></mark>ppellate <u><strong><mark>B</u></strong></mark>ody <u><strong><mark>Report</strong></mark> as well as the In re MasterCard decision</u>. n183 3. THE U.S. SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT INTERNET WAGERING ON HORSERACING Lastly, the U.S. should not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing. n184 Proponents of the horseracing industry have argued that horseracing is a major industry in the United States, whose "fastest growing segment" is the pari-mutuel business. n185 Carving out an exception for the IHA, however, discriminates against foreign internet [*106] service providers. If the U.S. does not wish to outlaw online betting on horseracing, its only other option is to allow "foreign racebooks to take [horseracing] bets" from the U.S., which would have "virtually no [negative] impact" on the current status of internet gambling. n186 Yet, Congress is not likely to pass a law expanding the scope of legal internet gambling. n187 Thus, the most realistic option for the U.S. is to include pari-mutuel wagering on horses within the overall reach of the UIGEA. VII. CONCLUSION <u>The UIGEA violates GATS</u>, in particular as examined against the backdrop of the Appellate Body Report. <u>To comply with GATS, <mark>the U.S. should modify the law</mark> to include interstate gambling on horseracing and to satisfy the public morals exception</u>. Instead of evading its WTO commitments altogether, <u>the U.S. should amend the UIGEA</u> as soon as possible <u><mark>to <strong>avoid future</mark> WTO <mark>complaints</u></strong></mark> from larger member countries or the European Union.</p>

Heather A. Bloom 8, J.D. @ The George Washington University Law School; B.A., Georgetown University, “Upping The Ante: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act's Noncompliance With World Trade Organization Law”, Fall 2008, South Carolina Journal of International Law & Business, 5 S.C. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 75, Lexis

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Heather A. Bloom 8, J.D. @ The George Washington University Law School; B.A., Georgetown University, “Upping The Ante: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act's Noncompliance With World Trade Organization Law”, Fall 2008, South Carolina Journal of International Law & Business, 5 S.C. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 75, Lexis fulltext: [*101] VI. PROPOSED MEASURES THE U.S. SHOULD TAKE TO COMPLY WITH GATS AND WHY COMPLIANCE IS NECESSARY A. PROPOSED MEASURES To comply with GATS, the U.S. should first clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing, as well as amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling on pari-mutuel wagering. Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception. The following suggestions are the most practical measures for the U.S. to take because they involve little change to existing U.S law, yet are significant enough to prevent further internet gambling complaints from member countries. n160 Amending the UIGEA would put the U.S. in a better position should future WTO complaints against the U.S. arise. Modifying existing U.S. law is necessary because it is difficult to amend the list of GATS commitments. n161 1. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE IHA AND UIGEA TO APPLY TO ONLINE WAGERING ON HORSERACING First, the U.S. should amend the IHA and clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing. n162 Currently, the IHA discriminates against foreign service suppliers: it permits "domestic, but not foreign, services suppliers to offer remote betting service in relation to certain horse races." n163 Despite the DOJ's position that all types of remote internet gambling are illegal under existing federal law, the U.S. should follow the Appellate Body's interpretation and modify the IHA and [*102] UIGEA. n164 The DOJ's position conflicts with (1) the Fifth Circuit's holding in In re MasterCard; n165 (2) general principles of statutory construction; n166 and (3) the exceptions carved out in the UIGEA. n167 2. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE UIGEA TO ENSURE THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the public morals exception. Although a WTO panel would likely find that the UIGEA satisfies the first prong of the public morals test, the scope of public morals exception, the U.S. should nevertheless amend the statute to clarify that the purpose of the UIGEA is not only to target debt collection and to improve law enforcement, but also to prevent fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling. n168 With respect to the second prong of the public morals test, the necessity requirement, the U.S. should amend the UIGEA to ban all forms of remote internet gambling. Prohibiting all offshore internet gambling is a more "WTO-consistent alternative measure" that the U.S. should take, given the likelihood that future complaints against the U.S. would focus on this second prong. n169 Thus, the best way for the U.S. to prohibit all forms of remote internet gambling is to apply the ban to horseracing. n170 [*103] b. The U.S should comply with the WTO to avoid future complaints and retaliation from member countries, and to support the legitimacy of the WTO The U.S. should comply with GATS and the Appellate Body's decision in the Antigua case for three reasons. First, compliance would help avoid future complaints from larger WTO member countries or the European Union. n171 For example, the European Union has already considered raising a prospective WTO claim regarding the new law. n172 Future complaints will most likely focus on whether the new UIGEA excludes pari-mutuel betting on horseracing and meets both prongs of the public morals exception. Second, complying with GATS is important to avoid patent retaliation from member countries. Under WTO law, if the U.S. ignores a WTO finding or decision, member countries will have the option to disregard treaties requiring them to comply with U.S. patent laws. n173 For example, because the U.S. refused to follow the Compliance Panel's findings in the Antigua case, WTO arbitration panel gave Antigua the right to disregard U.S. copyrights on (e.g.,) videos, music, electronics, or software. n174 This type of retaliation will pose serious ramifications for the U.S. if larger WTO member countries bring internet gambling complaints. Moreover, member countries [*104] might also retaliate by refusing to allow U.S. companies to use certain geographical indications. n175 Third, the U.S. has "interests in supporting the legitimacy of the WTO." n176 Continuing to ignore its commitments under the WTO with respect to the new law will cost the U.S. "significant trade capital" and lead to trade sanctions or concessions. n177 If the U.S. ignores its WTO obligations, then other countries might ignore their WTO obligations toward the U.S. n178 C. CRITICISM There are three main counterarguments in response to this proposal that focus on the public morals exception. First, critics might argue that a WTO panel should hold that the U.S. has not met the first prong of the public morals exception, and find that the U.S. intent behind the UIGEA is economic-based. Second, existing U.S. federal laws are the most WTO-consistent measures available. Third, the U.S. should not prohibit online wagering on horseracing. 1. THE U.S. HAS NOT MET THE FIRST PRONG OF THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION First, because the UIGEA presents no clear moral or cultural rationale in either its text or legislative history, a WTO panel might find that the public morals exception cannot encompass the UIGEA. Proponents of this view argue that the purpose behind the UIGEA is almost entirely "economic in nature." n179 The problem with this argument, however, is that the UIGEA's reference to money laundering and corruption in section 803 suggests that there are moral-based purposes behind the statute. n180 Moreover, because the WTO tends to [*105] loosely interpret the public morals exception's scope, section 803's reference to morals will be enough to satisfy this prong. n181 2. EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS ARE WTO-CONSISTENT Second, another area of contention centers on whether the U.S. could use any less trade-restrictive alternatives. n182 In line with the DOJ's position, critics argue that prohibiting all types of internet gambling is not a less trade-restrictive alternative, because the Wire Act already prohibits all forms of internet gambling. This reasoning, however, conflicts with the Appellate Body Report as well as the In re MasterCard decision. n183 3. THE U.S. SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT INTERNET WAGERING ON HORSERACING Lastly, the U.S. should not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing. n184 Proponents of the horseracing industry have argued that horseracing is a major industry in the United States, whose "fastest growing segment" is the pari-mutuel business. n185 Carving out an exception for the IHA, however, discriminates against foreign internet [*106] service providers. If the U.S. does not wish to outlaw online betting on horseracing, its only other option is to allow "foreign racebooks to take [horseracing] bets" from the U.S., which would have "virtually no [negative] impact" on the current status of internet gambling. n186 Yet, Congress is not likely to pass a law expanding the scope of legal internet gambling. n187 Thus, the most realistic option for the U.S. is to include pari-mutuel wagering on horses within the overall reach of the UIGEA. VII. CONCLUSION The UIGEA violates GATS, in particular as examined against the backdrop of the Appellate Body Report. To comply with GATS, the U.S. should modify the law to include interstate gambling on horseracing and to satisfy the public morals exception. Instead of evading its WTO commitments altogether, the U.S. should amend the UIGEA as soon as possible to avoid future WTO complaints from larger member countries or the European Union. [/INST] <h4>Default ban brings in technical compliance </h4><p>Heather A.<strong> Bloom 8</strong>, J.D. @ The George Washington University Law School; B.A., Georgetown University, “Upping The Ante: The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act's Noncompliance With World Trade Organization Law”, Fall 2008, South Carolina Journal of International Law & Business, 5 S.C. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 75, Lexis</p><p>[*101] VI. PROPOSED MEASURES THE U.S. SHOULD TAKE TO COMPLY WITH GATS AND WHY COMPLIANCE IS NECESSARY A. PROPOSED MEASURES <u><mark>To <strong>comply with GATS</strong>, the U.S. should</u></mark> first <u><strong><mark>clarify that</mark> the <mark>UIGEA applies to</mark> betting on <mark>horseracing</strong>, as well as <strong>amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling</u></strong></mark> on pari-mutuel wagering. Second, <u><mark>the U.S. should <strong>adjust</mark> the <mark>UIGEA</strong> to fit within</mark> the <mark>GATS public morals exception</u></mark>. <u><mark>The following suggestions are</mark> the <strong>most practical measures</strong> for the U.S. to take</u> because they involve little change to existing U.S law, <u>yet are <strong><mark>significant enough</strong> to <strong>prevent further</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>internet gambling</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>complaints</strong></mark> from member countries</u>. n160 <u>Amending the UIGEA would put the U.S. in a better position should future</u> WTO <u>complaints</u> against the U.S. <u>arise</u>. Modifying existing U.S. law is necessary because it is difficult to amend the list of GATS commitments. n161 1. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE IHA AND UIGEA TO APPLY TO ONLINE WAGERING ON HORSERACING First, the U.S. should amend the IHA and clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing. n162 <u>Currently, <mark>the IHA <strong>discriminates against foreign service suppliers</u></strong></mark>: it permits "domestic, but not foreign, services suppliers to offer remote betting service in relation to certain horse races." n163 Despite the DOJ's position that all types of remote internet gambling are illegal under existing federal law, the U.S. should follow the Appellate Body's interpretation and modify the IHA and [*102] UIGEA. n164 The DOJ's position conflicts with (1) the Fifth Circuit's holding in In re MasterCard; n165 (2) general principles of statutory construction; n166 and (3) the exceptions carved out in the UIGEA. n167 2. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE UIGEA TO ENSURE THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the public morals exception. Although <u>a WTO panel would likely find that the UIGEA satisfies the first prong of the public morals test</u>, the scope of public morals exception, <u>the U.S. should</u> nevertheless <u>amend the statute to clarify that the purpose of the UIGEA is not only to target debt collection and to improve law enforcement, but</u> also <u>to prevent fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling</u>. n168 With respect to the second prong of the public morals test, the necessity requirement, <u><strong><mark>the U.S. should</mark> amend the UIGEA to <mark>ban all forms of</mark> remote <mark>internet gambling</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>Prohibiting</u></mark> <u><strong>all</u></strong> <u>offshore internet gambling <mark>is a</mark> more "<strong><mark>WTO-consistent alternative measure</strong></mark>" that <mark>the U.S. should take</u></mark>, given the likelihood that future complaints against the U.S. would focus on this second prong. n169 Thus, <u>the <strong>best way for the U.S. to prohibit all forms of remote internet gambling is</strong> to apply the ban to horseracing</u>. n170 [*103] b. The U.S should comply with the WTO <u><strong><mark>to avoid future</mark> complaints and <mark>retaliation</mark> from member countries, <mark>and</u></strong></mark> <u>to <strong><mark>support the legitimacy of the WTO</u></strong></mark> The U.S. should comply with GATS and the Appellate Body's decision in the Antigua case for three reasons. First, <u>compliance would help avoid future complaints from larger WTO member countries or the European Union</u>. n171 For example, the European Union has already considered raising a prospective WTO claim regarding the new law. n172 <u><strong><mark>Future complaints </strong>will</mark> most likely <mark>focus on whether the</mark> new <mark>UIGEA excludes</u></mark> pari-mutuel <u>betting on <mark>horseracing and</u></mark> <u><mark>meets</u></mark> both prongs of <u><mark>the</mark> public <mark>morals exception</u></mark>. Second, <u>complying with GATS is important to avoid patent retaliation</u> from member countries. Under WTO law, if the U.S. ignores a WTO finding or decision, member countries will have the option to disregard treaties requiring them to comply with U.S. patent laws. n173 For example, because the U.S. refused to follow the Compliance Panel's findings in the Antigua case, <u>WTO arbitration panel gave Antigua the right to disregard U.S. copyrights</u> on (e.g.,) videos, music, electronics, or software. n174 <u>This</u> type of retaliation <u>will pose serious ramifications for the U.S. if larger WTO member countries bring internet gambling complaints</u>. Moreover, member countries [*104] might also retaliate by refusing to allow U.S. companies to use certain geographical indications. n175 Third, the U.S. has "interests in supporting the legitimacy of the WTO." n176 Continuing to ignore its commitments under the WTO with respect to the new law will cost the U.S. "significant trade capital" and lead to trade sanctions or concessions. n177 If the U.S. ignores its WTO obligations, then other countries might ignore their WTO obligations toward the U.S. n178 C. CRITICISM There are three main counterarguments in response to this proposal that focus on the public morals exception. First, critics might argue that a WTO panel should hold that the U.S. has not met the first prong of the public morals exception, and find that the U.S. intent behind the UIGEA is economic-based. Second, existing U.S. federal laws are the most WTO-consistent measures available. Third, the U.S. should not prohibit online wagering on horseracing. 1. THE U.S. HAS NOT MET THE FIRST PRONG OF THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION First, because the UIGEA presents no clear moral or cultural rationale in either its text or legislative history, <u>a WTO panel might find that the public morals exception cannot encompass the UIGEA</u>. Proponents of this view argue that the purpose behind the UIGEA is almost entirely "economic in nature." n179 <u>The problem with this argument</u>, however, <u>is that <mark>the UIGEA's reference</mark> to money laundering and corruption in section 803 <mark>suggests</mark> that <mark>there are <strong>moral-based purposes</strong> behind the statute</u></mark>. n180 Moreover, because the WTO tends to [*105] loosely interpret the public morals exception's scope, section 803's reference to morals will be enough to satisfy this prong. n181 2. EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS ARE WTO-CONSISTENT Second, another area of contention centers on whether the U.S. could use any less trade-restrictive alternatives. n182 In line with the DOJ's position, <u><mark>critics argue</mark> that <mark>prohibiting</mark> all types of internet <mark>gambling is not</mark> a <mark>less trade-restrictive</mark> alternative, <mark>because the Wire Act already prohibits</u></mark> all forms of <u>internet <mark>gambling</u></mark>. <u><strong><mark>This</mark> reasoning</u></strong>, however, <u><strong><mark>conflicts with the A</u></strong></mark>ppellate <u><strong><mark>B</u></strong></mark>ody <u><strong><mark>Report</strong></mark> as well as the In re MasterCard decision</u>. n183 3. THE U.S. SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT INTERNET WAGERING ON HORSERACING Lastly, the U.S. should not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing. n184 Proponents of the horseracing industry have argued that horseracing is a major industry in the United States, whose "fastest growing segment" is the pari-mutuel business. n185 Carving out an exception for the IHA, however, discriminates against foreign internet [*106] service providers. If the U.S. does not wish to outlaw online betting on horseracing, its only other option is to allow "foreign racebooks to take [horseracing] bets" from the U.S., which would have "virtually no [negative] impact" on the current status of internet gambling. n186 Yet, Congress is not likely to pass a law expanding the scope of legal internet gambling. n187 Thus, the most realistic option for the U.S. is to include pari-mutuel wagering on horses within the overall reach of the UIGEA. VII. CONCLUSION <u>The UIGEA violates GATS</u>, in particular as examined against the backdrop of the Appellate Body Report. <u>To comply with GATS, <mark>the U.S. should modify the law</mark> to include interstate gambling on horseracing and to satisfy the public morals exception</u>. Instead of evading its WTO commitments altogether, <u>the U.S. should amend the UIGEA</u> as soon as possible <u><mark>to <strong>avoid future</mark> WTO <mark>complaints</u></strong></mark> from larger member countries or the European Union.</p> </s>

Legalization allows sustainable tech to spillover to the commercial ag market

marijuana plants extend into virtual cannabis forests. A tropical atmosphere comes from carefully regulated humidity and lighting controls in each room This "grow" facility boasts state-of-the-art LED technology that offers the potential to dramatically cut energy consumption not only for marijuana, but also for other large-scale commercial agriculture. the US marijuana industry is maturing is the industry's massive carbon footprint indoor cannabis production may account for 1% of US electricity consumption That comes to an energy bill of $6bn annually, with related CO2 production equal to 3m average cars Medical marijuana farmers say they want to adhere to environmental regulations Will legalization make marijuana more sustainable? as the marijuana industry catches up with commercial agriculture, i s increasingly coming under control of professional growers who not only want to stay compliant with environmental regulations but want to cut their high land, water and energy costs. indoor marijuana growers are using water catchment and tabling systems, as well as reclaiming and filtering greywater from their operations and nearing "zero wastewater" goals. The tests have shown the lights can produce the optimal amount of the proper light spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis The LED technology is ready LEDs consume less energy than the high-intensity lamps that have traditionally dominated indoor marijuana growing lower temperatures result in energy-saving benefits including less air conditioning, water and fertilizer use – that can cut overall electrical costs in half But the medical marijuana tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use, but also that it can keep crop yields high We've always been of the thought that LED technology is not where it needs to be to take over these high-intensity lamps like metal halide and high-pressure sodium the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. producers, like the commercial marijuana growers, are looking for ways to decrease energy costs while increasing greenhouse yields. They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." they realize their industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further decriminalized

state-of-the-art LED technology dramatically cut energy consumption for other large-scale commercial agriculture as marijuana i s increasingly under control of professional growers who want to stay compliant with environmental regulations growers are using catchment and tabling systems, as well as reclaiming greywater and nearing "zero wastewater" goals The tech is ready tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use, but also that it can keep crop yields high. " producers are looking to increas yields

In a nondescript, unmarked warehouse in Denver's industrial outskirts, row upon row of marijuana plants – ranging from little cuttings to tree-like bushes – extend into virtual cannabis forests. A tropical atmosphere comes from carefully regulated humidity and lighting controls in each room, assisted by fans and vents. This "grow" facility belongs to medical marijuana center Denver Relief, and it boasts something else besides healthy buds: state-of-the-art LED technology that offers the potential to dramatically cut energy consumption, not only for marijuana, but also for other large-scale commercial agriculture. After decades of history as an outlawed business, complete with incidents of violence and destruction, the US marijuana industry is maturing. While possessing and selling marijuana is still a federal crime, medical marijuana is now legal in 20 states, plus Washington DC, which together make up more than one-third of the country. Beginning in January, the states of Washington and Colorado will also legalize the recreational use of cannabis for adults. The growing societal acceptance has sparked what some call a "green rush" of people trying to cash in on what is already a multi-billion-dollar business. And as the marijuana industry comes out of the shadows, its producers, consumers and advocates are pushing for more transparency – both about cannabis' alleged medical benefits and its environmental impacts. The industry has its work cut out when it comes to changing its reputation. Research from the University of California at Davis and Humboldt State University found that illegal growers – through bulldozing, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and more – have damaged forests, polluted watersheds and killed wildlife in Northern California. Diversion of water for marijuana cultivation from the Eel River is endangering California's third largest watershed and one of the state's major salmon-producing waterways. "It's a race to the bottom in terms of environmental impacts," Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, told the New York Times earlier this year. Then there is the industry's massive carbon footprint. An independent study from a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher in 2011 concluded that indoor cannabis production may account for 1% of US electricity consumption, equivalent to the power used by 2m average US homes. That comes to an energy bill of $6bn annually, with related CO2 production equal to 3m average cars. Medical marijuana farmers say they want to adhere to environmental regulations and other laws to keep their products accessible and safe for their patients. "When you're dealing with people who are truly growing for medical reasons, the whole goal is to be compliant and follow by the rules," Alison Sterling Nichols, an environmental consultant for the Emerald Growers Association, a medical marijuana trade group, told Mother Jones magazine last year. Will legalization make marijuana more sustainable? And as the marijuana industry catches up with commercial agriculture, it's increasingly coming under control of professional growers who not only want to stay compliant with environmental regulations, but also want to find ways to cut their high land, water and energy costs. Some indoor marijuana growers in Colorado are already using water catchment and tabling systems, as well as reclaiming and filtering greywater from their operations and nearing "zero wastewater" goals. But one area in which the industry may be ahead of other commercial greenhouse crops is lighting. The LED technology at Denver Relief comes from the Florida-based Lighting Science Group, which has been conducting controlled tests almost exclusively in the medical marijuana industry. The tests have shown the lights can produce the optimal amount of the proper light spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis, says Neil Yorio, vice president of advanced projects at Lighting Science. Yorio is a photobiologist who spent 20 years working at Nasa's Kennedy Space Center, where he studied how to grow plants in controlled environments for long-duration space missions. "The LED technology is ready," he said. It's no secret that LEDs consume less energy than the high-intensity lamps that have traditionally dominated indoor marijuana growing. And their lower temperatures also result in a cascading series of energy-saving benefits – including less air conditioning, water and fertilizer use – that can cut overall electrical costs in half, Yorio claims. But the medical marijuana tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use, but also that it can keep crop yields high. "We've always been of the thought that LED technology is not where it needs to be to take over these high-intensity lamps like metal halide and high-pressure sodium," said Denver Relief co-owner Kayvan Khalatbari. If the tests – currently confined to just part of the warehouse – continue to yield the expected results, Denver Relief plans to expand its LED usage to a large greenhouse under construction outside of Denver. Will marijuana innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty crop industry" – greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their producers, like the commercial marijuana growers, are looking for ways to decrease energy costs while increasing greenhouse yields. "They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say they realize their industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further decriminalized

<h4>Legalization allows sustainable tech to spillover to the commercial ag market </h4><p><strong>Kennedy 13<u></strong> (Bruce is an award-winning journalist and communications professional who has covered international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN, NPR, Reuters Television and AOL's Daily Finance web site, “Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable agriculture?”, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, AB) </p><p></u>In a nondescript, unmarked warehouse in Denver's industrial outskirts, row upon row of <u><strong>marijuana plants</u></strong> – ranging from little cuttings to tree-like bushes – <u><strong>extend into virtual cannabis forests. A tropical atmosphere comes from carefully regulated humidity and lighting controls in each room</u></strong>, assisted by fans and vents. <u><strong>This "grow" facility</u></strong> belongs to medical marijuana center Denver Relief, and it <u><strong>boasts</u></strong> something else besides healthy buds: <u><strong><mark>state-of-the-art LED technology </mark>that offers the potential to <mark>dramatically cut energy consumption</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>not only for marijuana, but also <mark>for other large-scale commercial agriculture</mark>. </u></strong>After decades of history as an outlawed business, complete with incidents of violence and destruction, <u><strong>the US marijuana industry is maturing</u></strong>. While possessing and selling marijuana is still a federal crime, medical marijuana is now legal in 20 states, plus Washington DC, which together make up more than one-third of the country. Beginning in January, the states of Washington and Colorado will also legalize the recreational use of cannabis for adults. The growing societal acceptance has sparked what some call a "green rush" of people trying to cash in on what is already a multi-billion-dollar business. And as the marijuana industry comes out of the shadows, its producers, consumers and advocates are pushing for more transparency – both about cannabis' alleged medical benefits and its environmental impacts. The industry has its work cut out when it comes to changing its reputation. Research from the University of California at Davis and Humboldt State University found that illegal growers – through bulldozing, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and more – have damaged forests, polluted watersheds and killed wildlife in Northern California. Diversion of water for marijuana cultivation from the Eel River is endangering California's third largest watershed and one of the state's major salmon-producing waterways. "It's a race to the bottom in terms of environmental impacts," Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, told the New York Times earlier this year. Then there<u><strong> is the industry's massive carbon footprint</u></strong>. An independent study from a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher in 2011 concluded that <u><strong>indoor cannabis production may account for 1% of US electricity consumption</u></strong>, equivalent to the power used by 2m average US homes. <u><strong>That comes to an energy bill of $6bn annually, with related CO2 production equal to 3m average cars</u></strong>. <u><strong>Medical marijuana farmers say they want to adhere to environmental regulations</u></strong> and other laws to keep their products accessible and safe for their patients. "When you're dealing with people who are truly growing for medical reasons, the whole goal is to be compliant and follow by the rules," Alison Sterling Nichols, an environmental consultant for the Emerald Growers Association, a medical marijuana trade group, told Mother Jones magazine last year. <u><strong>Will legalization make marijuana more sustainable? </u></strong>And <u><strong><mark>as </mark>the <mark>marijuana </mark>industry catches up with commercial agriculture, <mark>i</u></strong></mark>t'<u><strong><mark>s increasingly </mark>coming <mark>under control of professional growers who </mark>not only <mark>want to stay compliant with environmental regulations</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>but</u></strong> also <u><strong>want to</u></strong> find ways to <u><strong>cut their high land, water and energy costs. </u></strong>Some <u><strong>indoor marijuana <mark>growers</u></strong> </mark>in Colorado <u><strong><mark>are</u></strong> </mark>already <u><strong><mark>using </mark>water <mark>catchment and tabling systems, as well as reclaiming </mark>and filtering <mark>greywater </mark>from their operations <mark>and nearing "zero wastewater" goals</mark>.</u></strong> But one area in which the industry may be ahead of other commercial greenhouse crops is lighting. The LED technology at Denver Relief comes from the Florida-based Lighting Science Group, which has been conducting controlled tests almost exclusively in the medical marijuana industry. <u><strong>The tests have shown the lights can produce the optimal amount of the proper light spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis</u></strong>, says Neil Yorio, vice president of advanced projects at Lighting Science. Yorio is a photobiologist who spent 20 years working at Nasa's Kennedy Space Center, where he studied how to grow plants in controlled environments for long-duration space missions. "<u><strong><mark>The </mark>LED <mark>tech</mark>nology <mark>is ready</u></strong></mark>," he said. It's no secret that <u><strong>LEDs consume less energy than the high-intensity lamps that have traditionally dominated indoor marijuana growing</u></strong>. And their <u><strong>lower temperatures</u></strong> also <u><strong>result</u></strong> <u><strong>in</u></strong> a cascading series of <u><strong>energy-saving benefits</u></strong> – <u><strong>including less air conditioning, water and fertilizer use – that can cut overall electrical costs in half</u></strong>, Yorio claims. <u><strong>But the medical marijuana <mark>tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use, but also that it can keep crop yields high</u></strong>. "<u><strong></mark>We've always been of the thought that LED technology is not where it needs to be to take over these high-intensity lamps like metal halide and high-pressure sodium</u></strong>," said Denver Relief co-owner Kayvan Khalatbari. If the tests – currently confined to just part of the warehouse – continue to yield the expected results, Denver Relief plans to expand its LED usage to a large greenhouse under construction outside of Denver. Will marijuana innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks <u><strong>the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. </u></strong>He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty crop industry" – greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their <u><strong><mark>producers</mark>, like the commercial marijuana growers, <mark>are looking </mark>for ways <mark>to </mark>decrease energy costs while <mark>increas</mark>ing greenhouse <mark>yields</mark>. </u></strong>"<u><strong>They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years</u></strong>," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "<u><strong>Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." </u></strong>Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say <u><strong>they realize their industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further decriminalized</p></u></strong>

Kennedy 13 (Bruce is an award-winning journalist and communications professional who has covered international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN, NPR, Reuters Television and AOL's Daily Finance web site, “Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable agriculture?”, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, AB)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kennedy 13 (Bruce is an award-winning journalist and communications professional who has covered international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN, NPR, Reuters Television and AOL's Daily Finance web site, “Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable agriculture?”, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, AB) fulltext: In a nondescript, unmarked warehouse in Denver's industrial outskirts, row upon row of marijuana plants – ranging from little cuttings to tree-like bushes – extend into virtual cannabis forests. A tropical atmosphere comes from carefully regulated humidity and lighting controls in each room, assisted by fans and vents. This "grow" facility belongs to medical marijuana center Denver Relief, and it boasts something else besides healthy buds: state-of-the-art LED technology that offers the potential to dramatically cut energy consumption, not only for marijuana, but also for other large-scale commercial agriculture. After decades of history as an outlawed business, complete with incidents of violence and destruction, the US marijuana industry is maturing. While possessing and selling marijuana is still a federal crime, medical marijuana is now legal in 20 states, plus Washington DC, which together make up more than one-third of the country. Beginning in January, the states of Washington and Colorado will also legalize the recreational use of cannabis for adults. The growing societal acceptance has sparked what some call a "green rush" of people trying to cash in on what is already a multi-billion-dollar business. And as the marijuana industry comes out of the shadows, its producers, consumers and advocates are pushing for more transparency – both about cannabis' alleged medical benefits and its environmental impacts. The industry has its work cut out when it comes to changing its reputation. Research from the University of California at Davis and Humboldt State University found that illegal growers – through bulldozing, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and more – have damaged forests, polluted watersheds and killed wildlife in Northern California. Diversion of water for marijuana cultivation from the Eel River is endangering California's third largest watershed and one of the state's major salmon-producing waterways. "It's a race to the bottom in terms of environmental impacts," Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, told the New York Times earlier this year. Then there is the industry's massive carbon footprint. An independent study from a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher in 2011 concluded that indoor cannabis production may account for 1% of US electricity consumption, equivalent to the power used by 2m average US homes. That comes to an energy bill of $6bn annually, with related CO2 production equal to 3m average cars. Medical marijuana farmers say they want to adhere to environmental regulations and other laws to keep their products accessible and safe for their patients. "When you're dealing with people who are truly growing for medical reasons, the whole goal is to be compliant and follow by the rules," Alison Sterling Nichols, an environmental consultant for the Emerald Growers Association, a medical marijuana trade group, told Mother Jones magazine last year. Will legalization make marijuana more sustainable? And as the marijuana industry catches up with commercial agriculture, it's increasingly coming under control of professional growers who not only want to stay compliant with environmental regulations, but also want to find ways to cut their high land, water and energy costs. Some indoor marijuana growers in Colorado are already using water catchment and tabling systems, as well as reclaiming and filtering greywater from their operations and nearing "zero wastewater" goals. But one area in which the industry may be ahead of other commercial greenhouse crops is lighting. The LED technology at Denver Relief comes from the Florida-based Lighting Science Group, which has been conducting controlled tests almost exclusively in the medical marijuana industry. The tests have shown the lights can produce the optimal amount of the proper light spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis, says Neil Yorio, vice president of advanced projects at Lighting Science. Yorio is a photobiologist who spent 20 years working at Nasa's Kennedy Space Center, where he studied how to grow plants in controlled environments for long-duration space missions. "The LED technology is ready," he said. It's no secret that LEDs consume less energy than the high-intensity lamps that have traditionally dominated indoor marijuana growing. And their lower temperatures also result in a cascading series of energy-saving benefits – including less air conditioning, water and fertilizer use – that can cut overall electrical costs in half, Yorio claims. But the medical marijuana tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use, but also that it can keep crop yields high. "We've always been of the thought that LED technology is not where it needs to be to take over these high-intensity lamps like metal halide and high-pressure sodium," said Denver Relief co-owner Kayvan Khalatbari. If the tests – currently confined to just part of the warehouse – continue to yield the expected results, Denver Relief plans to expand its LED usage to a large greenhouse under construction outside of Denver. Will marijuana innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty crop industry" – greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their producers, like the commercial marijuana growers, are looking for ways to decrease energy costs while increasing greenhouse yields. "They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say they realize their industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further decriminalized [/INST] <h4>Legalization allows sustainable tech to spillover to the commercial ag market </h4><p><strong>Kennedy 13<u></strong> (Bruce is an award-winning journalist and communications professional who has covered international news, including business reportage, for MSN Money, CNN, NPR, Reuters Television and AOL's Daily Finance web site, “Greener marijuana: can a budding industry grow sustainable agriculture?”, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1, AB) </p><p></u>In a nondescript, unmarked warehouse in Denver's industrial outskirts, row upon row of <u><strong>marijuana plants</u></strong> – ranging from little cuttings to tree-like bushes – <u><strong>extend into virtual cannabis forests. A tropical atmosphere comes from carefully regulated humidity and lighting controls in each room</u></strong>, assisted by fans and vents. <u><strong>This "grow" facility</u></strong> belongs to medical marijuana center Denver Relief, and it <u><strong>boasts</u></strong> something else besides healthy buds: <u><strong><mark>state-of-the-art LED technology </mark>that offers the potential to <mark>dramatically cut energy consumption</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>not only for marijuana, but also <mark>for other large-scale commercial agriculture</mark>. </u></strong>After decades of history as an outlawed business, complete with incidents of violence and destruction, <u><strong>the US marijuana industry is maturing</u></strong>. While possessing and selling marijuana is still a federal crime, medical marijuana is now legal in 20 states, plus Washington DC, which together make up more than one-third of the country. Beginning in January, the states of Washington and Colorado will also legalize the recreational use of cannabis for adults. The growing societal acceptance has sparked what some call a "green rush" of people trying to cash in on what is already a multi-billion-dollar business. And as the marijuana industry comes out of the shadows, its producers, consumers and advocates are pushing for more transparency – both about cannabis' alleged medical benefits and its environmental impacts. The industry has its work cut out when it comes to changing its reputation. Research from the University of California at Davis and Humboldt State University found that illegal growers – through bulldozing, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and more – have damaged forests, polluted watersheds and killed wildlife in Northern California. Diversion of water for marijuana cultivation from the Eel River is endangering California's third largest watershed and one of the state's major salmon-producing waterways. "It's a race to the bottom in terms of environmental impacts," Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, told the New York Times earlier this year. Then there<u><strong> is the industry's massive carbon footprint</u></strong>. An independent study from a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher in 2011 concluded that <u><strong>indoor cannabis production may account for 1% of US electricity consumption</u></strong>, equivalent to the power used by 2m average US homes. <u><strong>That comes to an energy bill of $6bn annually, with related CO2 production equal to 3m average cars</u></strong>. <u><strong>Medical marijuana farmers say they want to adhere to environmental regulations</u></strong> and other laws to keep their products accessible and safe for their patients. "When you're dealing with people who are truly growing for medical reasons, the whole goal is to be compliant and follow by the rules," Alison Sterling Nichols, an environmental consultant for the Emerald Growers Association, a medical marijuana trade group, told Mother Jones magazine last year. <u><strong>Will legalization make marijuana more sustainable? </u></strong>And <u><strong><mark>as </mark>the <mark>marijuana </mark>industry catches up with commercial agriculture, <mark>i</u></strong></mark>t'<u><strong><mark>s increasingly </mark>coming <mark>under control of professional growers who </mark>not only <mark>want to stay compliant with environmental regulations</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>but</u></strong> also <u><strong>want to</u></strong> find ways to <u><strong>cut their high land, water and energy costs. </u></strong>Some <u><strong>indoor marijuana <mark>growers</u></strong> </mark>in Colorado <u><strong><mark>are</u></strong> </mark>already <u><strong><mark>using </mark>water <mark>catchment and tabling systems, as well as reclaiming </mark>and filtering <mark>greywater </mark>from their operations <mark>and nearing "zero wastewater" goals</mark>.</u></strong> But one area in which the industry may be ahead of other commercial greenhouse crops is lighting. The LED technology at Denver Relief comes from the Florida-based Lighting Science Group, which has been conducting controlled tests almost exclusively in the medical marijuana industry. <u><strong>The tests have shown the lights can produce the optimal amount of the proper light spectrum that plants need for photosynthesis</u></strong>, says Neil Yorio, vice president of advanced projects at Lighting Science. Yorio is a photobiologist who spent 20 years working at Nasa's Kennedy Space Center, where he studied how to grow plants in controlled environments for long-duration space missions. "<u><strong><mark>The </mark>LED <mark>tech</mark>nology <mark>is ready</u></strong></mark>," he said. It's no secret that <u><strong>LEDs consume less energy than the high-intensity lamps that have traditionally dominated indoor marijuana growing</u></strong>. And their <u><strong>lower temperatures</u></strong> also <u><strong>result</u></strong> <u><strong>in</u></strong> a cascading series of <u><strong>energy-saving benefits</u></strong> – <u><strong>including less air conditioning, water and fertilizer use – that can cut overall electrical costs in half</u></strong>, Yorio claims. <u><strong>But the medical marijuana <mark>tests are showing not only that the lighting can cut energy use, but also that it can keep crop yields high</u></strong>. "<u><strong></mark>We've always been of the thought that LED technology is not where it needs to be to take over these high-intensity lamps like metal halide and high-pressure sodium</u></strong>," said Denver Relief co-owner Kayvan Khalatbari. If the tests – currently confined to just part of the warehouse – continue to yield the expected results, Denver Relief plans to expand its LED usage to a large greenhouse under construction outside of Denver. Will marijuana innovations move into mainstream commercial agriculture? Cary Mitchell, a professor of horticulture at Purdue University, thinks <u><strong>the marijuana industry's work with LED technology might have practical applications in mainstream commercial agriculture. </u></strong>He's the director of a $4.9m project to evaluate and improve LED lighting for America's so-called "specialty crop industry" – greenhouse-grown fruits, vegetables, nursery plants and other crops. Specialty crops bring in around $50bn annually, and their <u><strong><mark>producers</mark>, like the commercial marijuana growers, <mark>are looking </mark>for ways <mark>to </mark>decrease energy costs while <mark>increas</mark>ing greenhouse <mark>yields</mark>. </u></strong>"<u><strong>They've undoubtably been doing this for years and years</u></strong>," Mitchell says about the cannabis growers' use of LEDs. "<u><strong>Since they don't publish their research, we don't really know how far they've taken the optimization. They probably are ahead of the specialty crop commercial production industry." </u></strong>Medical marijuana producers, meanwhile, say <u><strong>they realize their industry has an environmental responsibility to its customers and communities, especially if it is to become further decriminalized</p></u></strong> </s>

Your politics are passive and lead to tyranny

Nietzsche considered roles" as "external," phenomena symptomatic of estrangement persons in specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and engage in fabrications to obtain advancement They are so absorbed in simulating role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by paralyzing [destroying] overconcern about possible consequences and dialogue about what others might expect rotation of "masks" reduces persons to simulacra One adopts "many roles," playing them " superficially Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine This type of actor cannot plan for the long term Superficiality rules Nietzsche feared the simulated versions. they are "violent exploitative, , arrogant according to circumstances The combination of desperate conforming overreaching and ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant

Nietzsche considered roles" as "external," phenomena symptomatic of estrangement persons in specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and engage in fabrications to obtain advancement They are so absorbed in simulating role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by destroying overconcern about possible consequences and dialogue about what others might expect rotation of masks reduces persons to simulacra One adopts many roles," playing them superficially Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine This type of actor cannot plan for the long term Superficiality rules Nietzsche feared the simulated versions they are "violent, exploitative arrogant according to circumstances The combination of desperate conforming overreaching and ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant

According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression of ressentiment, master reification, and ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed" (Nietzsche 1969b, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing that subjectified culture weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83). The "problem of the actor," Nietzsche said, "troubled me for the longest time."'12 He considered "roles" as "external," "surface," or "foreground" phenomena and viewed close personal identification with them as symptomatic of estrangement. While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that persons (especially male professionals) in specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and engage in gross fabrications to obtain advancement. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" They are so thoroughly absorbed in simulating effective role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by paralyzing [destroying] overconcern about possible causes, meanings, and consequences of acts and unending internal dialogue about what others might think, expect, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous rotation of socially appropriate "masks" reduces persons to hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or simulacra. One adopts "many roles," playing them "badly and superficially" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor? A representative or that which is represented? . . . [Or] no more than an imitation of an actor?" Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to others. This type of actor cannot plan for the long term or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). Superficiality rules in the arid subjectivized landscape. Neitzsche (1974, p. 259) stated, "One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock market; one lives as if one always 'might miss out on something. ''Rather do anything than nothing': this principle, too, is merely a string to throttle all culture. . . . Living in a constant chase after gain compels people to expend their spirit to the point of exhaustion in continual pretense and overreaching and anticipating others." Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. Nietzsche respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply feared the new simulated versions. Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; they are "violent, envious, exploitative, scheming, fawning, cringing, arrogant, all according to circumstances. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. The deadly combination of desperate conforming and overreaching and untrammeled ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant (Nietzsche 1986, pp. 137, 168; 1974, pp. 117-18, 213, 288-89, 303-4)

<h4><u><strong><mark>Your politics are passive and lead to tyranny </h4><p></u></mark>Antonio 95</strong> (Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”; American Journal of Sociology; Volume 101, No. 1; July 1995, jstor,)</p><p>According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression of ressentiment, master reification, and ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed" (Nietzsche 1969b, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing that subjectified culture weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83). The "problem of the actor," <u><mark>Nietzsche</mark> </u>said, "troubled me for the longest time."'12 He <u><mark>considered</mark> </u>"<u><mark>roles" as "external,"</mark> </u>"surface," or "foreground" <u><mark>phenomena</mark> </u>and viewed close personal identification with them as <u><mark>symptomatic of estrangement</u></mark>. While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that <u><mark>persons</mark> </u>(especially male professionals) <u><mark>in</mark> <mark>specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and</mark> <mark>engage in</mark> </u>gross<u> <mark>fabrications to obtain advancement</u></mark>. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" <u><mark>They are so</mark> </u>thoroughly <u><mark>absorbed in simulating</mark> </u>effective<u> <mark>role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity.</u></mark> The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, <u><mark>spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by </mark>paralyzing [<mark>destroying</mark>] <mark>overconcern about possible </u></mark>causes, meanings, and <u><mark>consequences</mark> </u>of acts <u><mark>and</mark> </u>unending internal <u><mark>dialogue about what others might</mark> </u>think,<u> <mark>expect</u></mark>, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous <u><mark>rotation of</mark> </u>socially appropriate <u>"<mark>masks</mark>" <mark>reduces persons to</mark> </u>hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or <u><mark>simulacra</u></mark>. <u><mark>One adopts</mark> "<mark>many roles," playing them</mark> "</u>badly and <u><mark>superficially</u></mark>" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor? A representative or that which is represented? . . . [Or] no more than an imitation of an actor?" <u><mark>Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine</mark> </u>article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to others. <u><mark>This type of actor cannot plan for the long term</u></mark> or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). <u><mark>Superficiality rules </u></mark>in the arid subjectivized landscape. Neitzsche (1974, p. 259) stated, "One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock market; one lives as if one always 'might miss out on something. ''Rather do anything than nothing': this principle, too, is merely a string to throttle all culture. . . . Living in a constant chase after gain compels people to expend their spirit to the point of exhaustion in continual pretense and overreaching and anticipating others." Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. <u><mark>Nietzsche</mark> </u>respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply<u> <mark>feared the</mark> </u>new <u><mark>simulated versions</mark>. </u>Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; <u><mark>they are "violent</u>,</mark> envious,<u> <mark>exploitative</mark>, </u>scheming, fawning, cringing<u>, <mark>arrogant</u></mark>, all<u> <mark>according to</mark> <mark>circumstances</u></mark>. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. <u><mark>The</mark> </u>deadly<u> <mark>combination</mark> <mark>of desperate conforming</mark> </u>and<u> <mark>overreaching</mark> <mark>and</mark> </u>untrammeled<u> <mark>ressentiment</mark> <mark>paves the way for a new type of tyrant</mark> </u>(Nietzsche 1986, pp. 137, 168; 1974, pp. 117-18, 213, 288-89, 303-4)</p>

Antonio 95 (Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”; American Journal of Sociology; Volume 101, No. 1; July 1995, jstor,)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Antonio 95 (Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”; American Journal of Sociology; Volume 101, No. 1; July 1995, jstor,) fulltext: According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression of ressentiment, master reification, and ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed" (Nietzsche 1969b, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing that subjectified culture weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83). The "problem of the actor," Nietzsche said, "troubled me for the longest time."'12 He considered "roles" as "external," "surface," or "foreground" phenomena and viewed close personal identification with them as symptomatic of estrangement. While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that persons (especially male professionals) in specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and engage in gross fabrications to obtain advancement. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" They are so thoroughly absorbed in simulating effective role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by paralyzing [destroying] overconcern about possible causes, meanings, and consequences of acts and unending internal dialogue about what others might think, expect, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous rotation of socially appropriate "masks" reduces persons to hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or simulacra. One adopts "many roles," playing them "badly and superficially" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor? A representative or that which is represented? . . . [Or] no more than an imitation of an actor?" Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to others. This type of actor cannot plan for the long term or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). Superficiality rules in the arid subjectivized landscape. Neitzsche (1974, p. 259) stated, "One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock market; one lives as if one always 'might miss out on something. ''Rather do anything than nothing': this principle, too, is merely a string to throttle all culture. . . . Living in a constant chase after gain compels people to expend their spirit to the point of exhaustion in continual pretense and overreaching and anticipating others." Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. Nietzsche respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply feared the new simulated versions. Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; they are "violent, envious, exploitative, scheming, fawning, cringing, arrogant, all according to circumstances. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. The deadly combination of desperate conforming and overreaching and untrammeled ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant (Nietzsche 1986, pp. 137, 168; 1974, pp. 117-18, 213, 288-89, 303-4) [/INST] <h4><u><strong><mark>Your politics are passive and lead to tyranny </h4><p></u></mark>Antonio 95</strong> (Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”; American Journal of Sociology; Volume 101, No. 1; July 1995, jstor,)</p><p>According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression of ressentiment, master reification, and ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed" (Nietzsche 1969b, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing that subjectified culture weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83). The "problem of the actor," <u><mark>Nietzsche</mark> </u>said, "troubled me for the longest time."'12 He <u><mark>considered</mark> </u>"<u><mark>roles" as "external,"</mark> </u>"surface," or "foreground" <u><mark>phenomena</mark> </u>and viewed close personal identification with them as <u><mark>symptomatic of estrangement</u></mark>. While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that <u><mark>persons</mark> </u>(especially male professionals) <u><mark>in</mark> <mark>specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and</mark> <mark>engage in</mark> </u>gross<u> <mark>fabrications to obtain advancement</u></mark>. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" <u><mark>They are so</mark> </u>thoroughly <u><mark>absorbed in simulating</mark> </u>effective<u> <mark>role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity.</u></mark> The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, <u><mark>spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by </mark>paralyzing [<mark>destroying</mark>] <mark>overconcern about possible </u></mark>causes, meanings, and <u><mark>consequences</mark> </u>of acts <u><mark>and</mark> </u>unending internal <u><mark>dialogue about what others might</mark> </u>think,<u> <mark>expect</u></mark>, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous <u><mark>rotation of</mark> </u>socially appropriate <u>"<mark>masks</mark>" <mark>reduces persons to</mark> </u>hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or <u><mark>simulacra</u></mark>. <u><mark>One adopts</mark> "<mark>many roles," playing them</mark> "</u>badly and <u><mark>superficially</u></mark>" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor? A representative or that which is represented? . . . [Or] no more than an imitation of an actor?" <u><mark>Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine</mark> </u>article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to others. <u><mark>This type of actor cannot plan for the long term</u></mark> or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). <u><mark>Superficiality rules </u></mark>in the arid subjectivized landscape. Neitzsche (1974, p. 259) stated, "One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock market; one lives as if one always 'might miss out on something. ''Rather do anything than nothing': this principle, too, is merely a string to throttle all culture. . . . Living in a constant chase after gain compels people to expend their spirit to the point of exhaustion in continual pretense and overreaching and anticipating others." Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. <u><mark>Nietzsche</mark> </u>respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply<u> <mark>feared the</mark> </u>new <u><mark>simulated versions</mark>. </u>Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; <u><mark>they are "violent</u>,</mark> envious,<u> <mark>exploitative</mark>, </u>scheming, fawning, cringing<u>, <mark>arrogant</u></mark>, all<u> <mark>according to</mark> <mark>circumstances</u></mark>. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. <u><mark>The</mark> </u>deadly<u> <mark>combination</mark> <mark>of desperate conforming</mark> </u>and<u> <mark>overreaching</mark> <mark>and</mark> </u>untrammeled<u> <mark>ressentiment</mark> <mark>paves the way for a new type of tyrant</mark> </u>(Nietzsche 1986, pp. 137, 168; 1974, pp. 117-18, 213, 288-89, 303-4)</p> </s>

Georgia supports

A majority of Georgia voters believe marijuana should be legal Fifty-four percent endorsed “changing Georgia law to regulate marijuana By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, respondents supported decriminalizing Under present law, marijuana possession is classified as a criminal misdemeanor The citizens of Georgia agree, marijuana prohibition is a wasteful and destructive policy

Georgia voters believe marijuana should be legal Fifty-four percent endorsed “changing law to regulate The citizens of Georgia agree, marijuana prohibition is a wasteful and destructive policy

A majority of Georgia voters believe that the adult use of marijuana should be legal and regulated, according to the findings of a statewide Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Georgia NORML and Peachtree NORML. Fifty-four percent of respondents endorsed “changing Georgia law to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol.” Forty-one percent of respondents opposed the idea. The totals are similar to nationwide percentages reported earlier this month by CNN, which found that fifty-five percent of Americans favor making cannabis legal for adults. Fifty-seven percent of those Georgians surveyed supported making cannabis legal for medical purposes only, while 33 percent opposed doing so. By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, respondents supported decriminalizing marijuana possession offenses. Sixty-two percent of voters supported amending state law to make the offense a civil violation “punishable by a fine up to $100, but without jail time.” Over a dozen states impose similar fine-only sanctions for minor cannabis possession offenses. Thirty-two percent of voters endorsed maintaining existing criminal penalties. Under present law, marijuana possession is classified as a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year incarceration and a $1,000 fine. In 2010, an estimated 32,500 Georgians were arrested for violating marijuana laws, according to the US Federal Bureau of Investigations. The total is the sixth highest of any state in America. “The citizens of Georgia agree, marijuana prohibition is a wasteful and destructive policy,” said Peachtree NORML’s Executive Director Sharon Ravert. “It is time for our state to catch up with public opinion and find a more sensible solution to the status quo.”

<h4>Georgia supports</h4><p><strong>Green 14</strong>, Johnny, Public Policy Bachelor’s Degree, marijuana activist from Oregon, “Georgia: Majority Of Voters Support Legalizing Marijuana,” January 25th, http://www.theweedblog.com/georgia-majority-of-voters-support-legalizing-marijuana/</p><p><u><strong>A majority of <mark>Georgia voters believe</u></strong></mark> that the adult use of <u><strong><mark>marijuana should be legal</u></strong></mark> and regulated, according to the findings of a statewide Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Georgia NORML and Peachtree NORML. <u><strong><mark>Fifty-four percent</u></strong></mark> of respondents <u><strong><mark>endorsed “changing</mark> Georgia <mark>law</u></strong> <u><strong>to regulate</u></strong></mark> and tax <u><strong>marijuana</u></strong> similarly to alcohol.” Forty-one percent of respondents opposed the idea. The totals are similar to nationwide percentages reported earlier this month by CNN, which found that fifty-five percent of Americans favor making cannabis legal for adults. Fifty-seven percent of those Georgians surveyed supported making cannabis legal for medical purposes only, while 33 percent opposed doing so. <u><strong>By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, respondents supported decriminalizing</u></strong> marijuana possession offenses. Sixty-two percent of voters supported amending state law to make the offense a civil violation “punishable by a fine up to $100, but without jail time.” Over a dozen states impose similar fine-only sanctions for minor cannabis possession offenses. Thirty-two percent of voters endorsed maintaining existing criminal penalties. <u><strong>Under present law, marijuana possession is classified as a criminal misdemeanor</u></strong>, punishable by up to one-year incarceration and a $1,000 fine. In 2010, an estimated 32,500 Georgians were arrested for violating marijuana laws, according to the US Federal Bureau of Investigations. The total is the sixth highest of any state in America. “<u><strong><mark>The citizens of Georgia agree, marijuana prohibition is a wasteful and destructive policy</u></strong></mark>,” said Peachtree NORML’s Executive Director Sharon Ravert. “It is time for our state to catch up with public opinion and find a more sensible solution to the status quo.”</p>

Green 14, Johnny, Public Policy Bachelor’s Degree, marijuana activist from Oregon, “Georgia: Majority Of Voters Support Legalizing Marijuana,” January 25th, http://www.theweedblog.com/georgia-majority-of-voters-support-legalizing-marijuana/

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Green 14, Johnny, Public Policy Bachelor’s Degree, marijuana activist from Oregon, “Georgia: Majority Of Voters Support Legalizing Marijuana,” January 25th, http://www.theweedblog.com/georgia-majority-of-voters-support-legalizing-marijuana/ fulltext: A majority of Georgia voters believe that the adult use of marijuana should be legal and regulated, according to the findings of a statewide Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Georgia NORML and Peachtree NORML. Fifty-four percent of respondents endorsed “changing Georgia law to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol.” Forty-one percent of respondents opposed the idea. The totals are similar to nationwide percentages reported earlier this month by CNN, which found that fifty-five percent of Americans favor making cannabis legal for adults. Fifty-seven percent of those Georgians surveyed supported making cannabis legal for medical purposes only, while 33 percent opposed doing so. By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, respondents supported decriminalizing marijuana possession offenses. Sixty-two percent of voters supported amending state law to make the offense a civil violation “punishable by a fine up to $100, but without jail time.” Over a dozen states impose similar fine-only sanctions for minor cannabis possession offenses. Thirty-two percent of voters endorsed maintaining existing criminal penalties. Under present law, marijuana possession is classified as a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year incarceration and a $1,000 fine. In 2010, an estimated 32,500 Georgians were arrested for violating marijuana laws, according to the US Federal Bureau of Investigations. The total is the sixth highest of any state in America. “The citizens of Georgia agree, marijuana prohibition is a wasteful and destructive policy,” said Peachtree NORML’s Executive Director Sharon Ravert. “It is time for our state to catch up with public opinion and find a more sensible solution to the status quo.” [/INST] <h4>Georgia supports</h4><p><strong>Green 14</strong>, Johnny, Public Policy Bachelor’s Degree, marijuana activist from Oregon, “Georgia: Majority Of Voters Support Legalizing Marijuana,” January 25th, http://www.theweedblog.com/georgia-majority-of-voters-support-legalizing-marijuana/</p><p><u><strong>A majority of <mark>Georgia voters believe</u></strong></mark> that the adult use of <u><strong><mark>marijuana should be legal</u></strong></mark> and regulated, according to the findings of a statewide Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Georgia NORML and Peachtree NORML. <u><strong><mark>Fifty-four percent</u></strong></mark> of respondents <u><strong><mark>endorsed “changing</mark> Georgia <mark>law</u></strong> <u><strong>to regulate</u></strong></mark> and tax <u><strong>marijuana</u></strong> similarly to alcohol.” Forty-one percent of respondents opposed the idea. The totals are similar to nationwide percentages reported earlier this month by CNN, which found that fifty-five percent of Americans favor making cannabis legal for adults. Fifty-seven percent of those Georgians surveyed supported making cannabis legal for medical purposes only, while 33 percent opposed doing so. <u><strong>By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, respondents supported decriminalizing</u></strong> marijuana possession offenses. Sixty-two percent of voters supported amending state law to make the offense a civil violation “punishable by a fine up to $100, but without jail time.” Over a dozen states impose similar fine-only sanctions for minor cannabis possession offenses. Thirty-two percent of voters endorsed maintaining existing criminal penalties. <u><strong>Under present law, marijuana possession is classified as a criminal misdemeanor</u></strong>, punishable by up to one-year incarceration and a $1,000 fine. In 2010, an estimated 32,500 Georgians were arrested for violating marijuana laws, according to the US Federal Bureau of Investigations. The total is the sixth highest of any state in America. “<u><strong><mark>The citizens of Georgia agree, marijuana prohibition is a wasteful and destructive policy</u></strong></mark>,” said Peachtree NORML’s Executive Director Sharon Ravert. “It is time for our state to catch up with public opinion and find a more sensible solution to the status quo.”</p> </s>

Predictable Limits - Regulations tie the topic specifically to positive government action, there are infinite negative state actions that could be taken – positive action is checked by other words in the resolution while negative state action is not, makes it possible for extra topical plans.

<h4><u>Predictable Limits</u> - Regulations tie the topic specifically to positive government action, there are infinite negative state actions that could be taken – positive action is checked by other words in the resolution while negative state action is not, makes it possible for extra topical plans. </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><u>Predictable Limits</u> - Regulations tie the topic specifically to positive government action, there are infinite negative state actions that could be taken – positive action is checked by other words in the resolution while negative state action is not, makes it possible for extra topical plans. </h4> </s>

CP solves burdens of UIGEA---repeal frees up bank resources

If the UIGEA is repealed, the government, not financial institutions, would assume responsibility for enforcement of the anti-gambling laws If the UIGEA remains, financial institutions would have a clear determination from Congress as to what constitutes illegal Internet gambling As it stands, financial institutions are forced to make this determination on their own accord. Thus, whether the UIGEA is repealed or remains in effect, a law explicitly prohibiting all Internet gambling would permit financial institutions to focus more of their resources on their own business activities and cease spending their private funds on law enforcement and law interpretation. a law explicitly prohibiting Internet gambling and repealing the UIGEA would greatly reduce the impending burden that the UIGEA, in its present state, creates for financial institutions express prohibition would likely be more effective in curbing Internet gambling than the UIGEA

If the UIGEA is repealed, the government, not financial institutions, would assume responsibility for enforcement of the anti-gambling laws If UIGEA remains institutions would have a clear determination as to what constitutes illegal Internet gambling. As it stands, institutions are forced to make this determination on their own a law explicitly prohibiting all Internet gambling would permit financial institutions to focus on their own business and cease spending on law enforcement a law explicitly prohibiting Internet gambling and repealing the UIGEA would greatly reduce the burden that the UIGEA creates express prohibition would be more effective in curbing Internet gambling than the UIGEA

Under this approach, Congress could either repeal the UIGEA or leave it in place. If the UIGEA is repealed, the government, not financial institutions, would assume responsibility for enforcement of the anti-gambling laws.248 If the UIGEA remains, financial institutions would have a clear determination from Congress as to what constitutes illegal Internet gambling.249 As it stands, financial institutions are forced to make this determination on their own accord.250 Thus, whether the UIGEA is repealed or remains in effect, a law explicitly prohibiting all Internet gambling would permit financial institutions to focus more of their resources on their own business activities and cease spending their private funds on law enforcement and law interpretation.251 In this way, a law explicitly prohibiting Internet gambling and amending or repealing the UIGEA would greatly reduce the impending burden that the UIGEA, in its present state, creates for financial institutions.252 Furthermore, express prohibition would likely be more effective in curbing Internet gambling than the UIGEA.253

<h4>CP solves burdens of UIGEA---repeal frees up bank resources </h4><p>Jason <strong>Miller 8</strong>, <strong>* cal author *</strong> Partner at Miller & Monroe PLLC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Law, JD with Honors Siena College, Don’t Bet on This Legislation, https://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?category=24&subcategory=52&cid=105</p><p>Under this approach, Congress could either repeal the UIGEA or leave it in place. <u><strong><mark>If the UIGEA is repealed, the government, not financial institutions, would assume responsibility for enforcement of the anti-gambling laws</u></strong></mark>.248 <u><strong><mark>If</mark> the <mark>UIGEA</mark> <mark>remains</mark>, financial <mark>institutions would have a clear</mark> <mark>determination</mark> from Congress <mark>as to what constitutes illegal Internet gambling</u></strong>.</mark>249 <u><strong><mark>As it stands, </mark>financial <mark>institutions are forced to make this</mark> <mark>determination on their own </mark>accord.</u></strong>250 <u><strong>Thus, whether the UIGEA is repealed or remains in effect, <mark>a law explicitly prohibiting all Internet</mark> <mark>gambling would permit financial institutions to focus </mark>more of their resources <mark>on their own business </mark>activities <mark>and cease spending </mark>their private funds <mark>on law enforcement</mark> and law interpretation.</u></strong>251 In this way, <u><strong><mark>a law explicitly prohibiting Internet gambling</u></strong> <u><strong>and</u></strong></mark> amending or <u><strong><mark>repealing</mark> <mark>the UIGEA would greatly reduce the</mark> impending <mark>burden that the UIGEA</mark>, in its present state, <mark>creates</mark> for financial institutions</u></strong>.252 Furthermore, <u><strong><mark>express prohibition would</mark> likely <mark>be more effective in curbing Internet gambling than the UIGEA</u></strong></mark>.253</p>

Jason Miller 8, * cal author * Partner at Miller & Monroe PLLC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Law, JD with Honors Siena College, Don’t Bet on This Legislation, https://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?category=24&subcategory=52&cid=105

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jason Miller 8, * cal author * Partner at Miller & Monroe PLLC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Law, JD with Honors Siena College, Don’t Bet on This Legislation, https://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?category=24&subcategory=52&cid=105 fulltext: Under this approach, Congress could either repeal the UIGEA or leave it in place. If the UIGEA is repealed, the government, not financial institutions, would assume responsibility for enforcement of the anti-gambling laws.248 If the UIGEA remains, financial institutions would have a clear determination from Congress as to what constitutes illegal Internet gambling.249 As it stands, financial institutions are forced to make this determination on their own accord.250 Thus, whether the UIGEA is repealed or remains in effect, a law explicitly prohibiting all Internet gambling would permit financial institutions to focus more of their resources on their own business activities and cease spending their private funds on law enforcement and law interpretation.251 In this way, a law explicitly prohibiting Internet gambling and amending or repealing the UIGEA would greatly reduce the impending burden that the UIGEA, in its present state, creates for financial institutions.252 Furthermore, express prohibition would likely be more effective in curbing Internet gambling than the UIGEA.253 [/INST] <h4>CP solves burdens of UIGEA---repeal frees up bank resources </h4><p>Jason <strong>Miller 8</strong>, <strong>* cal author *</strong> Partner at Miller & Monroe PLLC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Law, JD with Honors Siena College, Don’t Bet on This Legislation, https://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?category=24&subcategory=52&cid=105</p><p>Under this approach, Congress could either repeal the UIGEA or leave it in place. <u><strong><mark>If the UIGEA is repealed, the government, not financial institutions, would assume responsibility for enforcement of the anti-gambling laws</u></strong></mark>.248 <u><strong><mark>If</mark> the <mark>UIGEA</mark> <mark>remains</mark>, financial <mark>institutions would have a clear</mark> <mark>determination</mark> from Congress <mark>as to what constitutes illegal Internet gambling</u></strong>.</mark>249 <u><strong><mark>As it stands, </mark>financial <mark>institutions are forced to make this</mark> <mark>determination on their own </mark>accord.</u></strong>250 <u><strong>Thus, whether the UIGEA is repealed or remains in effect, <mark>a law explicitly prohibiting all Internet</mark> <mark>gambling would permit financial institutions to focus </mark>more of their resources <mark>on their own business </mark>activities <mark>and cease spending </mark>their private funds <mark>on law enforcement</mark> and law interpretation.</u></strong>251 In this way, <u><strong><mark>a law explicitly prohibiting Internet gambling</u></strong> <u><strong>and</u></strong></mark> amending or <u><strong><mark>repealing</mark> <mark>the UIGEA would greatly reduce the</mark> impending <mark>burden that the UIGEA</mark>, in its present state, <mark>creates</mark> for financial institutions</u></strong>.252 Furthermore, <u><strong><mark>express prohibition would</mark> likely <mark>be more effective in curbing Internet gambling than the UIGEA</u></strong></mark>.253</p> </s>

Reforming industrial ag key to solve extinction

industrial food and farming pose a mortal threat, not just to our present health and well being, but also to human survival pesticides and chemical fertilizers are the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases mono-crop plantations are destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down Local and organic food production is reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm. industrial agriculture and factory farming are the primary cause of global warming and deforestation chemical-intensive, energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all. Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are major fossil fuel users the worst greenhouse gas emitter is industrial food and farming Industrial agriculture are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. the direct and indirect damage of industrial agriculture are the major cause of global warming. Unless we make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.

industrial farming pose a mortal threat to human survival pesticides and chemical fertilizers consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate destabilizing g h g s. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down organic food production is reducing fossil fuel use and g h g pollution sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil industrial agr are the primary) cause of global warming and deforestation energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all the worst emitter is industrial food Industrial ag also driv global deforestation and wetlands destruction which generate 20% of all destabilizing GHGs.

Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, industrial food and farming, and our entire global economy pose a mortal threat, not just to our present health and well being, but also to human survival. Given the severity of the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change. “Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants, gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion pesticides and chemical fertilizers are the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations that are destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment. Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us. Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”), consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil micro-organisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina). Local and organic food production is now growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm. As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos, many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning, industrial agriculture and factory farming are in fact a primary (if not the primary) cause of global warming and deforestation. Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemical-intensive, energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all. On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels); monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer, releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is “Food Incorporated,” transnational industrial food and farming, of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal feed and biofuels - are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber, and biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of industrial agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.

<h4><strong>Reforming industrial ag key to solve extinction </h4><p></strong>Ronnie <strong>Cummins</strong>, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/<strong>10<u> (Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)</p><p></u></strong>Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, <u><strong><mark>industrial </mark>food and <mark>farming</u></strong></mark>, and our entire global economy <u><strong><mark>pose a mortal threat</mark>, not just to our present health and well being, but also <mark>to human survival</u></strong></mark>. Given the severity of the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change. “Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants, gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion <u><strong><mark>pesticides and chemical fertilizers </mark>are the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that <mark>consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate</mark>-<mark>destabilizing g</mark>reen<mark>h</mark>ouse <mark>g</mark>ase<mark>s</u></strong>.</mark> GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and <u><strong>mono-crop plantations</u></strong> that <u><strong>are destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. <mark>Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down</u></strong></mark>. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment. Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us. Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”), consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil micro-organisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina). <u><strong>Local and <mark>organic food production is</u></strong> </mark>now growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, <u><strong><mark>reducing fossil fuel use and g</mark>reen<mark>h</mark>ouse <mark>g</mark>as <mark>pollution</mark>, <mark>sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil</u></strong></mark> (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. <u><strong>The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm. </u></strong>As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos, many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning, <u><strong><mark>industrial agr</mark>iculture and factory farming <mark>are </u></strong></mark>in fact a primary (if not <u><strong><mark>the primary</u></strong>) <u><strong>cause of global warming and deforestation</u></strong></mark>. Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, <u><strong>chemical-intensive, <mark>energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all</mark>.</u></strong> On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels); monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer, releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming <u><strong>Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are</u></strong> obviously <u><strong>major fossil fuel users</u></strong> and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people understand that <u><strong><mark>the worst</u></strong> </mark>U.S. and global <u><strong>greenhouse gas <mark>emitter is</u></strong></mark> “Food Incorporated,” transnational <u><strong><mark>industrial food </mark>and farming</u></strong>, of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). <u><strong><mark>Industrial ag</mark>riculture</u></strong>, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal feed and biofuels - <u><strong>are <mark>also </mark>the main <mark>driv</mark>ing forces in <mark>global deforestation and wetlands destruction</mark>, <mark>which generate </mark>an additional <mark>20% of all </mark>climate <mark>destabilizing GHGs. </u></strong></mark>In other words <u><strong>the direct</u></strong> (food, fiber, and biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) <u><strong>and indirect damage</u></strong> (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) <u><strong>of industrial agriculture</u></strong>, GMOs, and the food industry <u><strong>are the major cause of global warming. Unless we</u></strong> take down Monsanto and Food Inc. and <u><strong>make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we</u></strong> and our children <u><strong>are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.</p></u></strong>

Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10 (Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/10 (Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9) fulltext: Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, industrial food and farming, and our entire global economy pose a mortal threat, not just to our present health and well being, but also to human survival. Given the severity of the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change. “Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants, gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion pesticides and chemical fertilizers are the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases. GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and mono-crop plantations that are destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment. Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us. Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”), consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil micro-organisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina). Local and organic food production is now growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas pollution, sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm. As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos, many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning, industrial agriculture and factory farming are in fact a primary (if not the primary) cause of global warming and deforestation. Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, chemical-intensive, energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all. On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels); monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer, releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are obviously major fossil fuel users and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is “Food Incorporated,” transnational industrial food and farming, of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal feed and biofuels - are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct (food, fiber, and biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) and indirect damage (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) of industrial agriculture, GMOs, and the food industry are the major cause of global warming. Unless we take down Monsanto and Food Inc. and make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we and our children are doomed to reside in Climate Hell. [/INST] <h4><strong>Reforming industrial ag key to solve extinction </h4><p></strong>Ronnie <strong>Cummins</strong>, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, 10/7/<strong>10<u> (Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/07-9)</p><p></u></strong>Despite decades of deception and mystification, a critical mass at the grassroots is waking up. A new generation of food and climate activists understands that greenhouse gas-belching fossil fuels, <u><strong><mark>industrial </mark>food and <mark>farming</u></strong></mark>, and our entire global economy <u><strong><mark>pose a mortal threat</mark>, not just to our present health and well being, but also <mark>to human survival</u></strong></mark>. Given the severity of the Crisis, we have little choice but to step up our efforts. As 35,000 climate activists at the historic global climate summit in April of 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia shouted, “We must change the System, not the climate.” “Changing the System,” means defending our selves, the future generations, and the biological carrying capacity of the planet from the ravages of “profit at any cost” capitalism. “Changing the System,” means safeguarding our delicately balanced climate, soils, oceans, and atmosphere from the fatal consequences of fossil fuel-induced climate change. “Changing the System” means exposing, dismantling, and replacing, not just individual out-of-control corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, and British Petroleum, and out-of-control technologies like gene-altered crops and mountaintop removal; but our entire chemical and energy-intensive industrial economy, starting, at least for many of us, with Food Inc.’s destructive system of industrial food and farming. “Changing the system,” means going on the offensive and dismantling the most controversial and vulnerable flanks of our suicide economy: coal plants, gas guzzlers, the military-industrial complex, and industrial agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and factory farms. Frankenfoods and Industrial Agriculture Highly subsidized GM crops - comprising 40% of U.S. cropland, and 10% of global crops - and the junk food and unhealthy processed foods and beverages derived from them, are the most profitable and strategically important components of industrial agriculture. Taxpayer subsidized GMOs and factory farms allow Food Inc. (corporate agribusiness) to poison the public and pollute the atmosphere and environment. Subsidized GM and monoculture crops - along with cheap soy, corn, and chemical additives - allow the McDonald’s, Cargills and Wal-Marts of the world to sell junk food, meat, and beverages at much lower prices than healthy, non-chemical foods. GMO crops and their companion <u><strong><mark>pesticides and chemical fertilizers </mark>are the cash cows and vanguard of a global farming and food distribution system that <mark>consumes prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and emits tremendous amount of climate</mark>-<mark>destabilizing g</mark>reen<mark>h</mark>ouse <mark>g</mark>ase<mark>s</u></strong>.</mark> GMOs provide the ideological and technological foundation for the factory farms and <u><strong>mono-crop plantations</u></strong> that <u><strong>are destroying the climate, the soils, and the planet. <mark>Either we bring them down, or they will bring us down</u></strong></mark>. According to Monsanto and the global war on bugs, war on biodiversity, chemical farming lobby, patented GMO seeds, crops, biofuels, animals, and trees can miraculously kill pests, reduce pesticide use, boost yields, alleviate world hunger, reduce petroleum use, and help farmers adapt to drought, pestilence, and global warming. As a growing "Millions Against Monsanto" corps understand, the Biotech Bullies are dangerous liars. Industrial agriculture, GMOs, and so-called cheap food have destroyed public health and wrecked the environment. Genetically Modified (GM) crops have neither reduced pesticide use, nor chemical fertilizer use. They kill pests, but they also give rise to superweeds and superpests. GM crops, like all industrial monoculture crops, use vast amounts of fossil fuel and water. GMO and their companion chemicals (pesticides and chemical fertilizers) destroy the greenhouse gas sequestering capacity of living soils and kill off non-patented plants, trees, and animals. Most GM crops, 90% of which are derived from Monsanto’s patented seeds, are genetically engineered to boost the sales of toxic pesticides such as Roundup, and thereby increase toxic pesticide residues in foods. GM crops do not produce higher yields, nor provide more nutritious foods. GM soybeans, the most important industrial agriculture crop, along with corn, consistently have lower yields, while chemical-intensive GM food crops contain far fewer vitamins and essential trace minerals than organic foods. Nor has gene-splicing (unlike organic farming) produced plant or tree varieties that can adapt to global warming. Nonetheless GM crops remain Food Inc.’s propaganda “poster child.” The unfortunate bottom line is that 65 years of chemical and GM agriculture, a literal World War Three on public health, rural communities, and the environment, have nearly killed us. Humans and our living environment have been poisoned, not only by pesticides, nitrate fertilizers, greenhouse gas pollution, and contaminated factory-farmed food, but also by the mutant organisms and patented chemical residues that accompany these genetically modified foods and crops. Either we make the Great Transition to a relocalized economy whose foundation is renewable energy and solar-based (as opposed to GMO and petroleum-based) organic food and fiber production, or else we are destined to burn up the planet and destroy ourselves. Despite mass media brainwashing (“Better living through chemistry… Monsanto can feed the world… GMO crops and trees can reduce fossil fuel use and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases…”), consumers and farmers are seeing through the lies. Defying the efforts of the powerful industrial agriculture/biotech lobby, a growing number of activists and concerned citizens are connecting the dots and taking action. As a consequence Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth. A critical mass of research reveals that genetically engineered crops, now covering almost 40% of U.S. cropland (173 million acres of GM crops) and 10% of global farm acreage (321 million acres), pollute the environment, kill essential soil micro-organisms, generate superweeds and pests, decrease biodiversity, aid and abet seed monopolization, encourage massive use of toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizer, spew out massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, and seriously damage animal and human health. Injecting genetically engineered hormones into dairy cows to force them to give more milk is reckless and dangerous. Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH, now marketed by Eli Lilly, increases the risks of breast, prostate, and colon cancer for those who consume the milk. It also severely damages the health of the cows. Residue levels of Monsanto’s toxic herbicide, Roundup, found routinely in non-organic foods, destroy animal and human reproductive systems. Haphazardly ramming indeterminate amounts of patented foreign DNA, bacteria, and antibiotic-resistant genes into the genomes of already non-sustainable energy and pesticide-intensive crops and foods (corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa) in order to increase the sales of Monsanto or Bayer's GMO companion herbicides or to facilitate monopoly control over seeds by the Gene Giants is not only non-sustainable, but criminal. Rejection of this out-of-control GM technology is a major driving force in the rapid growth of organic food and farming, as well as the growing demand for mandatory safety testing and labeling of GMOs. In the EU, where GM-tainted foods must be labeled, GMO crops are almost non-existent (although large quantities of GM animal feed are still being imported into the EU from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina). <u><strong>Local and <mark>organic food production is</u></strong> </mark>now growing faster than GMO/industrial food and farming; improving public health and nutrition, <u><strong><mark>reducing fossil fuel use and g</mark>reen<mark>h</mark>ouse <mark>g</mark>as <mark>pollution</mark>, <mark>sequestering billions of tons of CO2 in the soil</u></strong></mark> (up to seven tons of CO2 per acre per year), and providing economic survival for a growing number of the world’s 2.8 billion small farmers and rural villagers. <u><strong>The growth of organic agriculture and relocalized food and farming systems are encouraging, but obviously organics are still the alternative, rather than the norm. </u></strong>As we enter into the Brave New World of global warming and climate chaos, many organic advocates are starting to realize that we need to put more emphasis, not just on the health and pollution hazards of GMOs; but rather we need to broaden our efforts and mobilize to abolish the entire system of industrial food and farming. As we are now learning, <u><strong><mark>industrial agr</mark>iculture and factory farming <mark>are </u></strong></mark>in fact a primary (if not <u><strong><mark>the primary</u></strong>) <u><strong>cause of global warming and deforestation</u></strong></mark>. Even if were able to rip up all of Monsanto’s GMO crops tomorrow, business as usual, <u><strong>chemical-intensive, <mark>energy-intensive industrial agriculture is enough to kill us all</mark>.</u></strong> On the other hand, if we’re going to take down industrial agriculture, one of the best ways to leverage our efforts is to target the most hated corporation in the world, Monsanto. Besides contaminating our food, destroying the environment and moving, by any means necessary, to gain monopoly control over seeds and biodiversity, Monsanto and their Food Inc. collaborators are guilty of major “climate crimes.” These crimes include: confusing the public about the real causes of (and solutions to) global warming; killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases; releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere; promoting bogus industrial corn and soy-derived biofuels (which use just as many fossil fuel, and release just as many greenhouse gases as conventional fuels); monopolizing seed stocks and taking climate-friendly varieties off the market; promoting genetically engineered trees; and last but not least, advocating dangerous geoengineering schemes such as massive GM plantations of trees or plants than reflect sunlight. The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no binding agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and black carbon) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that industrial food and farming practices play in global warming. Lulled by the world’s leaders vague promises to reduce global warming, and still believing that new technological breakthroughs can save us, the average citizen has no idea how serious the present climate crisis actually is. A close look at present (non-legally binding) pledges by the Obama Administration and other governments to reduce GHG pollution shows that their proposed, slightly modified “business as usual” practices will still result in a disastrous global average temperature increase of 3.5 to 3.9 C by 2100, according to recent studies. This will not only burn up the Amazon, the lungs of the planet, but also transform the Arctic into a region that is 10 to 16 degrees C warmer, releasing most of the region’s permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities of methane hydrates, in the process basically putting an end to human beings’ ability to live on the planet. We are literally staring disaster in the face. In the follow up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit this year, which is to be held in Cancun, Mexico (Nov. 29-Dec. 10) we, as members of global civil society, must raise our voices loud and clear. We must make it clear that we are years, not decades away, from detonating runaway feedback mechanisms (heating up and burning up the Amazon and melting the Arctic permafrost) that can doom us all. Industrial Food and Farming: A Deadly Root of Global Warming <u><strong>Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are</u></strong> obviously <u><strong>major fossil fuel users</u></strong> and greenhouse gas polluters, not enough people understand that <u><strong><mark>the worst</u></strong> </mark>U.S. and global <u><strong>greenhouse gas <mark>emitter is</u></strong></mark> “Food Incorporated,” transnational <u><strong><mark>industrial food </mark>and farming</u></strong>, of which Monsanto and GMOs constitute a major part. Industrial farming, including 173 million acres of GE soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). <u><strong><mark>Industrial ag</mark>riculture</u></strong>, biofuels, and non-sustainable cattle grazing - including cutting down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for GMO and chemical-intensive animal feed and biofuels - <u><strong>are <mark>also </mark>the main <mark>driv</mark>ing forces in <mark>global deforestation and wetlands destruction</mark>, <mark>which generate </mark>an additional <mark>20% of all </mark>climate <mark>destabilizing GHGs. </u></strong></mark>In other words <u><strong>the direct</u></strong> (food, fiber, and biofuels production, food processing, food distribution) <u><strong>and indirect damage</u></strong> (deforestation and destruction of wetlands) <u><strong>of industrial agriculture</u></strong>, GMOs, and the food industry <u><strong>are the major cause of global warming. Unless we</u></strong> take down Monsanto and Food Inc. and <u><strong>make the Great Transition to a relocalized system of organic food and farming, we</u></strong> and our children <u><strong>are doomed to reside in Climate Hell.</p></u></strong> </s>

Kacou’s teleological understanding of life as pleasure resigns our freedom to drives of both slavery and narcissism

hy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011, Online Kacou argues that conscious existence only appears to be painful to those who have misunderstood reality Kacou’s project is to find what he calls the “a priori value” of conscious life a hedonistic version of Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. this project is self-defeating. There is no such thing as consciousness outside of some selfunderstanding, which means that the attempt to ascertain the value of conscious life as it exists prior to all belief systems will inevitably lose the very thing it is trying to capture. Kacou has ended up arguing that organic life is inherently pleasurable, and then arguing that conscious human life must also be inherently pleasurable because animal life is temporally prior to conscious life. This amounts to arguing that conscious life would be inherently pleasurable only if it did not exist, which is absurd Kant and Hegel argue that the pain of conscious existence comes from the necessity of having understandings in the first place, which derives from the freedom, necessary to consciousness, of arbitrarily choosing one course over another Humans were faced with an abyss of freedom – now, instead of following the single track that instinct determines for all other animals, they had to choose how they would live. The necessity of infinite possibility thus replaced the necessity of instinct that bound all other creatures. Kant sees this abyss of possibility as constituting the eternal fate of the human species. Kacou is arguing the exact opposite. By claiming that all human action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, he is basically arguing that freedom is a delusion More precisely, since all action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, all supposedly free choices are nothing more than deviations from the razor’s edge of perfect pleasure, which would be known to a purely rational being through a kind of mathematical calculation Kacou’s ideal is to replace the stupidity of free choice with a rational calculus that would show us what action will lead to the greatest pleasure His ideal is a consciousness that would know what it had to do in order to maximize pleasure over the course of its entire life, and would thus never have to make a choice. Kacou’s position is base Kacou’s attitude as the very origin of evil. the necessity of choice gives rise to the possibility of evil, but consciousness only becomes evil if it uses its freedom to try to return to unity with instinct, if it tries to renounce its freedom and change back into an innocent animal to long for a return to the unity of instinct is to betray the destiny of freedom. It is to will one’s subjective separation from the rest of reality, to measure everything in terms of one’s own selfish desires. By arguing that the only thing human beings can do is decide how they are going to satisfy their pleasures, Kacou is essentially attempting to annul the pain that comes from having to choose. for our experience that life is painful to be the result of a false understanding of life, the world would have to be a paradise in reality if the world were not actually a paradise, then Kacou’s argument could not be true the world is not a paradise precisely because we are free beings who are forced to choose our path in life our ability to choose necessarily gives rise to an understanding, which comes to replace instinct as the medium through which we interact with the world. when Kacou tries to divorce his justification for conscious life from all a posteriori explanations on the grounds that such explanations inevitably distort our pursuit of pleasure, he has made a correct observation, but his conclusion is utterly wrong. Such explanations do distort our pursuit of pleasure, but they are not something that we can get beyond Kacou is logically correct to say that we must move beyond all a posteriori explanations of life in order to truly experience life as pleasurable, but he has failed to realize that this would entail ridding ourselves of conscious existence itself it is conscious existence towards which Kacou directs his arguments, trying to convince it that there is value to its life by trying to begin his argument from this supposedly more fundamental level, Kacou actually loses touch with the very thing he is trying to grasp a consciousness that actually took Kacou’s advice, that came to see pleasure as its highest ideal, would come to experience its actual existence as meaningless pain. As long as it continued to exist, it would never be able to free itself from the a posteriori explanations that were supposedly the source of all its grief – and as such, this inherent grief would only be exacerbated.

Kacou argues that conscious existence only appears to be painful to those who have misunderstood reality Kacou’s project is a hedonistic version of Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. this project is self-defeating. There is no such thing as consciousness outside of some selfunderstanding Kacou has ended up arguing that organic life is inherently pleasurable Humans were faced with an abyss of freedom The necessity of infinite possibility thus replaced the necessity of instinct By claiming that all human action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, he is basically arguing that freedom is a delusion. all supposedly free choices are nothing more than deviations from the razor’s edge of perfect pleasure the world is not a paradise precisely because we are free beings who are forced to choose our path in life. Kacou is utterly wrong it is conscious existence towards which Kacou directs his arguments, trying to convince it that there is value to its life. a consciousness that actually took Kacou’s advice would experience its actual existence as meaningless pain. As long as it continued to exist, it would never be able to free itself from the a posteriori explanations that were supposedly the source of all its grief this inherent grief would only be exacerbated.

Joseph Morrill, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Christian Study at the Toronto School of Theology, “The Quest for Pleasure and the Death of Life,” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011, Online Kacou argues that the pleasure that would otherwise accompany both work and satisfaction is distorted by false understandings of reality. For him, conscious existence only appears to be painful to those who have misunderstood reality. As we saw in the very inception of his argument, Kacou’s project is to find what he calls the “a priori value” of conscious life, the value prior to all particular situations and selfunderstandings in which consciousness might find itself – a hedonistic version of Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. As I will now show, however, this project is self-defeating. There is no such thing as consciousness outside of some selfunderstanding, which means that the attempt to ascertain the value of conscious life as it exists prior to all belief systems will inevitably lose the very thing it is trying to capture. Kacou has ended up arguing that organic life is inherently pleasurable, and then arguing that conscious human life must also be inherently pleasurable because animal life is temporally prior to conscious life. This, however, amounts to arguing that conscious life would be inherently pleasurable only if it did not exist, which is absurd. This point becomes more obvious if we consider Kant and Hegel’s interpretations of the story of the fall from Eden. Both explicitly reject the idea that this fall occurs because a true understanding is corrupted by a false one; instead, they argue that the pain of conscious existence comes from the necessity of having understandings in the first place, which derives from the freedom, necessary to consciousness, of arbitrarily choosing one course over another. In his essay “Conjectural Beginning of Human History,”24 Kant describes the fall from Eden in terms of the emergence of freedom from the chains of instinct. By choosing to eat a fruit that it had never eaten before, humanity created the first artificial desire. This first free choice opened up an internal gulf between a human’s actual life and its primal instincts. Humans were faced with an abyss of freedom – now, instead of following the single track that instinct determines for all other animals, they had to choose how they would live. The necessity of infinite possibility thus replaced the necessity of instinct that bound all other creatures. Kant sees this abyss of possibility as constituting the eternal fate of the human species. Kacou is arguing for the exact opposite. By claiming that all human action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, he is basically arguing that freedom is a delusion. More precisely, since all action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, all supposedly free choices are nothing more than deviations from the razor’s edge of perfect pleasure, which would be known to a purely rational being through a kind of mathematical calculation. Kacou’s ideal is to replace the stupidity of free choice with a rational calculus that would show us what action will lead to the greatest pleasure in all possible situations. His ideal is a consciousness that would know what it had to do in order to maximize pleasure over the course of its entire life, and would thus never have to make a choice. Much as Aristotle argues that Kacou’s position is base, Hegel sees Kacou’s attitude as the very origin of evil.25 For Hegel, the necessity of choice gives rise to the possibility of evil, but consciousness only becomes evil if it uses its freedom to try to return to unity with instinct, if it tries to renounce its freedom and change back into an innocent animal. In other words, to long for a return to the unity of instinct is to betray the destiny of freedom. It is to will one’s subjective separation from the rest of reality, to measure everything in terms of one’s own selfish desires. By arguing that the only thing human beings can do is decide how they are going to satisfy their pleasures, Kacou is essentially attempting to annul the pain that comes from having to choose. We are now ready to make an obvious point: for our experience that life is painful to be the result of a false understanding of life, the world would have to be a paradise in reality. Our fall from Eden would thus be a fall only in our perception of reality, rather than a fall in reality itself. However, if the world were not actually a paradise, then Kacou’s argument could not be true. But according to Kant and Hegel, the world is not a paradise precisely because we are free beings who are forced to choose our path in life. Furthermore, our ability to choose necessarily gives rise to an understanding, which comes to replace instinct as the medium through which we interact with the world. Because of this, when Kacou tries to divorce his justification for conscious life from all a posteriori explanations, theories, or speculations, on the grounds that such explanations inevitably distort our pursuit of pleasure, he has made a correct observation, but his conclusion is utterly wrong. Such explanations do distort our pursuit of pleasure, but they are not something that we can get beyond. Kacou is logically correct to say that we must move beyond all a posteriori explanations of life in order to truly experience life as pleasurable, but he has failed to realize that this would entail ridding ourselves of conscious existence itself. We should remember here that it is conscious existence towards which Kacou directs his arguments, trying to convince it that there is value to its life. But by trying to begin his argument from this supposedly more fundamental level, Kacou actually loses touch with the very thing he is trying to grasp. Worse, a consciousness that actually took Kacou’s advice, that came to see pleasure as its highest ideal, would come to experience its actual existence as meaningless pain. As long as it continued to exist, it would never be able to free itself from the a posteriori explanations that were supposedly the source of all its grief – and as such, this inherent grief would only be exacerbated.

<h4>Kacou’s teleological understanding of life as pleasure resigns our freedom to drives of both slavery and narcissism </h4><p><strong>Kirby 11<u> </p><p></u></strong>Joseph Morrill, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Christian Study at the Toronto School of Theology, “The Quest for Pleasure and the Death of Life,” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosop<u>hy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011, Online</p><p><mark>Kacou argues that</u></mark> the pleasure that would otherwise accompany both work and satisfaction is distorted by false understandings of reality. For him, <u><mark>conscious existence only appears to be painful to those who have misunderstood reality</u></mark>. As we saw in the very inception of his argument, <u><mark>Kacou’s project is</mark> to find what he calls the “a priori value” of conscious life</u>, the value prior to all particular situations and selfunderstandings in which consciousness might find itself – <u><mark>a hedonistic version of Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception.</u></mark> As I will now show, however, <u><mark>this project is self-defeating. There is no such thing as consciousness outside of some selfunderstanding</mark>, which means that the attempt to ascertain the value of conscious life as it exists prior to all belief systems will inevitably lose the very thing it is trying to capture.</u> <u><mark>Kacou has ended up arguing that organic life is inherently pleasurable</mark>, and then arguing that conscious human life must also be inherently pleasurable because animal life is temporally prior to conscious life. This</u>, however, <u>amounts to arguing that conscious life would be inherently pleasurable only if it did not exist, which is absurd</u>. This point becomes more obvious if we consider <u>Kant and Hegel</u>’s interpretations of the story of the fall from Eden. Both explicitly reject the idea that this fall occurs because a true understanding is corrupted by a false one; instead, they <u>argue that the pain of conscious existence comes from the necessity of having understandings in the first place, which derives from the freedom, necessary to consciousness, of arbitrarily choosing one course over another</u>. In his essay “Conjectural Beginning of Human History,”24 Kant describes the fall from Eden in terms of the emergence of freedom from the chains of instinct. By choosing to eat a fruit that it had never eaten before, humanity created the first artificial desire. This first free choice opened up an internal gulf between a human’s actual life and its primal instincts. <u><mark>Humans were faced with an abyss of freedom</mark> – now, instead of following the single track that instinct determines for all other animals, they had to choose how they would live. <mark>The necessity of infinite possibility thus replaced the necessity of instinct</mark> that bound all other creatures. Kant sees this abyss of possibility as constituting the eternal fate of the human species. Kacou is arguing</u> for <u>the exact opposite.</u> <u><mark>By claiming that all human action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, he is basically arguing that freedom is a delusion</u>.</mark> <u>More precisely, since all action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, <mark>all supposedly free choices are nothing more than deviations from the razor’s edge of perfect pleasure</mark>, which would be known to a purely rational being through a kind of mathematical calculation</u>. <u>Kacou’s ideal is to replace the stupidity of free choice with a rational calculus that would show us what action will lead to the greatest pleasure</u> in all possible situations. <u>His ideal is a consciousness that would know what it had to do in order to maximize pleasure over the course of its entire life, and would thus never have to make a choice. </u>Much as Aristotle argues that <u>Kacou’s position is base</u>, Hegel sees <u>Kacou’s attitude as the very origin of evil.</u>25 For Hegel, <u>the necessity of choice gives rise to the possibility of evil, but consciousness only becomes evil if it uses its freedom to try to return to unity with instinct, if it tries to renounce its freedom and change back into an innocent animal</u>. In other words, <u>to long for a return to the unity of instinct is to betray the destiny of freedom. It is to will one’s subjective separation from the rest of reality, to measure everything in terms of one’s own selfish desires.</u> <u>By arguing that the only thing human beings can do is decide how they are going to satisfy their pleasures, Kacou is essentially attempting to annul the pain that comes from having to choose.</u> We are now ready to make an obvious point: <u>for our experience that life is painful to be the result of a false understanding of life, the world would have to be a paradise in reality</u>. Our fall from Eden would thus be a fall only in our perception of reality, rather than a fall in reality itself. However, <u>if the world were not actually a paradise, then Kacou’s argument could not be true</u>. But according to Kant and Hegel, <u><mark>the world is not a paradise precisely because we are free beings who are forced to choose our path in life</u>.</mark> Furthermore, <u>our ability to choose necessarily gives rise to an understanding, which comes to replace instinct as the medium through which we interact with the world.</u> Because of this, <u>when <mark>Kacou</mark> tries to divorce his justification for conscious life from all a posteriori explanations</u>, theories, or speculations, <u>on the grounds that such explanations inevitably distort our pursuit of pleasure, he has made a correct observation, but his conclusion <mark>is utterly</mark> <mark>wrong</mark>. Such explanations do distort our pursuit of pleasure, but they are not something that we can get beyond</u>. <u>Kacou is logically correct to say that we must move beyond all a posteriori explanations of life in order to truly experience life as pleasurable, but he has failed to realize that this would entail ridding ourselves of conscious existence itself</u>. We should remember here that <u><mark>it is conscious existence towards which Kacou directs his arguments, trying to convince it that there is value to its life</u>.</mark> But <u>by trying to begin his argument from this supposedly more fundamental level, Kacou actually loses touch with the very thing he is trying to grasp</u>. Worse, <u><mark>a consciousness that actually took Kacou’s advice</mark>, that came to see pleasure as its highest ideal, <mark>would</mark> come to <mark>experience its actual existence as meaningless pain. As long as it continued to exist, it would never be able to free itself from the a posteriori explanations that were supposedly the source of all its grief</mark> – and as such, <mark>this inherent grief would only be exacerbated.</p></u></mark>

Kirby 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kirby 11 fulltext: Joseph Morrill, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Christian Study at the Toronto School of Theology, “The Quest for Pleasure and the Death of Life,” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011, Online Kacou argues that the pleasure that would otherwise accompany both work and satisfaction is distorted by false understandings of reality. For him, conscious existence only appears to be painful to those who have misunderstood reality. As we saw in the very inception of his argument, Kacou’s project is to find what he calls the “a priori value” of conscious life, the value prior to all particular situations and selfunderstandings in which consciousness might find itself – a hedonistic version of Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. As I will now show, however, this project is self-defeating. There is no such thing as consciousness outside of some selfunderstanding, which means that the attempt to ascertain the value of conscious life as it exists prior to all belief systems will inevitably lose the very thing it is trying to capture. Kacou has ended up arguing that organic life is inherently pleasurable, and then arguing that conscious human life must also be inherently pleasurable because animal life is temporally prior to conscious life. This, however, amounts to arguing that conscious life would be inherently pleasurable only if it did not exist, which is absurd. This point becomes more obvious if we consider Kant and Hegel’s interpretations of the story of the fall from Eden. Both explicitly reject the idea that this fall occurs because a true understanding is corrupted by a false one; instead, they argue that the pain of conscious existence comes from the necessity of having understandings in the first place, which derives from the freedom, necessary to consciousness, of arbitrarily choosing one course over another. In his essay “Conjectural Beginning of Human History,”24 Kant describes the fall from Eden in terms of the emergence of freedom from the chains of instinct. By choosing to eat a fruit that it had never eaten before, humanity created the first artificial desire. This first free choice opened up an internal gulf between a human’s actual life and its primal instincts. Humans were faced with an abyss of freedom – now, instead of following the single track that instinct determines for all other animals, they had to choose how they would live. The necessity of infinite possibility thus replaced the necessity of instinct that bound all other creatures. Kant sees this abyss of possibility as constituting the eternal fate of the human species. Kacou is arguing for the exact opposite. By claiming that all human action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, he is basically arguing that freedom is a delusion. More precisely, since all action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, all supposedly free choices are nothing more than deviations from the razor’s edge of perfect pleasure, which would be known to a purely rational being through a kind of mathematical calculation. Kacou’s ideal is to replace the stupidity of free choice with a rational calculus that would show us what action will lead to the greatest pleasure in all possible situations. His ideal is a consciousness that would know what it had to do in order to maximize pleasure over the course of its entire life, and would thus never have to make a choice. Much as Aristotle argues that Kacou’s position is base, Hegel sees Kacou’s attitude as the very origin of evil.25 For Hegel, the necessity of choice gives rise to the possibility of evil, but consciousness only becomes evil if it uses its freedom to try to return to unity with instinct, if it tries to renounce its freedom and change back into an innocent animal. In other words, to long for a return to the unity of instinct is to betray the destiny of freedom. It is to will one’s subjective separation from the rest of reality, to measure everything in terms of one’s own selfish desires. By arguing that the only thing human beings can do is decide how they are going to satisfy their pleasures, Kacou is essentially attempting to annul the pain that comes from having to choose. We are now ready to make an obvious point: for our experience that life is painful to be the result of a false understanding of life, the world would have to be a paradise in reality. Our fall from Eden would thus be a fall only in our perception of reality, rather than a fall in reality itself. However, if the world were not actually a paradise, then Kacou’s argument could not be true. But according to Kant and Hegel, the world is not a paradise precisely because we are free beings who are forced to choose our path in life. Furthermore, our ability to choose necessarily gives rise to an understanding, which comes to replace instinct as the medium through which we interact with the world. Because of this, when Kacou tries to divorce his justification for conscious life from all a posteriori explanations, theories, or speculations, on the grounds that such explanations inevitably distort our pursuit of pleasure, he has made a correct observation, but his conclusion is utterly wrong. Such explanations do distort our pursuit of pleasure, but they are not something that we can get beyond. Kacou is logically correct to say that we must move beyond all a posteriori explanations of life in order to truly experience life as pleasurable, but he has failed to realize that this would entail ridding ourselves of conscious existence itself. We should remember here that it is conscious existence towards which Kacou directs his arguments, trying to convince it that there is value to its life. But by trying to begin his argument from this supposedly more fundamental level, Kacou actually loses touch with the very thing he is trying to grasp. Worse, a consciousness that actually took Kacou’s advice, that came to see pleasure as its highest ideal, would come to experience its actual existence as meaningless pain. As long as it continued to exist, it would never be able to free itself from the a posteriori explanations that were supposedly the source of all its grief – and as such, this inherent grief would only be exacerbated. [/INST] <h4>Kacou’s teleological understanding of life as pleasure resigns our freedom to drives of both slavery and narcissism </h4><p><strong>Kirby 11<u> </p><p></u></strong>Joseph Morrill, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Christian Study at the Toronto School of Theology, “The Quest for Pleasure and the Death of Life,” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosop<u>hy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011, Online</p><p><mark>Kacou argues that</u></mark> the pleasure that would otherwise accompany both work and satisfaction is distorted by false understandings of reality. For him, <u><mark>conscious existence only appears to be painful to those who have misunderstood reality</u></mark>. As we saw in the very inception of his argument, <u><mark>Kacou’s project is</mark> to find what he calls the “a priori value” of conscious life</u>, the value prior to all particular situations and selfunderstandings in which consciousness might find itself – <u><mark>a hedonistic version of Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception.</u></mark> As I will now show, however, <u><mark>this project is self-defeating. There is no such thing as consciousness outside of some selfunderstanding</mark>, which means that the attempt to ascertain the value of conscious life as it exists prior to all belief systems will inevitably lose the very thing it is trying to capture.</u> <u><mark>Kacou has ended up arguing that organic life is inherently pleasurable</mark>, and then arguing that conscious human life must also be inherently pleasurable because animal life is temporally prior to conscious life. This</u>, however, <u>amounts to arguing that conscious life would be inherently pleasurable only if it did not exist, which is absurd</u>. This point becomes more obvious if we consider <u>Kant and Hegel</u>’s interpretations of the story of the fall from Eden. Both explicitly reject the idea that this fall occurs because a true understanding is corrupted by a false one; instead, they <u>argue that the pain of conscious existence comes from the necessity of having understandings in the first place, which derives from the freedom, necessary to consciousness, of arbitrarily choosing one course over another</u>. In his essay “Conjectural Beginning of Human History,”24 Kant describes the fall from Eden in terms of the emergence of freedom from the chains of instinct. By choosing to eat a fruit that it had never eaten before, humanity created the first artificial desire. This first free choice opened up an internal gulf between a human’s actual life and its primal instincts. <u><mark>Humans were faced with an abyss of freedom</mark> – now, instead of following the single track that instinct determines for all other animals, they had to choose how they would live. <mark>The necessity of infinite possibility thus replaced the necessity of instinct</mark> that bound all other creatures. Kant sees this abyss of possibility as constituting the eternal fate of the human species. Kacou is arguing</u> for <u>the exact opposite.</u> <u><mark>By claiming that all human action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, he is basically arguing that freedom is a delusion</u>.</mark> <u>More precisely, since all action is necessarily aimed at pleasure, <mark>all supposedly free choices are nothing more than deviations from the razor’s edge of perfect pleasure</mark>, which would be known to a purely rational being through a kind of mathematical calculation</u>. <u>Kacou’s ideal is to replace the stupidity of free choice with a rational calculus that would show us what action will lead to the greatest pleasure</u> in all possible situations. <u>His ideal is a consciousness that would know what it had to do in order to maximize pleasure over the course of its entire life, and would thus never have to make a choice. </u>Much as Aristotle argues that <u>Kacou’s position is base</u>, Hegel sees <u>Kacou’s attitude as the very origin of evil.</u>25 For Hegel, <u>the necessity of choice gives rise to the possibility of evil, but consciousness only becomes evil if it uses its freedom to try to return to unity with instinct, if it tries to renounce its freedom and change back into an innocent animal</u>. In other words, <u>to long for a return to the unity of instinct is to betray the destiny of freedom. It is to will one’s subjective separation from the rest of reality, to measure everything in terms of one’s own selfish desires.</u> <u>By arguing that the only thing human beings can do is decide how they are going to satisfy their pleasures, Kacou is essentially attempting to annul the pain that comes from having to choose.</u> We are now ready to make an obvious point: <u>for our experience that life is painful to be the result of a false understanding of life, the world would have to be a paradise in reality</u>. Our fall from Eden would thus be a fall only in our perception of reality, rather than a fall in reality itself. However, <u>if the world were not actually a paradise, then Kacou’s argument could not be true</u>. But according to Kant and Hegel, <u><mark>the world is not a paradise precisely because we are free beings who are forced to choose our path in life</u>.</mark> Furthermore, <u>our ability to choose necessarily gives rise to an understanding, which comes to replace instinct as the medium through which we interact with the world.</u> Because of this, <u>when <mark>Kacou</mark> tries to divorce his justification for conscious life from all a posteriori explanations</u>, theories, or speculations, <u>on the grounds that such explanations inevitably distort our pursuit of pleasure, he has made a correct observation, but his conclusion <mark>is utterly</mark> <mark>wrong</mark>. Such explanations do distort our pursuit of pleasure, but they are not something that we can get beyond</u>. <u>Kacou is logically correct to say that we must move beyond all a posteriori explanations of life in order to truly experience life as pleasurable, but he has failed to realize that this would entail ridding ourselves of conscious existence itself</u>. We should remember here that <u><mark>it is conscious existence towards which Kacou directs his arguments, trying to convince it that there is value to its life</u>.</mark> But <u>by trying to begin his argument from this supposedly more fundamental level, Kacou actually loses touch with the very thing he is trying to grasp</u>. Worse, <u><mark>a consciousness that actually took Kacou’s advice</mark>, that came to see pleasure as its highest ideal, <mark>would</mark> come to <mark>experience its actual existence as meaningless pain. As long as it continued to exist, it would never be able to free itself from the a posteriori explanations that were supposedly the source of all its grief</mark> – and as such, <mark>this inherent grief would only be exacerbated.</p></u></mark> </s>

Louisianans supports

Most Louisianians believe the state's tough marijuana laws should be changed, 64 percent are against the strict penalties for repeat offenders more than half -- said they would be in favor of following the example of Colorado and Washington in allowing pot to be regulated

Louisianians believe the state's tough marijuana laws should be changed 64 percent are against the strict penalties more than half -- would be in favor of following Colorado and Washington

Most Louisianians believe the state's tough marijuana laws should be changed, according to poll results released Thursday by Public Policy Polling. The poll results were released just three months after lawmakers in Baton Rouge failed to pass legislation to lessen penalties for repeat offenders. State law says anyone convicted of possessing any amount of marijuana -- even a single joint -- can be jailed up to six months on a first offense. A repeat offender can be sentenced up to five years and face up to a $2,500 fine, and anyone convicted three or more times is open to a 20-year jail sentence and up to a $5,000 fine. Of those polled, 64 percent said they are against the strict penalties for repeat offenders and more than half said they would be in favor of a simple $100 fine for those found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. While nearly half of respondents -- 47 percent -- said they would support putting a much lower cap on repeat offender penalties, more than half -- 53 percent -- said they would be in favor of following the example of Colorado and Washington in allowing pot to be regulated and taxed by the state.

<h4>Louisianans supports</h4><p><strong>McGaughy 13</strong>, Lauren, Baton Rouge-based state politics reporter for NOLA.com, “Marijuana laws in Louisiana should be more lenient, new poll results say,” September 5th, http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/marijuana_pot_louisiana_poll_p.html</p><p><u><strong>Most <mark>Louisianians believe the state's tough marijuana laws should be changed</mark>,</u></strong> according to poll results released Thursday by Public Policy Polling. The poll results were released just three months after lawmakers in Baton Rouge failed to pass legislation to lessen penalties for repeat offenders. State law says anyone convicted of possessing any amount of marijuana -- even a single joint -- can be jailed up to six months on a first offense. A repeat offender can be sentenced up to five years and face up to a $2,500 fine, and anyone convicted three or more times is open to a 20-year jail sentence and up to a $5,000 fine. Of those polled, <u><strong><mark>64 percent</u></strong></mark> said they <u><strong><mark>are against the strict penalties</mark> for repeat offenders</u></strong> and more than half said they would be in favor of a simple $100 fine for those found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. While nearly half of respondents -- 47 percent -- said they would support putting a much lower cap on repeat offender penalties, <u><strong><mark>more than half</u></strong> -- </mark>53 percent <u><strong>-- said they <mark>would be in favor of following</mark> the example of <mark>Colorado and Washington</mark> in allowing pot to be regulated</u></strong> and taxed by the state.</p>

McGaughy 13, Lauren, Baton Rouge-based state politics reporter for NOLA.com, “Marijuana laws in Louisiana should be more lenient, new poll results say,” September 5th, http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/marijuana_pot_louisiana_poll_p.html

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: McGaughy 13, Lauren, Baton Rouge-based state politics reporter for NOLA.com, “Marijuana laws in Louisiana should be more lenient, new poll results say,” September 5th, http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/marijuana_pot_louisiana_poll_p.html fulltext: Most Louisianians believe the state's tough marijuana laws should be changed, according to poll results released Thursday by Public Policy Polling. The poll results were released just three months after lawmakers in Baton Rouge failed to pass legislation to lessen penalties for repeat offenders. State law says anyone convicted of possessing any amount of marijuana -- even a single joint -- can be jailed up to six months on a first offense. A repeat offender can be sentenced up to five years and face up to a $2,500 fine, and anyone convicted three or more times is open to a 20-year jail sentence and up to a $5,000 fine. Of those polled, 64 percent said they are against the strict penalties for repeat offenders and more than half said they would be in favor of a simple $100 fine for those found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. While nearly half of respondents -- 47 percent -- said they would support putting a much lower cap on repeat offender penalties, more than half -- 53 percent -- said they would be in favor of following the example of Colorado and Washington in allowing pot to be regulated and taxed by the state. [/INST] <h4>Louisianans supports</h4><p><strong>McGaughy 13</strong>, Lauren, Baton Rouge-based state politics reporter for NOLA.com, “Marijuana laws in Louisiana should be more lenient, new poll results say,” September 5th, http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/marijuana_pot_louisiana_poll_p.html</p><p><u><strong>Most <mark>Louisianians believe the state's tough marijuana laws should be changed</mark>,</u></strong> according to poll results released Thursday by Public Policy Polling. The poll results were released just three months after lawmakers in Baton Rouge failed to pass legislation to lessen penalties for repeat offenders. State law says anyone convicted of possessing any amount of marijuana -- even a single joint -- can be jailed up to six months on a first offense. A repeat offender can be sentenced up to five years and face up to a $2,500 fine, and anyone convicted three or more times is open to a 20-year jail sentence and up to a $5,000 fine. Of those polled, <u><strong><mark>64 percent</u></strong></mark> said they <u><strong><mark>are against the strict penalties</mark> for repeat offenders</u></strong> and more than half said they would be in favor of a simple $100 fine for those found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. While nearly half of respondents -- 47 percent -- said they would support putting a much lower cap on repeat offender penalties, <u><strong><mark>more than half</u></strong> -- </mark>53 percent <u><strong>-- said they <mark>would be in favor of following</mark> the example of <mark>Colorado and Washington</mark> in allowing pot to be regulated</u></strong> and taxed by the state.</p> </s>

Scenario 3 is Warming

<h4>Scenario 3 is Warming </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>Scenario 3 is Warming </h4> </s>

Topic Ground -- all of the controversy comes from the regulations portion of the debate

Advocates for the legalization of assisted suicide in the U S have sought to permit the practice only under highly limited circumstances namely, when the requesting patient is terminally ill. At the core of the argument supporting assisted suicide are the twin goals of maximizing individual autonomy and minimizing human suffering. Patients should be able to control the decision of when to end their own lives, and they should be able to avoid unwanted distress, both physical and psychological While these two principles might explain why a victim of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or cancer would choose assisted suicide they apply equally well in many cases of purely psychological disease One crucial distinction between chronic mental illness and terminal disease is that death is inevitable in the latter cases. Yet "inevitable" is really not quite right. From today's vantage point, a rapid cure for ALS or certain cancers appears highly unlikely, yet the history of modern medicine is replete with examples of illnesses (type I diabetes, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, choriocarcinoma) that have rapidly gone from universally fatal to highly manageable. A second concern in cases of mental illness is that of the competence of the decision-maker Clearly, patients who experience psychosis or are incapable of making general medical decisions should not be able to take their own lives until they can think rationally The most compelling argument against extending assisted suicide rights to the mentally ill relates to the role of physicians

Advocates for legalization sought to permit the practice under highly limited circumstances when the patient is terminally ill. At the core of the argument are the goals of maximizing autonomy and minimizing suffering. A second concern is that of competence patients who experience psychosis or are incapable of making medical decisions should not be able to take their own lives The most compelling argument against extending assisted suicide rights to the mentally ill relates to the role of physicians

Advocates for the legalization of assisted suicide in the United States, including those who sponsored Oregon's Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and current backers of California's proposed Compassionate Choices Act, have sought to permit the practice only under highly limited circumstances—namely, when the requesting patient is terminally ill.[1] In contrast, the Netherlands allows physician-assisted suicide in nonterminal cases of "lasting and unbearable" suffering, and Belgium authorizes physician-assisted suicide for nonterminal patients when their suffering is "constant" and "cannot be alleviated."[2] Yet no country has laws on the subject as liberal as those of Switzerland, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1918. It remains the only jurisdiction that allows nonresidents to terminate their own lives.[3] It is also the only jurisdiction that does not require that a physician be involved in the process. Now, a recent decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court threatens to undermine yet another longstanding taboo in the debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia. In its ruling on November 3, 2006, the high tribunal in Lausanne laid out guidelines under which, for the first time, assisted suicide will be available to psychiatric patients and others with mental illness.[4] The case was that of an unnamed fifty-three-year-old manic depressive with two prior suicide attempts who sought a prescription for fifteen grams of sodium pentobarbital in order to end his own life.[5] He claimed a right to self-determination under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleged that no physician would prescribe him this lethal dose for fear of legal or professional repercussions.[6] Dignitas, a Zurich-based advocacy group, supported his suit. The Swiss high court responded with a sweeping opinion upholding the right of those suffering from "incurable, permanent, severe psychological disorders" to terminate their own lives.[7] According to the court, a distinction should be made between temporarily impaired individuals who wish to die as "an expression of treatable psychological disturbances" and those individuals with severe, long-term mental illness who have made "rational" and "well-considered" decisions to end their lives to avoid further suffering.[8] Since serious mental disorders could make life seem as unbearable to some patients as serious somatic ailments do to others, the court reasoned, those who repeatedly expressed a wish to end their lives under such circumstances should be permitted to do so. (The court also ruled that the plaintiff in this case would have to obtain a thorough psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he met these standards before he could end his life.) Both supporters and opponents of assisted suicide have been highly critical of extending suicide rights to psychiatric patients.[9] One set of objections is directed against the practice of assisted suicide itself—for a host of reasons ranging from a belief in the inherent sanctity of human life to a fear of sliding down a slippery slope toward involuntary euthanasia; that debate has been extensively addressed elsewhere. Another set of objections are from those who support a basic right to assisted suicide in certain situations, such as those of terminal disease, but do not wish to extend it to cases of severe and incurable mental illness. This resistance may be inevitable, considering the increased emphasis that contemporary psychiatry places on suicide prevention, but the principles favoring legal assisted suicide lead logically to the extension of these rights to some mentally ill patients.[10] At the core of the argument supporting assisted suicide are the twin goals of maximizing individual autonomy and minimizing human suffering. Patients, advocates believe, should be able to control the decision of when to end their own lives, and they should be able to avoid unwanted distress, both physical and psychological. While these two principles might explain why a victim of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or cancer would choose assisted suicide, they apply equally well in many cases of purely psychological disease: a victim of repeated bouts of severe depression, particularly in cases where treatment has consistently proven ineffective, rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering. Obviously, there is a difference in kind between the terminally ill cancer patient and the acutely depressed teenager who transiently desires to end his life after a romantic setback; it seems logical to prevent patients from committing suicide until they have considered all of their options over an extended period of time, and to be certain that they are not acting in haste. But the difference between a patient who desires suicide after enduring the long-term agonies of rheumatoid arthritis or trigeminal neuralgia and the patient who wants to end his life after years of debilitating anxiety or intermittent psychotic episodes is not so clear. One crucial distinction between chronic mental illness and terminal disease is that death is inevitable in the latter cases. Yet "inevitable" is really not quite right. From today's vantage point, a rapid cure for ALS or certain cancers appears highly unlikely, yet the history of modern medicine is replete with examples of illnesses (type I diabetes, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, choriocarcinoma) that have rapidly gone from universally fatal to highly manageable. What we really mean when we speak of inevitability is that we believe the patient should be able to weigh the unlikely possibility of a cure against her other interests. While the window of opportunity for discovering effective treatment may be longer in cases of chronic mental illness, it seems reasonable to afford the patient the same choice in balancing likelihoods against other values. And if the offer is that an effective treatment may eventually be found, but a person will have to suffer for some decades more until that happens, then it might still be rational to prefer suicide. A second concern in cases of mental illness is that of the competence of the decision-maker. For example, a severely depressed patient might substantially underestimate her long-term prognosis. But rather than arguing against assisted suicide, this might indicate even further the depth of the patient's present suffering. Clearly, patients who experience psychosis or are incapable of making general medical decisions should not be able to take their own lives until they can think rationally. Morever, the finality of a life-terminating decision indicates that a higher threshold of competence should be required in suicide cases than in more run-of-the-mill health care choices. But one can be both deeply depressed and capable of making rational decisions. If the values championed by assisted suicide advocates are maximization of autonomy and minimization of suffering—even when they conflict with the extension of life—then it follows that chronically depressed, competent individuals would be ideal candidates for the procedure. At the very least, a patient with a history of mental illness who is currently experiencing a temporary remission of symptoms will certainly be competent enough to make such a choice before the return of the disease. (An additional concern might be the increased suffering endured by families of assisted suicide victims—but why this suffering should trump that of the patient is not clear.) The most compelling argument against extending assisted suicide rights to the mentally ill relates to the role of physicians. The nature of psychiatric therapy differs from that of other medical treatment in the degree of attachment between caregiver and patient. This distinction is recognized in various regulatory codes, and most glaringly in the rules banning romantic relations between psychiatrists and former patients, even many years after care has ceased. Moreover, psychiatrists are trained to prevent suicide—an outcome widely regarded by the profession as a failure. This conflict of interest places the psychiatrist in the unpleasant bind of choosing between a patient's wish and the standard of care in the field. Psychiatrists might even attempt to avoid treating such rational but chronically suicidal patients in an effort to avoid this choice. Any meaningful discussion of the subject of assisted suicide for the mentally ill should include an exploration of alternative mechanisms by which such patients might obtain help in ending their lives, possibly including the use of full-time thanatologists specially trained for the act.

<h4><u>Topic Ground</u><strong> -- all of the controversy comes from the regulations portion of the debate</h4><p>Appel ‘07</p><p></strong>(Jacob M. Appel The Hastings Center Report. 2007;37(3):21-23. “A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill? A Swiss Case Opens a New Debate” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557817, TSW)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Advocates for </mark>the <mark>legalization </mark>of assisted suicide in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, including those who sponsored Oregon's Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and current backers of California's proposed Compassionate Choices Act, <u><strong>have <mark>sought to permit the practice </mark>only <mark>under highly limited circumstances</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong>namely, <mark>when the </mark>requesting <mark>patient is terminally ill.</u></strong></mark>[1] In contrast, the Netherlands allows physician-assisted suicide in nonterminal cases of "lasting and unbearable" suffering, and Belgium authorizes physician-assisted suicide for nonterminal patients when their suffering is "constant" and "cannot be alleviated."[2] Yet no country has laws on the subject as liberal as those of Switzerland, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1918. It remains the only jurisdiction that allows nonresidents to terminate their own lives.[3] It is also the only jurisdiction that does not require that a physician be involved in the process. Now, a recent decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court threatens to undermine yet another longstanding taboo in the debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia. In its ruling on November 3, 2006, the high tribunal in Lausanne laid out guidelines under which, for the first time, assisted suicide will be available to psychiatric patients and others with mental illness.[4] The case was that of an unnamed fifty-three-year-old manic depressive with two prior suicide attempts who sought a prescription for fifteen grams of sodium pentobarbital in order to end his own life.[5] He claimed a right to self-determination under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleged that no physician would prescribe him this lethal dose for fear of legal or professional repercussions.[6] Dignitas, a Zurich-based advocacy group, supported his suit. The Swiss high court responded with a sweeping opinion upholding the right of those suffering from "incurable, permanent, severe psychological disorders" to terminate their own lives.[7] According to the court, a distinction should be made between temporarily impaired individuals who wish to die as "an expression of treatable psychological disturbances" and those individuals with severe, long-term mental illness who have made "rational" and "well-considered" decisions to end their lives to avoid further suffering.[8] Since serious mental disorders could make life seem as unbearable to some patients as serious somatic ailments do to others, the court reasoned, those who repeatedly expressed a wish to end their lives under such circumstances should be permitted to do so. (The court also ruled that the plaintiff in this case would have to obtain a thorough psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he met these standards before he could end his life.) Both supporters and opponents of assisted suicide have been highly critical of extending suicide rights to psychiatric patients.[9] One set of objections is directed against the practice of assisted suicide itself—for a host of reasons ranging from a belief in the inherent sanctity of human life to a fear of sliding down a slippery slope toward involuntary euthanasia; that debate has been extensively addressed elsewhere. Another set of objections are from those who support a basic right to assisted suicide in certain situations, such as those of terminal disease, but do not wish to extend it to cases of severe and incurable mental illness. This resistance may be inevitable, considering the increased emphasis that contemporary psychiatry places on suicide prevention, but the principles favoring legal assisted suicide lead logically to the extension of these rights to some mentally ill patients.[10] <u><strong><mark>At the core of the argument</mark> supporting assisted suicide <mark>are the </mark>twin <mark>goals of maximizing </mark>individual <mark>autonomy and minimizing </mark>human <mark>suffering.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Patients</u></strong>, advocates believe, <u><strong>should be able to control the decision of when to end their own lives, and they should be able to avoid unwanted distress, both physical and psychological</u></strong>. <u><strong>While these two principles might explain why a victim of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or cancer would choose assisted suicide</u></strong>, <u><strong>they apply equally well in many cases of purely psychological disease</u></strong>: a victim of repeated bouts of severe depression, particularly in cases where treatment has consistently proven ineffective, rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering. Obviously, there is a difference in kind between the terminally ill cancer patient and the acutely depressed teenager who transiently desires to end his life after a romantic setback; it seems logical to prevent patients from committing suicide until they have considered all of their options over an extended period of time, and to be certain that they are not acting in haste. But the difference between a patient who desires suicide after enduring the long-term agonies of rheumatoid arthritis or trigeminal neuralgia and the patient who wants to end his life after years of debilitating anxiety or intermittent psychotic episodes is not so clear. <u><strong>One crucial distinction between chronic mental illness and terminal disease is that death is inevitable in the latter cases. Yet "inevitable" is really not quite right. From today's vantage point, a rapid cure for ALS or certain cancers appears highly unlikely, yet the history of modern medicine is replete with examples of illnesses (type I diabetes, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, choriocarcinoma) that have rapidly gone from universally fatal to highly manageable.</u></strong> What we really mean when we speak of inevitability is that we believe the patient should be able to weigh the unlikely possibility of a cure against her other interests. While the window of opportunity for discovering effective treatment may be longer in cases of chronic mental illness, it seems reasonable to afford the patient the same choice in balancing likelihoods against other values. And if the offer is that an effective treatment may eventually be found, but a person will have to suffer for some decades more until that happens, then it might still be rational to prefer suicide. <u><strong><mark>A second concern </mark>in cases of mental illness <mark>is that of </mark>the <mark>competence </mark>of the decision-maker</u></strong>. For example, a severely depressed patient might substantially underestimate her long-term prognosis. But rather than arguing against assisted suicide, this might indicate even further the depth of the patient's present suffering. <u><strong>Clearly, <mark>patients who experience psychosis or are incapable of making </mark>general <mark>medical decisions should not be able to take their own lives </mark>until they can think rationally</u></strong>. Morever, the finality of a life-terminating decision indicates that a higher threshold of competence should be required in suicide cases than in more run-of-the-mill health care choices. But one can be both deeply depressed and capable of making rational decisions. If the values championed by assisted suicide advocates are maximization of autonomy and minimization of suffering—even when they conflict with the extension of life—then it follows that chronically depressed, competent individuals would be ideal candidates for the procedure. At the very least, a patient with a history of mental illness who is currently experiencing a temporary remission of symptoms will certainly be competent enough to make such a choice before the return of the disease. (An additional concern might be the increased suffering endured by families of assisted suicide victims—but why this suffering should trump that of the patient is not clear.) <u><strong><mark>The most compelling argument against extending assisted suicide rights to the mentally ill relates to the role of physicians</u></strong></mark>. The nature of psychiatric therapy differs from that of other medical treatment in the degree of attachment between caregiver and patient. This distinction is recognized in various regulatory codes, and most glaringly in the rules banning romantic relations between psychiatrists and former patients, even many years after care has ceased. Moreover, psychiatrists are trained to prevent suicide—an outcome widely regarded by the profession as a failure. This conflict of interest places the psychiatrist in the unpleasant bind of choosing between a patient's wish and the standard of care in the field. Psychiatrists might even attempt to avoid treating such rational but chronically suicidal patients in an effort to avoid this choice. Any meaningful discussion of the subject of assisted suicide for the mentally ill should include an exploration of alternative mechanisms by which such patients might obtain help in ending their lives, possibly including the use of full-time thanatologists specially trained for the act.</p>

Appel ‘07 (Jacob M. Appel The Hastings Center Report. 2007;37(3):21-23. “A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill? A Swiss Case Opens a New Debate” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557817, TSW)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Appel ‘07 (Jacob M. Appel The Hastings Center Report. 2007;37(3):21-23. “A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill? A Swiss Case Opens a New Debate” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557817, TSW) fulltext: Advocates for the legalization of assisted suicide in the United States, including those who sponsored Oregon's Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and current backers of California's proposed Compassionate Choices Act, have sought to permit the practice only under highly limited circumstances—namely, when the requesting patient is terminally ill.[1] In contrast, the Netherlands allows physician-assisted suicide in nonterminal cases of "lasting and unbearable" suffering, and Belgium authorizes physician-assisted suicide for nonterminal patients when their suffering is "constant" and "cannot be alleviated."[2] Yet no country has laws on the subject as liberal as those of Switzerland, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1918. It remains the only jurisdiction that allows nonresidents to terminate their own lives.[3] It is also the only jurisdiction that does not require that a physician be involved in the process. Now, a recent decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court threatens to undermine yet another longstanding taboo in the debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia. In its ruling on November 3, 2006, the high tribunal in Lausanne laid out guidelines under which, for the first time, assisted suicide will be available to psychiatric patients and others with mental illness.[4] The case was that of an unnamed fifty-three-year-old manic depressive with two prior suicide attempts who sought a prescription for fifteen grams of sodium pentobarbital in order to end his own life.[5] He claimed a right to self-determination under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleged that no physician would prescribe him this lethal dose for fear of legal or professional repercussions.[6] Dignitas, a Zurich-based advocacy group, supported his suit. The Swiss high court responded with a sweeping opinion upholding the right of those suffering from "incurable, permanent, severe psychological disorders" to terminate their own lives.[7] According to the court, a distinction should be made between temporarily impaired individuals who wish to die as "an expression of treatable psychological disturbances" and those individuals with severe, long-term mental illness who have made "rational" and "well-considered" decisions to end their lives to avoid further suffering.[8] Since serious mental disorders could make life seem as unbearable to some patients as serious somatic ailments do to others, the court reasoned, those who repeatedly expressed a wish to end their lives under such circumstances should be permitted to do so. (The court also ruled that the plaintiff in this case would have to obtain a thorough psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he met these standards before he could end his life.) Both supporters and opponents of assisted suicide have been highly critical of extending suicide rights to psychiatric patients.[9] One set of objections is directed against the practice of assisted suicide itself—for a host of reasons ranging from a belief in the inherent sanctity of human life to a fear of sliding down a slippery slope toward involuntary euthanasia; that debate has been extensively addressed elsewhere. Another set of objections are from those who support a basic right to assisted suicide in certain situations, such as those of terminal disease, but do not wish to extend it to cases of severe and incurable mental illness. This resistance may be inevitable, considering the increased emphasis that contemporary psychiatry places on suicide prevention, but the principles favoring legal assisted suicide lead logically to the extension of these rights to some mentally ill patients.[10] At the core of the argument supporting assisted suicide are the twin goals of maximizing individual autonomy and minimizing human suffering. Patients, advocates believe, should be able to control the decision of when to end their own lives, and they should be able to avoid unwanted distress, both physical and psychological. While these two principles might explain why a victim of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or cancer would choose assisted suicide, they apply equally well in many cases of purely psychological disease: a victim of repeated bouts of severe depression, particularly in cases where treatment has consistently proven ineffective, rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering. Obviously, there is a difference in kind between the terminally ill cancer patient and the acutely depressed teenager who transiently desires to end his life after a romantic setback; it seems logical to prevent patients from committing suicide until they have considered all of their options over an extended period of time, and to be certain that they are not acting in haste. But the difference between a patient who desires suicide after enduring the long-term agonies of rheumatoid arthritis or trigeminal neuralgia and the patient who wants to end his life after years of debilitating anxiety or intermittent psychotic episodes is not so clear. One crucial distinction between chronic mental illness and terminal disease is that death is inevitable in the latter cases. Yet "inevitable" is really not quite right. From today's vantage point, a rapid cure for ALS or certain cancers appears highly unlikely, yet the history of modern medicine is replete with examples of illnesses (type I diabetes, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, choriocarcinoma) that have rapidly gone from universally fatal to highly manageable. What we really mean when we speak of inevitability is that we believe the patient should be able to weigh the unlikely possibility of a cure against her other interests. While the window of opportunity for discovering effective treatment may be longer in cases of chronic mental illness, it seems reasonable to afford the patient the same choice in balancing likelihoods against other values. And if the offer is that an effective treatment may eventually be found, but a person will have to suffer for some decades more until that happens, then it might still be rational to prefer suicide. A second concern in cases of mental illness is that of the competence of the decision-maker. For example, a severely depressed patient might substantially underestimate her long-term prognosis. But rather than arguing against assisted suicide, this might indicate even further the depth of the patient's present suffering. Clearly, patients who experience psychosis or are incapable of making general medical decisions should not be able to take their own lives until they can think rationally. Morever, the finality of a life-terminating decision indicates that a higher threshold of competence should be required in suicide cases than in more run-of-the-mill health care choices. But one can be both deeply depressed and capable of making rational decisions. If the values championed by assisted suicide advocates are maximization of autonomy and minimization of suffering—even when they conflict with the extension of life—then it follows that chronically depressed, competent individuals would be ideal candidates for the procedure. At the very least, a patient with a history of mental illness who is currently experiencing a temporary remission of symptoms will certainly be competent enough to make such a choice before the return of the disease. (An additional concern might be the increased suffering endured by families of assisted suicide victims—but why this suffering should trump that of the patient is not clear.) The most compelling argument against extending assisted suicide rights to the mentally ill relates to the role of physicians. The nature of psychiatric therapy differs from that of other medical treatment in the degree of attachment between caregiver and patient. This distinction is recognized in various regulatory codes, and most glaringly in the rules banning romantic relations between psychiatrists and former patients, even many years after care has ceased. Moreover, psychiatrists are trained to prevent suicide—an outcome widely regarded by the profession as a failure. This conflict of interest places the psychiatrist in the unpleasant bind of choosing between a patient's wish and the standard of care in the field. Psychiatrists might even attempt to avoid treating such rational but chronically suicidal patients in an effort to avoid this choice. Any meaningful discussion of the subject of assisted suicide for the mentally ill should include an exploration of alternative mechanisms by which such patients might obtain help in ending their lives, possibly including the use of full-time thanatologists specially trained for the act. [/INST] <h4><u>Topic Ground</u><strong> -- all of the controversy comes from the regulations portion of the debate</h4><p>Appel ‘07</p><p></strong>(Jacob M. Appel The Hastings Center Report. 2007;37(3):21-23. “A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill? A Swiss Case Opens a New Debate” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557817, TSW)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Advocates for </mark>the <mark>legalization </mark>of assisted suicide in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, including those who sponsored Oregon's Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and current backers of California's proposed Compassionate Choices Act, <u><strong>have <mark>sought to permit the practice </mark>only <mark>under highly limited circumstances</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong>namely, <mark>when the </mark>requesting <mark>patient is terminally ill.</u></strong></mark>[1] In contrast, the Netherlands allows physician-assisted suicide in nonterminal cases of "lasting and unbearable" suffering, and Belgium authorizes physician-assisted suicide for nonterminal patients when their suffering is "constant" and "cannot be alleviated."[2] Yet no country has laws on the subject as liberal as those of Switzerland, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1918. It remains the only jurisdiction that allows nonresidents to terminate their own lives.[3] It is also the only jurisdiction that does not require that a physician be involved in the process. Now, a recent decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court threatens to undermine yet another longstanding taboo in the debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia. In its ruling on November 3, 2006, the high tribunal in Lausanne laid out guidelines under which, for the first time, assisted suicide will be available to psychiatric patients and others with mental illness.[4] The case was that of an unnamed fifty-three-year-old manic depressive with two prior suicide attempts who sought a prescription for fifteen grams of sodium pentobarbital in order to end his own life.[5] He claimed a right to self-determination under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleged that no physician would prescribe him this lethal dose for fear of legal or professional repercussions.[6] Dignitas, a Zurich-based advocacy group, supported his suit. The Swiss high court responded with a sweeping opinion upholding the right of those suffering from "incurable, permanent, severe psychological disorders" to terminate their own lives.[7] According to the court, a distinction should be made between temporarily impaired individuals who wish to die as "an expression of treatable psychological disturbances" and those individuals with severe, long-term mental illness who have made "rational" and "well-considered" decisions to end their lives to avoid further suffering.[8] Since serious mental disorders could make life seem as unbearable to some patients as serious somatic ailments do to others, the court reasoned, those who repeatedly expressed a wish to end their lives under such circumstances should be permitted to do so. (The court also ruled that the plaintiff in this case would have to obtain a thorough psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he met these standards before he could end his life.) Both supporters and opponents of assisted suicide have been highly critical of extending suicide rights to psychiatric patients.[9] One set of objections is directed against the practice of assisted suicide itself—for a host of reasons ranging from a belief in the inherent sanctity of human life to a fear of sliding down a slippery slope toward involuntary euthanasia; that debate has been extensively addressed elsewhere. Another set of objections are from those who support a basic right to assisted suicide in certain situations, such as those of terminal disease, but do not wish to extend it to cases of severe and incurable mental illness. This resistance may be inevitable, considering the increased emphasis that contemporary psychiatry places on suicide prevention, but the principles favoring legal assisted suicide lead logically to the extension of these rights to some mentally ill patients.[10] <u><strong><mark>At the core of the argument</mark> supporting assisted suicide <mark>are the </mark>twin <mark>goals of maximizing </mark>individual <mark>autonomy and minimizing </mark>human <mark>suffering.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Patients</u></strong>, advocates believe, <u><strong>should be able to control the decision of when to end their own lives, and they should be able to avoid unwanted distress, both physical and psychological</u></strong>. <u><strong>While these two principles might explain why a victim of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or cancer would choose assisted suicide</u></strong>, <u><strong>they apply equally well in many cases of purely psychological disease</u></strong>: a victim of repeated bouts of severe depression, particularly in cases where treatment has consistently proven ineffective, rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering. Obviously, there is a difference in kind between the terminally ill cancer patient and the acutely depressed teenager who transiently desires to end his life after a romantic setback; it seems logical to prevent patients from committing suicide until they have considered all of their options over an extended period of time, and to be certain that they are not acting in haste. But the difference between a patient who desires suicide after enduring the long-term agonies of rheumatoid arthritis or trigeminal neuralgia and the patient who wants to end his life after years of debilitating anxiety or intermittent psychotic episodes is not so clear. <u><strong>One crucial distinction between chronic mental illness and terminal disease is that death is inevitable in the latter cases. Yet "inevitable" is really not quite right. From today's vantage point, a rapid cure for ALS or certain cancers appears highly unlikely, yet the history of modern medicine is replete with examples of illnesses (type I diabetes, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, choriocarcinoma) that have rapidly gone from universally fatal to highly manageable.</u></strong> What we really mean when we speak of inevitability is that we believe the patient should be able to weigh the unlikely possibility of a cure against her other interests. While the window of opportunity for discovering effective treatment may be longer in cases of chronic mental illness, it seems reasonable to afford the patient the same choice in balancing likelihoods against other values. And if the offer is that an effective treatment may eventually be found, but a person will have to suffer for some decades more until that happens, then it might still be rational to prefer suicide. <u><strong><mark>A second concern </mark>in cases of mental illness <mark>is that of </mark>the <mark>competence </mark>of the decision-maker</u></strong>. For example, a severely depressed patient might substantially underestimate her long-term prognosis. But rather than arguing against assisted suicide, this might indicate even further the depth of the patient's present suffering. <u><strong>Clearly, <mark>patients who experience psychosis or are incapable of making </mark>general <mark>medical decisions should not be able to take their own lives </mark>until they can think rationally</u></strong>. Morever, the finality of a life-terminating decision indicates that a higher threshold of competence should be required in suicide cases than in more run-of-the-mill health care choices. But one can be both deeply depressed and capable of making rational decisions. If the values championed by assisted suicide advocates are maximization of autonomy and minimization of suffering—even when they conflict with the extension of life—then it follows that chronically depressed, competent individuals would be ideal candidates for the procedure. At the very least, a patient with a history of mental illness who is currently experiencing a temporary remission of symptoms will certainly be competent enough to make such a choice before the return of the disease. (An additional concern might be the increased suffering endured by families of assisted suicide victims—but why this suffering should trump that of the patient is not clear.) <u><strong><mark>The most compelling argument against extending assisted suicide rights to the mentally ill relates to the role of physicians</u></strong></mark>. The nature of psychiatric therapy differs from that of other medical treatment in the degree of attachment between caregiver and patient. This distinction is recognized in various regulatory codes, and most glaringly in the rules banning romantic relations between psychiatrists and former patients, even many years after care has ceased. Moreover, psychiatrists are trained to prevent suicide—an outcome widely regarded by the profession as a failure. This conflict of interest places the psychiatrist in the unpleasant bind of choosing between a patient's wish and the standard of care in the field. Psychiatrists might even attempt to avoid treating such rational but chronically suicidal patients in an effort to avoid this choice. Any meaningful discussion of the subject of assisted suicide for the mentally ill should include an exploration of alternative mechanisms by which such patients might obtain help in ending their lives, possibly including the use of full-time thanatologists specially trained for the act.</p> </s>

Plan creates a speculative bubble - causes economic and trade collapse - turns the aff

Internet gambling is an issue of strategic financial stability Putin noted the economic and crime costs of state-sanctioned gambling and recriminalized casinos Kadyrov confirmed that “the gambling business is ... [a threat to] national security.” What do the Russian economists know that is still eluding Washington politicians? At least the subprime crisis had some real property as collateral. with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate more easily than the Bernie Madoff monies. U.S. gambling is an economic cancer ready to metastasize into Internet gambling. the Congressional Gaming Caucus used the 9/11 tragedy to cripple the 2002 Economic Stimulus Bill with $40 billion in tax write-offs for slot machines and associated electronics recurring write-offs for slots are still draining the U.S. Treasury and could easily be transposed into more write-offs for Internet gambling technologies. Gambling lobbyists also dominate the economic policies of 28 states, draining state treasuries experts commonly refer to Internet gambling as “crack cocaine” for addicting new gamblers. Countries cannot gamble their way to prosperity. Internet gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy. Legalizing U.S. online gambling would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial systems and destabilize essential international economic security.

with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate U.S. gambling is an economic cancer ready to metastasize into Internet gambling. recurring write-offs are draining the U.S. Treasury and could easily be transposed into Internet gambling Internet gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy Legalizing U.S. online gambling would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial systems and destabilize essential international economic security.

Internet gambling is an issue of strategic financial stability and Wall Street regulation. It is not just an issue of silly games and electronic poker as argued by supporters of the proposed Reid-Kyl bill to legalize gateway gambling in cyberspace (See “ HYPERLINK "http://www.rollcall.com/news/lipparelli_congress_should_use_this_brief_window_to_legislate_internet-220055-1.html" Lipparelli: Congress Should Use This Brief Window to Legislate Internet Gaming.”) In 1995, congressional hearings led to enactment of the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which concluded in 1999 that maintaining a total ban on Internet gambling was a U.S. imperative. Currently this ban is supported by almost all members of the National Association of Attorneys General. Congress even strengthened the ban by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which passed in the House with an overwhelmingly favorable bipartisan vote. Immediately the Internet gambling stocks on the London Stock Exchange lost billions of dollars as speculators finally recognized that these stocks were predicated on illusory gambling activities. Fortunately for Wall Street, the U.S. ban meant that such vacuous gambling stocks were already prohibited on U.S. stock exchanges. Around the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin sanguinely noted the economic and crime costs of state-sanctioned gambling and recriminalized 2,230 casinos — virtually wiping the economy clean. Associated leaders such as Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov confirmed that “the gambling business is ... [a threat to] national security.” What do the Russian economists know that is still eluding Washington politicians? At least the subprime crisis had some real property as collateral. However, with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate more easily than the Bernie Madoff monies. U.S. gambling is an economic cancer ready to metastasize into Internet gambling. For example, the Congressional Gaming Caucus used the 9/11 tragedy to cripple the 2002 Economic Stimulus Bill with $40 billion in tax write-offs for slot machines and associated electronics (and the caucus had asked for $133 billion in tax write-offs). These recurring write-offs for slots are still draining the U.S. Treasury and could easily be transposed into more write-offs for Internet gambling technologies. Gambling lobbyists also dominate the economic policies of 28 states, draining state treasuries — as exemplified by Illinois, with the nation’s worst state budget crisis. With a total fair market value of $5 billion ($9.5 billion in 2012 dollars), the original 10 Illinois casino licenses, for example, were granted to political insiders for $25,000 each — including one political insider recently convicted in the scandals surrounding former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Within this gambling aura, experts commonly refer to Internet gambling as “crack cocaine” for addicting new gamblers. Internet gambling would place the worst type of computer gambling at every school desk, at every work desk, in every living room and on every cell phone. In an instant, a person could “click the mouse and lose the house.” Again, 60 Minutes highlights these problems in its video “Slot Machines: The Big Gamble.” With justification, gambling lobbyists brag that Internet gambling is the “killer application” — killing both individual and institutional finances. Countries cannot gamble their way to prosperity. Internet gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy. Legalizing U.S. online gambling would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial systems and destabilize essential international economic security.

<h4>Plan creates a speculative bubble - causes economic and trade collapse - turns the aff </h4><p><strong>Kindt 13</strong> <John W., professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is a senior editor and contributing author to the United States International Gaming Report, “Kindt: Internet Gambling Will Cripple World's Economic, Financial Systems,” Jan. 7, 2013, http://www.rollcall.com/news/kindt_internet_gambling_will_cripple<u><strong>_worlds_economic_financial_systems-220516-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion>#SPS</p><p>Internet gambling is an issue of strategic financial stability</u></strong> and Wall Street regulation. It is not just an issue of silly games and electronic poker as argued by supporters of the proposed Reid-Kyl bill to legalize gateway gambling in cyberspace (See “ HYPERLINK "http://www.rollcall.com/news/lipparelli_congress_should_use_this_brief_window_to_legislate_internet-220055-1.html" Lipparelli: Congress Should Use This Brief Window to Legislate Internet Gaming.”) In 1995, congressional hearings led to enactment of the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which concluded in 1999 that maintaining a total ban on Internet gambling was a U.S. imperative. Currently this ban is supported by almost all members of the National Association of Attorneys General. Congress even strengthened the ban by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which passed in the House with an overwhelmingly favorable bipartisan vote. Immediately the Internet gambling stocks on the London Stock Exchange lost billions of dollars as speculators finally recognized that these stocks were predicated on illusory gambling activities. Fortunately for Wall Street, the U.S. ban meant that such vacuous gambling stocks were already prohibited on U.S. stock exchanges. Around the same time, Russian President Vladimir <u><strong>Putin</u></strong> sanguinely <u><strong>noted the economic and crime costs of state-sanctioned gambling and</u></strong> <u><strong>recriminalized</u></strong> 2,230 <u><strong>casinos</u></strong> — virtually wiping the economy clean. Associated leaders such as Chechen President Ramzan <u><strong>Kadyrov confirmed that “the gambling business is ... [a threat to] national security.” What do the Russian economists know that is still eluding Washington politicians?</u></strong> <u><strong>At least the subprime crisis had some real property as collateral.</u></strong> However, <u><strong><mark>with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate </mark>more easily than the Bernie Madoff monies.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>U.S. gambling is an economic cancer ready to metastasize into Internet gambling.</u></strong></mark> For example, <u><strong>the Congressional Gaming Caucus used the 9/11 tragedy to cripple the 2002 Economic Stimulus Bill with $40 billion in tax write-offs for slot machines and associated electronics</u></strong> (and the caucus had asked for $133 billion in tax write-offs). These <u><strong><mark>recurring write-offs </mark>for slots <mark>are </mark>still <mark>draining the U.S. Treasury and could easily be transposed into </mark>more write-offs for <mark>Internet gambling </mark>technologies. Gambling lobbyists also dominate the economic policies of 28 states, draining state treasuries</u></strong> — as exemplified by Illinois, with the nation’s worst state budget crisis. With a total fair market value of $5 billion ($9.5 billion in 2012 dollars), the original 10 Illinois casino licenses, for example, were granted to political insiders for $25,000 each — including one political insider recently convicted in the scandals surrounding former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Within this gambling aura, <u><strong>experts commonly refer to Internet gambling as “crack cocaine” for addicting new gamblers.</u></strong> Internet gambling would place the worst type of computer gambling at every school desk, at every work desk, in every living room and on every cell phone. In an instant, a person could “click the mouse and lose the house.” Again, 60 Minutes highlights these problems in its video “Slot Machines: The Big Gamble.” With justification, gambling lobbyists brag that Internet gambling is the “killer application” — killing both individual and institutional finances. <u><strong>Countries cannot gamble their way to prosperity. <mark>Internet gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy</mark>. <mark>Legalizing U.S. online gambling would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial systems and destabilize essential international economic security.</p></u></strong></mark>

Kindt 13 <John W., professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is a senior editor and contributing author to the United States International Gaming Report, “Kindt: Internet Gambling Will Cripple World's Economic, Financial Systems,” Jan. 7, 2013, http://www.rollcall.com/news/kindt_internet_gambling_will_cripple_worlds_economic_financial_systems-220516-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion>#SPS

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kindt 13 <John W., professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is a senior editor and contributing author to the United States International Gaming Report, “Kindt: Internet Gambling Will Cripple World's Economic, Financial Systems,” Jan. 7, 2013, http://www.rollcall.com/news/kindt_internet_gambling_will_cripple_worlds_economic_financial_systems-220516-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion>#SPS fulltext: Internet gambling is an issue of strategic financial stability and Wall Street regulation. It is not just an issue of silly games and electronic poker as argued by supporters of the proposed Reid-Kyl bill to legalize gateway gambling in cyberspace (See “ HYPERLINK "http://www.rollcall.com/news/lipparelli_congress_should_use_this_brief_window_to_legislate_internet-220055-1.html" Lipparelli: Congress Should Use This Brief Window to Legislate Internet Gaming.”) In 1995, congressional hearings led to enactment of the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which concluded in 1999 that maintaining a total ban on Internet gambling was a U.S. imperative. Currently this ban is supported by almost all members of the National Association of Attorneys General. Congress even strengthened the ban by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which passed in the House with an overwhelmingly favorable bipartisan vote. Immediately the Internet gambling stocks on the London Stock Exchange lost billions of dollars as speculators finally recognized that these stocks were predicated on illusory gambling activities. Fortunately for Wall Street, the U.S. ban meant that such vacuous gambling stocks were already prohibited on U.S. stock exchanges. Around the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin sanguinely noted the economic and crime costs of state-sanctioned gambling and recriminalized 2,230 casinos — virtually wiping the economy clean. Associated leaders such as Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov confirmed that “the gambling business is ... [a threat to] national security.” What do the Russian economists know that is still eluding Washington politicians? At least the subprime crisis had some real property as collateral. However, with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate more easily than the Bernie Madoff monies. U.S. gambling is an economic cancer ready to metastasize into Internet gambling. For example, the Congressional Gaming Caucus used the 9/11 tragedy to cripple the 2002 Economic Stimulus Bill with $40 billion in tax write-offs for slot machines and associated electronics (and the caucus had asked for $133 billion in tax write-offs). These recurring write-offs for slots are still draining the U.S. Treasury and could easily be transposed into more write-offs for Internet gambling technologies. Gambling lobbyists also dominate the economic policies of 28 states, draining state treasuries — as exemplified by Illinois, with the nation’s worst state budget crisis. With a total fair market value of $5 billion ($9.5 billion in 2012 dollars), the original 10 Illinois casino licenses, for example, were granted to political insiders for $25,000 each — including one political insider recently convicted in the scandals surrounding former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Within this gambling aura, experts commonly refer to Internet gambling as “crack cocaine” for addicting new gamblers. Internet gambling would place the worst type of computer gambling at every school desk, at every work desk, in every living room and on every cell phone. In an instant, a person could “click the mouse and lose the house.” Again, 60 Minutes highlights these problems in its video “Slot Machines: The Big Gamble.” With justification, gambling lobbyists brag that Internet gambling is the “killer application” — killing both individual and institutional finances. Countries cannot gamble their way to prosperity. Internet gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy. Legalizing U.S. online gambling would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial systems and destabilize essential international economic security. [/INST] <h4>Plan creates a speculative bubble - causes economic and trade collapse - turns the aff </h4><p><strong>Kindt 13</strong> <John W., professor emeritus at the University of Illinois and is a senior editor and contributing author to the United States International Gaming Report, “Kindt: Internet Gambling Will Cripple World's Economic, Financial Systems,” Jan. 7, 2013, http://www.rollcall.com/news/kindt_internet_gambling_will_cripple<u><strong>_worlds_economic_financial_systems-220516-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion>#SPS</p><p>Internet gambling is an issue of strategic financial stability</u></strong> and Wall Street regulation. It is not just an issue of silly games and electronic poker as argued by supporters of the proposed Reid-Kyl bill to legalize gateway gambling in cyberspace (See “ HYPERLINK "http://www.rollcall.com/news/lipparelli_congress_should_use_this_brief_window_to_legislate_internet-220055-1.html" Lipparelli: Congress Should Use This Brief Window to Legislate Internet Gaming.”) In 1995, congressional hearings led to enactment of the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which concluded in 1999 that maintaining a total ban on Internet gambling was a U.S. imperative. Currently this ban is supported by almost all members of the National Association of Attorneys General. Congress even strengthened the ban by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which passed in the House with an overwhelmingly favorable bipartisan vote. Immediately the Internet gambling stocks on the London Stock Exchange lost billions of dollars as speculators finally recognized that these stocks were predicated on illusory gambling activities. Fortunately for Wall Street, the U.S. ban meant that such vacuous gambling stocks were already prohibited on U.S. stock exchanges. Around the same time, Russian President Vladimir <u><strong>Putin</u></strong> sanguinely <u><strong>noted the economic and crime costs of state-sanctioned gambling and</u></strong> <u><strong>recriminalized</u></strong> 2,230 <u><strong>casinos</u></strong> — virtually wiping the economy clean. Associated leaders such as Chechen President Ramzan <u><strong>Kadyrov confirmed that “the gambling business is ... [a threat to] national security.” What do the Russian economists know that is still eluding Washington politicians?</u></strong> <u><strong>At least the subprime crisis had some real property as collateral.</u></strong> However, <u><strong><mark>with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate </mark>more easily than the Bernie Madoff monies.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>U.S. gambling is an economic cancer ready to metastasize into Internet gambling.</u></strong></mark> For example, <u><strong>the Congressional Gaming Caucus used the 9/11 tragedy to cripple the 2002 Economic Stimulus Bill with $40 billion in tax write-offs for slot machines and associated electronics</u></strong> (and the caucus had asked for $133 billion in tax write-offs). These <u><strong><mark>recurring write-offs </mark>for slots <mark>are </mark>still <mark>draining the U.S. Treasury and could easily be transposed into </mark>more write-offs for <mark>Internet gambling </mark>technologies. Gambling lobbyists also dominate the economic policies of 28 states, draining state treasuries</u></strong> — as exemplified by Illinois, with the nation’s worst state budget crisis. With a total fair market value of $5 billion ($9.5 billion in 2012 dollars), the original 10 Illinois casino licenses, for example, were granted to political insiders for $25,000 each — including one political insider recently convicted in the scandals surrounding former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Within this gambling aura, <u><strong>experts commonly refer to Internet gambling as “crack cocaine” for addicting new gamblers.</u></strong> Internet gambling would place the worst type of computer gambling at every school desk, at every work desk, in every living room and on every cell phone. In an instant, a person could “click the mouse and lose the house.” Again, 60 Minutes highlights these problems in its video “Slot Machines: The Big Gamble.” With justification, gambling lobbyists brag that Internet gambling is the “killer application” — killing both individual and institutional finances. <u><strong>Countries cannot gamble their way to prosperity. <mark>Internet gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy</mark>. <mark>Legalizing U.S. online gambling would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial systems and destabilize essential international economic security.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Beres concludes fear of death is bad

Fear of death not only cripples [destroys] life, it also creates entire fields of premature corpses this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to States we encourage premature extinction

Fear of death not only destroys] life, it also creates fields of premature corpses this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to States we encourage extinction

Fear of death, to summarize, not only cripples [destroys] life, it also creates entire fields of premature corpses. But how can we be reminded of our mortality in a productive way, a way that would point to a new and dignified polity of private selves and, significantly, to fewer untimely deaths? One answer lies in the ethics of Epicurus, an enlightened creed whose prescriptions for disciplined will are essential for international stability. The creed of Epicurus is not the caricatural hedonism so falsely associated with the philosopher, but an independence of desire and a freedom from fear -- of death especially. When, therefore, in the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus maintains that pleasure is "the end," he says explicitly: [W]e do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revellings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit. 67 Sober reasoning, above all, turns our confidence towards death and our caution towards the fear of death. Aware that Socrates called such fears "bogies," Epictetus says, in Book II, Chapter I of the Discourses: What is death? A bogy. Turn it round and see what it is: you see it does not bite. The stuff of the body was bound to be parted from the airy element, either now or hereafter, as it existed apart from it before. Why then are you vexed if they are parted now? For if not parted now, they will be hereafter. Why so? That the revolution of the universe may be accomplished, for it has need of things present, things future, and things past and done with. 68 We are each "a little soul, carrying a corpse," as Marcus Aurelius says, citing Epictetus, but what sort of soul bears such a heavy burden? Is it the soul of the [*23] Platonic tradition described by Descartes as "in its nature entirely independent of the body, and in consequence that it is not liable to die with it"? 69 Such questions of metaphysics lie far beyond the purview of a political scientist -- even one who has been freed from the tyrannies of vacant empiricism -- but they must be raised before we can ask the next question: How can we best liberate citizens from the "bogy" of death in order to rescue an endangered planet from nefarious definitions of self-determination? To answer such questions we need not contrast Descartes with the Epicureans, or with Spinoza, Locke or Hume. All we need to recognize is, as Santayana notes in Volume Three of The Life of Reason, that "everything moves in the midst of death." 70 Raised by this understanding "above mortality," the triumphant soul of constantly perishing bodies acknowledges that everything, everywhere, is in flux, and that even the most enduring satisfactions are not at odds with personal transience. But let us take leave of the metaphysical, and return to the vastly more concrete realm of international affairs. What, exactly, must be done to bring individuals to the liberation offered by Santayana? Very little, if anything! "Immortal reason," Santayana notwithstanding, will not wean our minds from mortal concerns. Perhaps, over time, humankind will envisage the eternal and detach its affections from the world of flux, but that time seems to be far in the future. For now, we must rely on something else, something far less awesome and far more mundane. We must rely on an expanding awareness that States are not the Hegelian "march of God in the world," but the vicars of annihilation and that the triumph of the herd in world politics only hastens the prospect of individual death. V. DEATH, REALPOLITIK AND PLANETIZATION: CREATING AUTHENTIC SELF-DETERMINATION This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to States and to traditional views of self-determination, we encourage not immortality but premature and predictable extinction. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood.

<h4>Beres concludes fear of death is bad </h4><p>Louis Rene <strong>Beres</strong>, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, <strong>’94</strong> (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Fear of death</u></strong></mark>, to summarize, <u><strong><mark>not only </mark>cripples [<mark>destroys]</mark> <mark>life, it also creates</mark> entire <mark>fields of premature corpses</u></strong></mark>. But how can we be reminded of our mortality in a productive way, a way that would point to a new and dignified polity of private selves and, significantly, to fewer untimely deaths? One answer lies in the ethics of Epicurus, an enlightened creed whose prescriptions for disciplined will are essential for international stability. The creed of Epicurus is not the caricatural hedonism so falsely associated with the philosopher, but an independence of desire and a freedom from fear -- of death especially. When, therefore, in the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus maintains that pleasure is "the end," he says explicitly: [W]e do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revellings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit. 67 Sober reasoning, above all, turns our confidence towards death and our caution towards the fear of death. Aware that Socrates called such fears "bogies," Epictetus says, in Book II, Chapter I of the Discourses: What is death? A bogy. Turn it round and see what it is: you see it does not bite. The stuff of the body was bound to be parted from the airy element, either now or hereafter, as it existed apart from it before. Why then are you vexed if they are parted now? For if not parted now, they will be hereafter. Why so? That the revolution of the universe may be accomplished, for it has need of things present, things future, and things past and done with. 68 We are each "a little soul, carrying a corpse," as Marcus Aurelius says, citing Epictetus, but what sort of soul bears such a heavy burden? Is it the soul of the [*23] Platonic tradition described by Descartes as "in its nature entirely independent of the body, and in consequence that it is not liable to die with it"? 69 Such questions of metaphysics lie far beyond the purview of a political scientist -- even one who has been freed from the tyrannies of vacant empiricism -- but they must be raised before we can ask the next question: How can we best liberate citizens from the "bogy" of death in order to rescue an endangered planet from nefarious definitions of self-determination? To answer such questions we need not contrast Descartes with the Epicureans, or with Spinoza, Locke or Hume. All we need to recognize is, as Santayana notes in Volume Three of The Life of Reason, that "everything moves in the midst of death." 70 Raised by this understanding "above mortality," the triumphant soul of constantly perishing bodies acknowledges that everything, everywhere, is in flux, and that even the most enduring satisfactions are not at odds with personal transience. But let us take leave of the metaphysical, and return to the vastly more concrete realm of international affairs. What, exactly, must be done to bring individuals to the liberation offered by Santayana? Very little, if anything! "Immortal reason," Santayana notwithstanding, will not wean our minds from mortal concerns. Perhaps, over time, humankind will envisage the eternal and detach its affections from the world of flux, but that time seems to be far in the future. For now, we must rely on something else, something far less awesome and far more mundane. We must rely on an expanding awareness that States are not the Hegelian "march of God in the world," but the vicars of annihilation and that the triumph of the herd in world politics only hastens the prospect of individual death. V. DEATH, REALPOLITIK AND PLANETIZATION: CREATING AUTHENTIC SELF-DETERMINATION This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, <u><mark>this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of</mark> an incontestable relationship between <mark>death and geopolitics. <strong>By surrendering ourselves to States</u></strong></mark> and to traditional views of self-determination, <u><strong><mark>we</u></strong> <u><strong>encourage</u></strong></mark> not immortality but <u>premature</u> and predictable <u><strong><mark>extinction</u></strong></mark>. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood.</p>

Louis Rene Beres, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, ’94 (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Louis Rene Beres, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, ’94 (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring) fulltext: Fear of death, to summarize, not only cripples [destroys] life, it also creates entire fields of premature corpses. But how can we be reminded of our mortality in a productive way, a way that would point to a new and dignified polity of private selves and, significantly, to fewer untimely deaths? One answer lies in the ethics of Epicurus, an enlightened creed whose prescriptions for disciplined will are essential for international stability. The creed of Epicurus is not the caricatural hedonism so falsely associated with the philosopher, but an independence of desire and a freedom from fear -- of death especially. When, therefore, in the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus maintains that pleasure is "the end," he says explicitly: [W]e do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revellings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit. 67 Sober reasoning, above all, turns our confidence towards death and our caution towards the fear of death. Aware that Socrates called such fears "bogies," Epictetus says, in Book II, Chapter I of the Discourses: What is death? A bogy. Turn it round and see what it is: you see it does not bite. The stuff of the body was bound to be parted from the airy element, either now or hereafter, as it existed apart from it before. Why then are you vexed if they are parted now? For if not parted now, they will be hereafter. Why so? That the revolution of the universe may be accomplished, for it has need of things present, things future, and things past and done with. 68 We are each "a little soul, carrying a corpse," as Marcus Aurelius says, citing Epictetus, but what sort of soul bears such a heavy burden? Is it the soul of the [*23] Platonic tradition described by Descartes as "in its nature entirely independent of the body, and in consequence that it is not liable to die with it"? 69 Such questions of metaphysics lie far beyond the purview of a political scientist -- even one who has been freed from the tyrannies of vacant empiricism -- but they must be raised before we can ask the next question: How can we best liberate citizens from the "bogy" of death in order to rescue an endangered planet from nefarious definitions of self-determination? To answer such questions we need not contrast Descartes with the Epicureans, or with Spinoza, Locke or Hume. All we need to recognize is, as Santayana notes in Volume Three of The Life of Reason, that "everything moves in the midst of death." 70 Raised by this understanding "above mortality," the triumphant soul of constantly perishing bodies acknowledges that everything, everywhere, is in flux, and that even the most enduring satisfactions are not at odds with personal transience. But let us take leave of the metaphysical, and return to the vastly more concrete realm of international affairs. What, exactly, must be done to bring individuals to the liberation offered by Santayana? Very little, if anything! "Immortal reason," Santayana notwithstanding, will not wean our minds from mortal concerns. Perhaps, over time, humankind will envisage the eternal and detach its affections from the world of flux, but that time seems to be far in the future. For now, we must rely on something else, something far less awesome and far more mundane. We must rely on an expanding awareness that States are not the Hegelian "march of God in the world," but the vicars of annihilation and that the triumph of the herd in world politics only hastens the prospect of individual death. V. DEATH, REALPOLITIK AND PLANETIZATION: CREATING AUTHENTIC SELF-DETERMINATION This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to States and to traditional views of self-determination, we encourage not immortality but premature and predictable extinction. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood. [/INST] <h4>Beres concludes fear of death is bad </h4><p>Louis Rene <strong>Beres</strong>, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, <strong>’94</strong> (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Fear of death</u></strong></mark>, to summarize, <u><strong><mark>not only </mark>cripples [<mark>destroys]</mark> <mark>life, it also creates</mark> entire <mark>fields of premature corpses</u></strong></mark>. But how can we be reminded of our mortality in a productive way, a way that would point to a new and dignified polity of private selves and, significantly, to fewer untimely deaths? One answer lies in the ethics of Epicurus, an enlightened creed whose prescriptions for disciplined will are essential for international stability. The creed of Epicurus is not the caricatural hedonism so falsely associated with the philosopher, but an independence of desire and a freedom from fear -- of death especially. When, therefore, in the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus maintains that pleasure is "the end," he says explicitly: [W]e do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revellings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit. 67 Sober reasoning, above all, turns our confidence towards death and our caution towards the fear of death. Aware that Socrates called such fears "bogies," Epictetus says, in Book II, Chapter I of the Discourses: What is death? A bogy. Turn it round and see what it is: you see it does not bite. The stuff of the body was bound to be parted from the airy element, either now or hereafter, as it existed apart from it before. Why then are you vexed if they are parted now? For if not parted now, they will be hereafter. Why so? That the revolution of the universe may be accomplished, for it has need of things present, things future, and things past and done with. 68 We are each "a little soul, carrying a corpse," as Marcus Aurelius says, citing Epictetus, but what sort of soul bears such a heavy burden? Is it the soul of the [*23] Platonic tradition described by Descartes as "in its nature entirely independent of the body, and in consequence that it is not liable to die with it"? 69 Such questions of metaphysics lie far beyond the purview of a political scientist -- even one who has been freed from the tyrannies of vacant empiricism -- but they must be raised before we can ask the next question: How can we best liberate citizens from the "bogy" of death in order to rescue an endangered planet from nefarious definitions of self-determination? To answer such questions we need not contrast Descartes with the Epicureans, or with Spinoza, Locke or Hume. All we need to recognize is, as Santayana notes in Volume Three of The Life of Reason, that "everything moves in the midst of death." 70 Raised by this understanding "above mortality," the triumphant soul of constantly perishing bodies acknowledges that everything, everywhere, is in flux, and that even the most enduring satisfactions are not at odds with personal transience. But let us take leave of the metaphysical, and return to the vastly more concrete realm of international affairs. What, exactly, must be done to bring individuals to the liberation offered by Santayana? Very little, if anything! "Immortal reason," Santayana notwithstanding, will not wean our minds from mortal concerns. Perhaps, over time, humankind will envisage the eternal and detach its affections from the world of flux, but that time seems to be far in the future. For now, we must rely on something else, something far less awesome and far more mundane. We must rely on an expanding awareness that States are not the Hegelian "march of God in the world," but the vicars of annihilation and that the triumph of the herd in world politics only hastens the prospect of individual death. V. DEATH, REALPOLITIK AND PLANETIZATION: CREATING AUTHENTIC SELF-DETERMINATION This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, <u><mark>this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of</mark> an incontestable relationship between <mark>death and geopolitics. <strong>By surrendering ourselves to States</u></strong></mark> and to traditional views of self-determination, <u><strong><mark>we</u></strong> <u><strong>encourage</u></strong></mark> not immortality but <u>premature</u> and predictable <u><strong><mark>extinction</u></strong></mark>. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood.</p> </s>

If they’re right that turnout doesn’t change, they still link

one of the most important variables determining attitudes toward legalization is age—but the age relationship does not follow a straight line. Opinion is divided into three age clusters Views in the oldest age cohort are, very nearly, exactly reversed: among those over 65, 64 percent oppose legalization, while 33 percent favor it. The middle-aged are more closely split, but have moved toward support for legalization. Among those aged 30 to 49, 55 percent support legalization, while 42 percent are opposed. Those 50 to 64 years old split 53-to-44 percent in favor of legalization.

one of the most important variables determining attitudes toward legalization is age Views in the oldest age cohort are, exactly reversed: among those over 65, 64 percent oppose legalization, while 33 percent favor it

As we said at the outset, one of the most important variables determining attitudes toward legalization is age—but the age relationship does not follow a straight line. Opinion is divided into three age clusters. Americans under 30 are the most strongly supportive of legalization: 64 percent in favor, according to the Pew survey, and 34 percent opposed. Views in the oldest age cohort are, very nearly, exactly reversed: among those over 65, 64 percent oppose legalization, while 33 percent favor it. The middle-aged are more closely split, but have moved toward support for legalization. Among those aged 30 to 49, 55 percent support legalization, while 42 percent are opposed. Those 50 to 64 years old split 53-to-44 percent in favor of legalization.

<h4>If they’re right that turnout doesn’t change, they still link</h4><p><strong>Parton, 14 </strong>Heather Digby, contributing writer for Salon and winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism, “The left’s secret midterm weapon: How marijuana ballot initiatives can change turnout,” http://www.salon.com/2014/08/26/the_lefts_secret_midterm_weapon_how_marijuana_ballot_initiatives_can_change_turnout/, ALB</p><p>As we said at the outset, <u><strong><mark>one of the most important variables determining attitudes toward legalization is age</mark>—but the age relationship does not follow a straight line.</u></strong> <u><strong>Opinion is divided into three age clusters</u></strong>. Americans under 30 are the most strongly supportive of legalization: 64 percent in favor, according to the Pew survey, and 34 percent opposed. <u><strong><mark>Views in the oldest age cohort are,</mark> very nearly, <mark>exactly reversed: among those over 65, 64 percent oppose legalization, while 33 percent favor it</mark>. The middle-aged are more closely split, but have moved toward support for legalization. Among those aged 30 to 49, 55 percent support legalization, while 42 percent are opposed. Those 50 to 64 years old split 53-to-44 percent in favor of legalization. </p></u></strong>

Parton, 14 Heather Digby, contributing writer for Salon and winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism, “The left’s secret midterm weapon: How marijuana ballot initiatives can change turnout,” http://www.salon.com/2014/08/26/the_lefts_secret_midterm_weapon_how_marijuana_ballot_initiatives_can_change_turnout/, ALB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Parton, 14 Heather Digby, contributing writer for Salon and winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism, “The left’s secret midterm weapon: How marijuana ballot initiatives can change turnout,” http://www.salon.com/2014/08/26/the_lefts_secret_midterm_weapon_how_marijuana_ballot_initiatives_can_change_turnout/, ALB fulltext: As we said at the outset, one of the most important variables determining attitudes toward legalization is age—but the age relationship does not follow a straight line. Opinion is divided into three age clusters. Americans under 30 are the most strongly supportive of legalization: 64 percent in favor, according to the Pew survey, and 34 percent opposed. Views in the oldest age cohort are, very nearly, exactly reversed: among those over 65, 64 percent oppose legalization, while 33 percent favor it. The middle-aged are more closely split, but have moved toward support for legalization. Among those aged 30 to 49, 55 percent support legalization, while 42 percent are opposed. Those 50 to 64 years old split 53-to-44 percent in favor of legalization. [/INST] <h4>If they’re right that turnout doesn’t change, they still link</h4><p><strong>Parton, 14 </strong>Heather Digby, contributing writer for Salon and winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism, “The left’s secret midterm weapon: How marijuana ballot initiatives can change turnout,” http://www.salon.com/2014/08/26/the_lefts_secret_midterm_weapon_how_marijuana_ballot_initiatives_can_change_turnout/, ALB</p><p>As we said at the outset, <u><strong><mark>one of the most important variables determining attitudes toward legalization is age</mark>—but the age relationship does not follow a straight line.</u></strong> <u><strong>Opinion is divided into three age clusters</u></strong>. Americans under 30 are the most strongly supportive of legalization: 64 percent in favor, according to the Pew survey, and 34 percent opposed. <u><strong><mark>Views in the oldest age cohort are,</mark> very nearly, <mark>exactly reversed: among those over 65, 64 percent oppose legalization, while 33 percent favor it</mark>. The middle-aged are more closely split, but have moved toward support for legalization. Among those aged 30 to 49, 55 percent support legalization, while 42 percent are opposed. Those 50 to 64 years old split 53-to-44 percent in favor of legalization. </p></u></strong> </s>

They are extra topical -- lack of regulations means they defend the entirety of physician assisted suicide, only PAS with regulatory regimes are T -- voting issue because it dejustifies the resolution and allows unpredictable additions to the rez that we aren’t prepared to debate

<h4><u>They are extra topical</u> -- lack of regulations means they defend the entirety of physician assisted suicide, only PAS with regulatory regimes are T -- voting issue because it dejustifies the resolution and allows unpredictable additions to the rez that we aren’t prepared to debate </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4><u>They are extra topical</u> -- lack of regulations means they defend the entirety of physician assisted suicide, only PAS with regulatory regimes are T -- voting issue because it dejustifies the resolution and allows unpredictable additions to the rez that we aren’t prepared to debate </h4> </s>

Pressure on the Iran deal is coming but Obama can win the fight as it stands -- continued use of political capital is key

Republicans could impose new sanctions or drawing up punitive oversight benchmarks for Iranian compliance. That could so sour already tenuous confidence between Washington and Tehran that the deal could crumble Kirk has pledged to mobilize the new Senate behind legislation which would target Iran's oil industry with sanctions and provide a "diplomatic insurance policy" Obama opponents on Capitol Hill reject the idea they are opposed to any deal and say an agreement is possible they complain the White House has not worked with lawmakers to arrive at the best combination of carrots and sticks in the talks new sanctions would upend its diplomacy Obama would veto legislation But Republicans could draw on skeptical Dem s to get a veto proof majority of 67 Senate votes "It is not a question of doing the math The precise change is in the leader's office. That now enables sanctions legislation to move forward." But sources doubt that if it really came to it, there would be enough Democrats to challenge the president's veto the numbers are tightening There will definitely be a fight It will be a hard fight, but it will be a fight that the president can win because the consequences of failure are high new sanctions would "guarantee" a fracturing of the international coalition against Iran Even if opponents fail to overcome a veto Congress could still stir trouble that could embolden hardline opponents of Rouhani who argue Washington can never be trusted the president needs to lift sanctions through Congress in order to make a deal possible The White House has shown it is ready to play political hardball over Iran anyone who opposes the deal is effectively backing a march to war with Iran.

Republicans could impose new sanctions for Iran Kirk pledged to mobilize new legislation Obama opponents reject the idea they are opposed to any deal and say agreement is possible they complain the White House has not worked with lawmakers at the best combination of carrots and sticks sanctions would upend diplomacy Obama would veto legislation But Republicans could draw on Dem s to get a veto proof majority That enables legislation to move forward But sources doubt there would be enough Democrats to challenge the veto the numbers are tightening There will definitely be a fight It will be a hard fight, but it will be a fight that the president can win Even if opponents fail to overcome a veto, Congress could still stir trouble that could embolden hardline opponents the president needs to lift sanctions through Congress to make a deal possible The White House has shown it is ready to play political hardball over Iran anyone who opposes the deal is backing a war with Iran

Republicans could respond to what they see as a "bad" deal by seeking to impose new sanctions or drawing up punitive oversight benchmarks for Iranian compliance. That could so sour already tenuous confidence between Washington and Tehran that the deal could crumble. South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said this weekend that he would back a "good" Iran deal but would "kill" any agreement that he found problematic. On Thursday, Graham will try to bring up a bill in the Senate that would require Obama to submit any agreement to Congress within three days for review. If he refuses, or if lawmakers vote to show their disapproval of the deal, funding for its implementation would be cutoff. And Kirk has already pledged to mobilize the new Senate behind legislation he wrote with Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez which would target Iran's oil industry with sanctions and provide a "diplomatic insurance policy" he says would result in a "strong deal" to reverse Tehran's nuclear program. Some Obama opponents on Capitol Hill reject the idea they are opposed to any deal and say an agreement is possible that would address their concerns. But they complain the White House has not worked with lawmakers to arrive at the best combination of carrots and sticks in the talks. They contend that a bad deal is now more likely because the administration has been too eager to make concessions to Iran. The White House declined to discuss its tactics. But the administration has long warned that new sanctions would upend its diplomacy and it denies accusations that Obama plans to go around Congress. Russia steps up nuclear plans in Iran as talks near deadline Veto Obama would be sure veto any legislation that could threaten the agreement. But Republicans could draw on skeptical Democrats to get closer to a veto proof majority of 67 Senate votes. An official with a prominent pro-Israel policy group in Washington added: "It is not a question of doing the math. The precise change is in the leader's office. That now enables sanctions legislation to move forward." But other sources doubt that if it really came to it, there would be enough Democrats to challenge the president's veto and risk being accused of trashing a deal the rest of the world has embraced. But they admit the numbers are tightening. Jim Walsh, a research associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who is an expert on Iranian nuclear diplomacy, predicted a fierce political battle. "There will definitely be a fight. It will be a hard fight, but I think it will be a fight that the president can win because the consequences of failure are high," he said. The White House has already won one skirmish over Iran. Last year, critics sought to derail an interim nuclear deal, but failed largely because Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid blocked sanctions bills. Republican Senate Obama will not have that safety net in the new Republican Senate which convenes in January and backers of an agreement fear even the threat of tougher action. Dylan Williams, director of Government Affairs for J Street, a left-leaning pro-Israel group said new sanctions would "guarantee" a fracturing of the international coalition against Iran. Even if opponents fail to overcome a veto, Congress could still stir up the kind of trouble that could embolden hardline opponents of President Hassan Rouhani who argue Washington can never be trusted to stick to its commitments. And a deal could not survive as "temporary" forever -- eventually Congress would have to act. "It is clear there is a significant problem," said Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, which advocates dialogue between Washington and Tehran. "At the end of the day, the president needs to lift sanctions through Congress in order to make a deal possible." The politics on Iran are getting trickier for Obama by the day. Republicans are outraged at reports last week that he wrote to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, days before the Ayatollah issued a barrage of tweets slamming the "barbaric, wolflike and infanticidal regime" in Israel. Meanwhile, a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog body last week suggested Tehran may have violated an interim nuclear deal by feeding natural uranium gas into one of its centrifuges. Iran was also accused of blocking existing inspections to its nuclear plants. Political hardball The White House has already shown it is ready to play political hardball over Iran, warning last year that anyone who opposes the deal is effectively backing a march to war with Iran.

<h4>Pressure on the Iran deal is coming but Obama can win the fight as it stands -- continued use of political capital is key </h4><p>Stephen <strong>Collinson 11/12</strong>, Senior Reporter at CNN, "Will Congress kill an Iran nuclear deal?",<u><strong> http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/iran-congress/, [AB]</p><p><mark>Republicans could</mark> </u></strong>respond to what they see as a "bad" deal by seeking to <u><strong><mark>impose new sanctions</mark> or drawing up punitive oversight benchmarks <mark>for Iran</mark>ian compliance.</u></strong> <u><strong>That could so sour already tenuous confidence between Washington and Tehran that the deal could crumble</u></strong>. South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said this weekend that he would back a "good" Iran deal but would "kill" any agreement that he found problematic. On Thursday, Graham will try to bring up a bill in the Senate that would require Obama to submit any agreement to Congress within three days for review. If he refuses, or if lawmakers vote to show their disapproval of the deal, funding for its implementation would be cutoff. And <u><strong><mark>Kirk</mark> has</u></strong> already <u><strong><mark>pledged to mobilize</mark> the <mark>new</mark> Senate behind <mark>legislation</u></strong></mark> he wrote with Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez <u><strong>which would target Iran's oil industry with sanctions and provide a "diplomatic insurance policy"</u></strong> he says would result in a "strong deal" to reverse Tehran's nuclear program. Some <u><strong><mark>Obama opponents</mark> on Capitol Hill <mark>reject the idea they are opposed to any deal</u></strong> <u><strong>and say</mark> an <mark>agreement is possible</mark> </u></strong>that would address their concerns. But <u><strong><mark>they complain the White House has not worked with lawmakers</mark> to arrive <mark>at the best combination of carrots and sticks</mark> in the talks</u></strong>. They contend that a bad deal is now more likely because the administration has been too eager to make concessions to Iran. The White House declined to discuss its tactics. But the administration has long warned that <u><strong>new <mark>sanctions would upend</mark> its <mark>diplomacy</u></strong></mark> and it denies accusations that Obama plans to go around Congress. Russia steps up nuclear plans in Iran as talks near deadline Veto <u><strong><mark>Obama would</u></strong></mark> be sure <u><strong><mark>veto</u></strong></mark> any <u><strong><mark>legislation</u></strong></mark> that could threaten the agreement. <u><strong><mark>But</u></strong> <u><strong>Republicans could draw on</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>skeptical <mark>Dem</u></mark>ocrat<u><mark>s</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>to get</u></strong></mark> closer to <u><strong><mark>a veto proof majority</mark> of 67 Senate votes</u></strong>. An official with a prominent pro-Israel policy group in Washington added: <u><strong>"It is not a question of doing the math</u></strong>. <u><strong>The precise change is in the leader's office. <mark>That</mark> now <mark>enables</mark> sanctions <mark>legislation to move forward</mark>."</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>But</u></strong></mark> other <u><strong><mark>sources doubt</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>that if it really came to it, <mark>there would be enough Democrats to challenge the</mark> president's <mark>veto</u></strong></mark> and risk being accused of trashing a deal the rest of the world has embraced. But they admit <u><strong><mark>the numbers are tightening</u></strong></mark>. Jim Walsh, a research associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who is an expert on Iranian nuclear diplomacy, predicted a fierce political battle. "<u><strong><mark>There will definitely be a fight</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>It will be a hard fight, but</u></strong> </mark>I think <u><strong><mark>it will be a fight that the president can win</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>because</u></strong> <u><strong>the consequences of failure are high</u></strong>," he said. The White House has already won one skirmish over Iran. Last year, critics sought to derail an interim nuclear deal, but failed largely because Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid blocked sanctions bills. Republican Senate Obama will not have that safety net in the new Republican Senate which convenes in January and backers of an agreement fear even the threat of tougher action. Dylan Williams, director of Government Affairs for J Street, a left-leaning pro-Israel group said <u><strong>new sanctions would "guarantee" a fracturing of the international coalition against Iran</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Even if opponents fail to overcome a veto</u></strong>, <u><strong>Congress could still stir</u></strong></mark> up the kind of <u><strong><mark>trouble</u></strong> <u><strong>that could embolden hardline opponents</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>of</u></strong> President Hassan <u><strong>Rouhani who argue Washington</u></strong> <u><strong>can never be trusted</u></strong> to stick to its commitments. And a deal could not survive as "temporary" forever -- eventually Congress would have to act. "It is clear there is a significant problem," said Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, which advocates dialogue between Washington and Tehran. "At the end of the day, <u><strong><mark>the president needs to lift sanctions through Congress</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>in order <mark>to make a deal possible</u></strong></mark>." The politics on Iran are getting trickier for Obama by the day. Republicans are outraged at reports last week that he wrote to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, days before the Ayatollah issued a barrage of tweets slamming the "barbaric, wolflike and infanticidal regime" in Israel. Meanwhile, a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog body last week suggested Tehran may have violated an interim nuclear deal by feeding natural uranium gas into one of its centrifuges. Iran was also accused of blocking existing inspections to its nuclear plants. Political hardball <u><strong><mark>The White House has</u></strong></mark> already <u><strong><mark>shown it is ready to play political hardball over Iran</u></strong></mark>, warning last year that <u><strong><mark>anyone who opposes the deal is</mark> effectively <mark>backing a</mark> march to <mark>war with Iran</mark>.</p></u></strong>

Stephen Collinson 11/12, Senior Reporter at CNN, "Will Congress kill an Iran nuclear deal?", http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/iran-congress/, [AB]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Stephen Collinson 11/12, Senior Reporter at CNN, "Will Congress kill an Iran nuclear deal?", http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/iran-congress/, [AB] fulltext: Republicans could respond to what they see as a "bad" deal by seeking to impose new sanctions or drawing up punitive oversight benchmarks for Iranian compliance. That could so sour already tenuous confidence between Washington and Tehran that the deal could crumble. South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said this weekend that he would back a "good" Iran deal but would "kill" any agreement that he found problematic. On Thursday, Graham will try to bring up a bill in the Senate that would require Obama to submit any agreement to Congress within three days for review. If he refuses, or if lawmakers vote to show their disapproval of the deal, funding for its implementation would be cutoff. And Kirk has already pledged to mobilize the new Senate behind legislation he wrote with Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez which would target Iran's oil industry with sanctions and provide a "diplomatic insurance policy" he says would result in a "strong deal" to reverse Tehran's nuclear program. Some Obama opponents on Capitol Hill reject the idea they are opposed to any deal and say an agreement is possible that would address their concerns. But they complain the White House has not worked with lawmakers to arrive at the best combination of carrots and sticks in the talks. They contend that a bad deal is now more likely because the administration has been too eager to make concessions to Iran. The White House declined to discuss its tactics. But the administration has long warned that new sanctions would upend its diplomacy and it denies accusations that Obama plans to go around Congress. Russia steps up nuclear plans in Iran as talks near deadline Veto Obama would be sure veto any legislation that could threaten the agreement. But Republicans could draw on skeptical Democrats to get closer to a veto proof majority of 67 Senate votes. An official with a prominent pro-Israel policy group in Washington added: "It is not a question of doing the math. The precise change is in the leader's office. That now enables sanctions legislation to move forward." But other sources doubt that if it really came to it, there would be enough Democrats to challenge the president's veto and risk being accused of trashing a deal the rest of the world has embraced. But they admit the numbers are tightening. Jim Walsh, a research associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who is an expert on Iranian nuclear diplomacy, predicted a fierce political battle. "There will definitely be a fight. It will be a hard fight, but I think it will be a fight that the president can win because the consequences of failure are high," he said. The White House has already won one skirmish over Iran. Last year, critics sought to derail an interim nuclear deal, but failed largely because Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid blocked sanctions bills. Republican Senate Obama will not have that safety net in the new Republican Senate which convenes in January and backers of an agreement fear even the threat of tougher action. Dylan Williams, director of Government Affairs for J Street, a left-leaning pro-Israel group said new sanctions would "guarantee" a fracturing of the international coalition against Iran. Even if opponents fail to overcome a veto, Congress could still stir up the kind of trouble that could embolden hardline opponents of President Hassan Rouhani who argue Washington can never be trusted to stick to its commitments. And a deal could not survive as "temporary" forever -- eventually Congress would have to act. "It is clear there is a significant problem," said Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, which advocates dialogue between Washington and Tehran. "At the end of the day, the president needs to lift sanctions through Congress in order to make a deal possible." The politics on Iran are getting trickier for Obama by the day. Republicans are outraged at reports last week that he wrote to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, days before the Ayatollah issued a barrage of tweets slamming the "barbaric, wolflike and infanticidal regime" in Israel. Meanwhile, a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog body last week suggested Tehran may have violated an interim nuclear deal by feeding natural uranium gas into one of its centrifuges. Iran was also accused of blocking existing inspections to its nuclear plants. Political hardball The White House has already shown it is ready to play political hardball over Iran, warning last year that anyone who opposes the deal is effectively backing a march to war with Iran. [/INST] <h4>Pressure on the Iran deal is coming but Obama can win the fight as it stands -- continued use of political capital is key </h4><p>Stephen <strong>Collinson 11/12</strong>, Senior Reporter at CNN, "Will Congress kill an Iran nuclear deal?",<u><strong> http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/iran-congress/, [AB]</p><p><mark>Republicans could</mark> </u></strong>respond to what they see as a "bad" deal by seeking to <u><strong><mark>impose new sanctions</mark> or drawing up punitive oversight benchmarks <mark>for Iran</mark>ian compliance.</u></strong> <u><strong>That could so sour already tenuous confidence between Washington and Tehran that the deal could crumble</u></strong>. South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said this weekend that he would back a "good" Iran deal but would "kill" any agreement that he found problematic. On Thursday, Graham will try to bring up a bill in the Senate that would require Obama to submit any agreement to Congress within three days for review. If he refuses, or if lawmakers vote to show their disapproval of the deal, funding for its implementation would be cutoff. And <u><strong><mark>Kirk</mark> has</u></strong> already <u><strong><mark>pledged to mobilize</mark> the <mark>new</mark> Senate behind <mark>legislation</u></strong></mark> he wrote with Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez <u><strong>which would target Iran's oil industry with sanctions and provide a "diplomatic insurance policy"</u></strong> he says would result in a "strong deal" to reverse Tehran's nuclear program. Some <u><strong><mark>Obama opponents</mark> on Capitol Hill <mark>reject the idea they are opposed to any deal</u></strong> <u><strong>and say</mark> an <mark>agreement is possible</mark> </u></strong>that would address their concerns. But <u><strong><mark>they complain the White House has not worked with lawmakers</mark> to arrive <mark>at the best combination of carrots and sticks</mark> in the talks</u></strong>. They contend that a bad deal is now more likely because the administration has been too eager to make concessions to Iran. The White House declined to discuss its tactics. But the administration has long warned that <u><strong>new <mark>sanctions would upend</mark> its <mark>diplomacy</u></strong></mark> and it denies accusations that Obama plans to go around Congress. Russia steps up nuclear plans in Iran as talks near deadline Veto <u><strong><mark>Obama would</u></strong></mark> be sure <u><strong><mark>veto</u></strong></mark> any <u><strong><mark>legislation</u></strong></mark> that could threaten the agreement. <u><strong><mark>But</u></strong> <u><strong>Republicans could draw on</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>skeptical <mark>Dem</u></mark>ocrat<u><mark>s</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>to get</u></strong></mark> closer to <u><strong><mark>a veto proof majority</mark> of 67 Senate votes</u></strong>. An official with a prominent pro-Israel policy group in Washington added: <u><strong>"It is not a question of doing the math</u></strong>. <u><strong>The precise change is in the leader's office. <mark>That</mark> now <mark>enables</mark> sanctions <mark>legislation to move forward</mark>."</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>But</u></strong></mark> other <u><strong><mark>sources doubt</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>that if it really came to it, <mark>there would be enough Democrats to challenge the</mark> president's <mark>veto</u></strong></mark> and risk being accused of trashing a deal the rest of the world has embraced. But they admit <u><strong><mark>the numbers are tightening</u></strong></mark>. Jim Walsh, a research associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who is an expert on Iranian nuclear diplomacy, predicted a fierce political battle. "<u><strong><mark>There will definitely be a fight</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>It will be a hard fight, but</u></strong> </mark>I think <u><strong><mark>it will be a fight that the president can win</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>because</u></strong> <u><strong>the consequences of failure are high</u></strong>," he said. The White House has already won one skirmish over Iran. Last year, critics sought to derail an interim nuclear deal, but failed largely because Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid blocked sanctions bills. Republican Senate Obama will not have that safety net in the new Republican Senate which convenes in January and backers of an agreement fear even the threat of tougher action. Dylan Williams, director of Government Affairs for J Street, a left-leaning pro-Israel group said <u><strong>new sanctions would "guarantee" a fracturing of the international coalition against Iran</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Even if opponents fail to overcome a veto</u></strong>, <u><strong>Congress could still stir</u></strong></mark> up the kind of <u><strong><mark>trouble</u></strong> <u><strong>that could embolden hardline opponents</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>of</u></strong> President Hassan <u><strong>Rouhani who argue Washington</u></strong> <u><strong>can never be trusted</u></strong> to stick to its commitments. And a deal could not survive as "temporary" forever -- eventually Congress would have to act. "It is clear there is a significant problem," said Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, which advocates dialogue between Washington and Tehran. "At the end of the day, <u><strong><mark>the president needs to lift sanctions through Congress</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>in order <mark>to make a deal possible</u></strong></mark>." The politics on Iran are getting trickier for Obama by the day. Republicans are outraged at reports last week that he wrote to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, days before the Ayatollah issued a barrage of tweets slamming the "barbaric, wolflike and infanticidal regime" in Israel. Meanwhile, a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog body last week suggested Tehran may have violated an interim nuclear deal by feeding natural uranium gas into one of its centrifuges. Iran was also accused of blocking existing inspections to its nuclear plants. Political hardball <u><strong><mark>The White House has</u></strong></mark> already <u><strong><mark>shown it is ready to play political hardball over Iran</u></strong></mark>, warning last year that <u><strong><mark>anyone who opposes the deal is</mark> effectively <mark>backing a</mark> march to <mark>war with Iran</mark>.</p></u></strong> </s>

Legalization leads to greater disclosure of energy usage- its key to solve air pollution and warming

the stars are aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide legalizing marijuana makes fiscal moral, and practical sense, but what about the environment even the fight against climate change could potentially be enhanced by making cannabis and the grow operations that produce it — legal. But there’s a broader environmental issue at stake with legalizing grow operations enabling the improved collection of energy data to help target energy conservation and efficiency programs Energy data are critical to the fight against climate change and other harmful forms of air pollution Policy makers would like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used. If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives and rates to become more efficient Reducing this electricity usage would have major benefits in terms of reducing air pollution greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and saving ratepayers money from the avoided construction of new plants customers would be paying for less electricity t is standing in the way Privacy concerns the energy data are anonymized most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity usage. But indoor marijuana growers sure do they are a major force in opposition to greater disclosure of energy data grow operations could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion legalizing marijuana nationwide, and allowing commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit of defusing some of the major privacy objections to releasing environmentally beneficial energy data But sensible marijuana policies could make a major difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data that can lead to sound and strategic energy efficiency programs.

stars are aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide the fight against climate change could be enhanced by making cannabis legal legalizing grow operations enabl the improved collection of energy data to help target conservation and efficiency programs Energy data are critical to fight climate change and air pollution policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives to become efficient this would have major benefits in reducing pollution g h g emissions and saving ratepayers money customers would pay for less electricity growers are a major force in opposition to greate disclosure legalizing marijuana defus privacy objections to releasing energy data that can lead to strategic efficiency programs.

Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this year, it’s clear that the stars are aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide. Sure, legalizing marijuana makes fiscal, moral, and practical sense, but what about the benefits to the environment? Well, it turns out that even the fight against climate change could potentially be enhanced by making cannabis — and the grow operations that produce it — legal. It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers may recall co-blogger Rick Frank writing about the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow operations on public lands. But there’s another, potentially broader environmental issue at stake with legalizing and mainstreaming grow operations: enabling the improved collection of energy data to help target energy conservation and efficiency programs. Energy data are critical to the fight against climate change and other harmful forms of air pollution. Policy makers, especially here in California (as represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger and senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), would like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used. If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use, among other categories, policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives and rates to become more efficient. Reducing this electricity usage would have major benefits in terms of reducing air pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions) from power plants and saving ratepayers money from the avoided construction of new plants. Not to mention that the customers themselves would benefit from paying for less electricity. So what is standing in the way of giving policy makers access to the vital data? Privacy concerns. Even though the energy data are anonymized and aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers doesn’t like even the remote possibility that the government could use these data to know when you’re home, when you leave for work, or how your business operates. Overall, most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity usage. But indoor marijuana growers sure do, and they are quietly constituting a major force in opposition to greater disclosure of energy data. And they have reason for concern. In documented cases, police have issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012 study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work) indicated that these grow operations could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion (in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s not a stretch to think that legalizing marijuana nationwide, and allowing commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit of defusing some of the major privacy objections to releasing environmentally beneficial energy data. Of course, the privacy objections aren’t just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some residential growers may still want or need to remain anonymous. But sensible marijuana policies could make a major difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data that can lead to sound and strategic energy efficiency programs.

<h4>Legalization leads to greater disclosure of energy usage- its key to solve air pollution and warming</h4><p><strong>Elkind 14</strong> (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th<u><strong><mark> 2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legal-planet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB)</p><p></u></strong></mark>Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this year, it’s clear that <u><strong>the <mark>stars</mark> <mark>are aligning for legalizing marijuana</mark> <mark>nationwide</u></strong></mark>. Sure, <u><strong>legalizing marijuana makes fiscal</u></strong>, <u><strong>moral, and practical sense, but what about the</u></strong> benefits to the <u><strong>environment</u></strong>? Well, it turns out that <u><strong>even <mark>the fight against climate change could </mark>potentially <mark>be</u></strong> <u><strong>enhanced by making cannabis</u></strong></mark> — <u><strong>and the grow operations that produce it — <mark>legal</mark>. </u></strong>It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers may recall co-blogger Rick Frank writing about the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow operations on public lands. <u><strong>But there’s</u></strong> <u><strong>a</u></strong>nother, potentially <u><strong>broader environmental issue at stake with <mark>legalizing</u></strong> </mark>and mainstreaming <u><strong><mark>grow operations</u></strong></mark>: <u><strong><mark>enabl</mark>ing <mark>the improved collection of energy data to help target </mark>energy <mark>conservation and efficiency programs</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Energy data are critical to </mark>the <mark>fight </mark>against <mark>climate change and </mark>other harmful forms of <mark>air pollution</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Policy makers</u></strong>, especially here in California (as represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger and senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), <u><strong>would like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used. If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use</u></strong>, among other categories, <u><strong><mark>policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives </mark>and rates <mark>to become </mark>more <mark>efficient</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Reducing <mark>this </mark>electricity usage <mark>would have major benefits in </mark>terms of <mark>reducing </mark>air <mark>pollution</u></strong> </mark>(including <u><strong><mark>g</mark>reen<mark>h</mark>ouse <mark>g</mark>as <mark>emissions</u></strong></mark>) <u><strong>from power plants <mark>and saving ratepayers money </mark>from the avoided construction of new plants</u></strong>. Not to mention that the <u><strong><mark>customers</u></strong> </mark>themselves <u><strong><mark>would</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>be</u></strong>nefit from <u><strong><mark>pay</mark>ing <mark>for less electricity</u></strong></mark>. So wha<u><strong>t is standing in the way</u></strong> of giving policy makers access to the vital data? <u><strong>Privacy concerns</u></strong>. Even though <u><strong>the energy data are anonymized</u></strong> and aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers doesn’t like even the remote possibility that the government could use these data to know when you’re home, when you leave for work, or how your business operates. Overall, <u><strong>most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity usage. But indoor marijuana <mark>growers </mark>sure do</u></strong>, and <u><strong>they <mark>are</u></strong> </mark>quietly constituting <u><strong><mark>a major force in opposition to greate</mark>r <mark>disclosure </mark>of energy data</u></strong>. And they have reason for concern. In documented cases, police have issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012 study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work) indicated that these <u><strong>grow operations could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion</u></strong> (in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s not a stretch to think that <u><strong><mark>legalizing marijuana </mark>nationwide, and allowing commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit of <mark>defus</mark>ing some of the major <mark>privacy objections to releasing</mark> environmentally beneficial <mark>energy data</u></strong></mark>. Of course, the privacy objections aren’t just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some residential growers may still want or need to remain anonymous. <u><strong>But sensible marijuana policies could make a major difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data <mark>that can lead to </mark>sound and <mark>strategic </mark>energy <mark>efficiency programs.</p></u></strong></mark>

Elkind 14 (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th 2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legal-planet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Elkind 14 (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th 2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legal-planet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB) fulltext: Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this year, it’s clear that the stars are aligning for legalizing marijuana nationwide. Sure, legalizing marijuana makes fiscal, moral, and practical sense, but what about the benefits to the environment? Well, it turns out that even the fight against climate change could potentially be enhanced by making cannabis — and the grow operations that produce it — legal. It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers may recall co-blogger Rick Frank writing about the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow operations on public lands. But there’s another, potentially broader environmental issue at stake with legalizing and mainstreaming grow operations: enabling the improved collection of energy data to help target energy conservation and efficiency programs. Energy data are critical to the fight against climate change and other harmful forms of air pollution. Policy makers, especially here in California (as represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger and senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), would like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used. If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use, among other categories, policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives and rates to become more efficient. Reducing this electricity usage would have major benefits in terms of reducing air pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions) from power plants and saving ratepayers money from the avoided construction of new plants. Not to mention that the customers themselves would benefit from paying for less electricity. So what is standing in the way of giving policy makers access to the vital data? Privacy concerns. Even though the energy data are anonymized and aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers doesn’t like even the remote possibility that the government could use these data to know when you’re home, when you leave for work, or how your business operates. Overall, most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity usage. But indoor marijuana growers sure do, and they are quietly constituting a major force in opposition to greater disclosure of energy data. And they have reason for concern. In documented cases, police have issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012 study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work) indicated that these grow operations could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion (in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s not a stretch to think that legalizing marijuana nationwide, and allowing commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit of defusing some of the major privacy objections to releasing environmentally beneficial energy data. Of course, the privacy objections aren’t just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some residential growers may still want or need to remain anonymous. But sensible marijuana policies could make a major difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data that can lead to sound and strategic energy efficiency programs. [/INST] <h4>Legalization leads to greater disclosure of energy usage- its key to solve air pollution and warming</h4><p><strong>Elkind 14</strong> (Ethan, Climate Policy Associate with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law/taught at UCLA Law School’s Frank Wells Environmental Law Clinic, February 10th<u><strong><mark> 2014, “How Legalizing Marijuana Could Help Fight Climate Change”, http://legal-planet.org/2014/02/10/how-legalizing-marijuana-could-help-fight-climate-change/, AB)</p><p></u></strong></mark>Now that the two states that just legalized marijuana sent their football teams to the Superbowl this year, it’s clear that <u><strong>the <mark>stars</mark> <mark>are aligning for legalizing marijuana</mark> <mark>nationwide</u></strong></mark>. Sure, <u><strong>legalizing marijuana makes fiscal</u></strong>, <u><strong>moral, and practical sense, but what about the</u></strong> benefits to the <u><strong>environment</u></strong>? Well, it turns out that <u><strong>even <mark>the fight against climate change could </mark>potentially <mark>be</u></strong> <u><strong>enhanced by making cannabis</u></strong></mark> — <u><strong>and the grow operations that produce it — <mark>legal</mark>. </u></strong>It starts with the grow sites. Regular Legal Planet readers may recall co-blogger Rick Frank writing about the local hazards and pollution caused by illegal grow operations on public lands. <u><strong>But there’s</u></strong> <u><strong>a</u></strong>nother, potentially <u><strong>broader environmental issue at stake with <mark>legalizing</u></strong> </mark>and mainstreaming <u><strong><mark>grow operations</u></strong></mark>: <u><strong><mark>enabl</mark>ing <mark>the improved collection of energy data to help target </mark>energy <mark>conservation and efficiency programs</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Energy data are critical to </mark>the <mark>fight </mark>against <mark>climate change and </mark>other harmful forms of <mark>air pollution</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Policy makers</u></strong>, especially here in California (as represented by Ken Alex, Legal Planet guest blogger and senior advisor to Governor Jerry Brown), <u><strong>would like to get a better sense of where the most energy is being used. If they could access energy data by neighborhoods, industry, and time of use</u></strong>, among other categories, <u><strong><mark>policy makers could target the most inefficient customers with incentives </mark>and rates <mark>to become </mark>more <mark>efficient</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Reducing <mark>this </mark>electricity usage <mark>would have major benefits in </mark>terms of <mark>reducing </mark>air <mark>pollution</u></strong> </mark>(including <u><strong><mark>g</mark>reen<mark>h</mark>ouse <mark>g</mark>as <mark>emissions</u></strong></mark>) <u><strong>from power plants <mark>and saving ratepayers money </mark>from the avoided construction of new plants</u></strong>. Not to mention that the <u><strong><mark>customers</u></strong> </mark>themselves <u><strong><mark>would</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>be</u></strong>nefit from <u><strong><mark>pay</mark>ing <mark>for less electricity</u></strong></mark>. So wha<u><strong>t is standing in the way</u></strong> of giving policy makers access to the vital data? <u><strong>Privacy concerns</u></strong>. Even though <u><strong>the energy data are anonymized</u></strong> and aggregated, a vocal segment of ratepayers doesn’t like even the remote possibility that the government could use these data to know when you’re home, when you leave for work, or how your business operates. Overall, <u><strong>most people have little to hide when it comes to electricity usage. But indoor marijuana <mark>growers </mark>sure do</u></strong>, and <u><strong>they <mark>are</u></strong> </mark>quietly constituting <u><strong><mark>a major force in opposition to greate</mark>r <mark>disclosure </mark>of energy data</u></strong>. And they have reason for concern. In documented cases, police have issued subpoenas for electricity data to bust pot growers. This is not a small industry either: a 2012 study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (the Lab was not involved in his work) indicated that these <u><strong>grow operations could be responsible for up to 2% of nationwide household electricity usage, at a total cost of $6 billion</u></strong> (in fact, the growers themselves may be our first target for implementing improved efficiency measures, given their potentially wasteful, unregulated ways). So it’s not a stretch to think that <u><strong><mark>legalizing marijuana </mark>nationwide, and allowing commercial grow operations to proceed in a regulated fashion, could have the additional benefit of <mark>defus</mark>ing some of the major <mark>privacy objections to releasing</mark> environmentally beneficial <mark>energy data</u></strong></mark>. Of course, the privacy objections aren’t just limited to marijuana growers, and even with legalization, some residential growers may still want or need to remain anonymous. <u><strong>But sensible marijuana policies could make a major difference in alleviating privacy concerns, unlocking the data <mark>that can lead to </mark>sound and <mark>strategic </mark>energy <mark>efficiency programs.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

And state control death is bad

For states confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself When a state chooses to block off such an awareness, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, it loses, possibly forever, the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety."

For states confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself When a state chooses to block off such an awareness it loses forever the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety."

What is more, because death is the one fact of life which is not relative but absolute, Israel's blithe unawareness of its national mortality deprives its still living days of essential absoluteness and growth. For states, just as for individuals, confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself. In this respect, a cultivated awareness of nonbeing is central to each state's pattern of potentialities as well as to its very existence. When a state chooses to block off such an awareness, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, it loses, possibly forever, the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety."

<h4>And state control death is bad </h4><p>Louis Rene <strong>Beres</strong>, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, <strong>’94</strong> (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring)</p><p>What is more, because death is the one fact of life which is not relative but absolute, Israel's blithe unawareness of its national mortality deprives its still living days of essential absoluteness and growth. <u><strong><mark>For states</u></strong></mark>, just as for individuals, <u><strong><mark>confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself</u></strong></mark>. In this respect, a cultivated awareness of nonbeing is central to each state's pattern of potentialities as well as to its very existence. <u><strong><mark>When a state chooses to block off such an awareness</mark>, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, <mark>it loses</mark>, possibly <mark>forever</mark>, <mark>the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety."</u></strong></mark> </p>

Louis Rene Beres, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, ’94 (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Louis Rene Beres, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, ’94 (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring) fulltext: What is more, because death is the one fact of life which is not relative but absolute, Israel's blithe unawareness of its national mortality deprives its still living days of essential absoluteness and growth. For states, just as for individuals, confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself. In this respect, a cultivated awareness of nonbeing is central to each state's pattern of potentialities as well as to its very existence. When a state chooses to block off such an awareness, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, it loses, possibly forever, the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety." [/INST] <h4>And state control death is bad </h4><p>Louis Rene <strong>Beres</strong>, Prof Int’l Law – Purdue, <strong>’94</strong> (Arizona Journal of Int’l and Comparative Law, Spring)</p><p>What is more, because death is the one fact of life which is not relative but absolute, Israel's blithe unawareness of its national mortality deprives its still living days of essential absoluteness and growth. <u><strong><mark>For states</u></strong></mark>, just as for individuals, <u><strong><mark>confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself</u></strong></mark>. In this respect, a cultivated awareness of nonbeing is central to each state's pattern of potentialities as well as to its very existence. <u><strong><mark>When a state chooses to block off such an awareness</mark>, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, <mark>it loses</mark>, possibly <mark>forever</mark>, <mark>the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety."</u></strong></mark> </p> </s>

CP solves

such treatment is now possible Having experienced the painful death of a family member or friend, many assume it is not When a knowledgeable physician addresses the desperation and suffering that underlie the request for assisted suicide and assures patients that he or she will continue to do so until the end of their lives, most patients change their minds, no longer want to hasten death, and are grateful for the time remaining to them only a minority receive such care In the 1997 ruling upholding the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting assisted suicide the Supreme Court declared assisted suicide was not necessary because modern medical methods of obtaining relief from suffering were available to the plaintiffs. Justice O’Connor summarized the opinion of the majority of the justices in saying that for terminally ill patients in great pain there were “no legal barriers to obtaining medication from qualified physicians to alleviate that suffering

such treatment is now possible many assume it is not When a knowledgeable physician addresses suffering that underlie the request for assisted suicide most patients change their minds no longer want to hasten death, and are grateful for time remaining only a minority receive such care In the 1997 ruling the Supreme Court declared assisted suicide was not necessary because modern medical methods were available O’Connor summarized the opinion of the majority in saying there were “no legal barriers to obtaining medication from qualified physicians to alleviate that suffering

What most people do not know is that such treatment is now possible. Having experienced the painful death of a family member or friend, many assume it is not. When a knowledgeable physician addresses the desperation and suffering that underlie the request for assisted suicide and assures patients that he or she will continue to do so until the end of their lives, most patients change their minds, no longer want to hasten death, and are grateful for the time remaining to them. But at this time only a minority receive such care. ¶ In the 1997 ruling upholding the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting assisted suicide, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that assisted suicide was not necessary for the plaintiffs in the New York and Washington State cases it was considering because modern medical methods of obtaining relief from suffering were available to the plaintiffs. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor summarized the opinion of the majority of the justices in saying that for terminally ill patients in great pain there were “no legal barriers to obtaining medication from qualified physicians to alleviate that suffering, even to the point of causing unconsciousness and hastening death.”1

<h4>CP solves </h4><p>Kathleen <strong>Foley and</strong> Herbert <strong>Hendin 2</strong>, Kathleen is a Professor in the Department of Neurology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University Attending Neurologist, Pain and Palliative Care Service, also Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Director; Herbert is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, New York Medical College and the Medical Director, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care”, 2002, Johns Hopkins University Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p>What most people do not know is that <u><strong><mark>such treatment is now possible</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Having experienced the painful death of a family member or friend, <mark>many assume it is not</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>When a knowledgeable physician addresses</mark> the desperation and <mark>suffering that underlie the request for assisted suicide</mark> and assures patients that he or she will continue to do so until the end of their lives, <mark>most patients change their minds</mark>, <mark>no longer want to hasten death, and are grateful for</mark> the <mark>time remaining</mark> to them</u></strong>. But at this time <u><strong><mark>only a minority receive such care</u></strong></mark>. ¶ <u><strong><mark>In the 1997 ruling</mark> upholding the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting assisted suicide</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>the</u></strong></mark> U.S. <u><strong><mark>Supreme Court declared</mark> </u></strong>that <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide was not necessary</u></strong></mark> for the plaintiffs in the New York and Washington State cases it was considering <u><strong><mark>because modern medical methods</mark> of obtaining relief from suffering <mark>were available</mark> to the plaintiffs. Justice </u></strong>Sandra Day <u><strong><mark>O’Connor summarized the opinion of the majority</mark> of the justices <mark>in saying</mark> that for terminally ill patients in great pain <mark>there were “no legal barriers to obtaining medication from qualified physicians to alleviate that suffering</u></strong></mark>, even to the point of causing unconsciousness and hastening death.”1</p>

Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin 2, Kathleen is a Professor in the Department of Neurology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University Attending Neurologist, Pain and Palliative Care Service, also Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Director; Herbert is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, New York Medical College and the Medical Director, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care”, 2002, Johns Hopkins University Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin 2, Kathleen is a Professor in the Department of Neurology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University Attending Neurologist, Pain and Palliative Care Service, also Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Director; Herbert is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, New York Medical College and the Medical Director, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care”, 2002, Johns Hopkins University Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1 fulltext: What most people do not know is that such treatment is now possible. Having experienced the painful death of a family member or friend, many assume it is not. When a knowledgeable physician addresses the desperation and suffering that underlie the request for assisted suicide and assures patients that he or she will continue to do so until the end of their lives, most patients change their minds, no longer want to hasten death, and are grateful for the time remaining to them. But at this time only a minority receive such care. ¶ In the 1997 ruling upholding the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting assisted suicide, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that assisted suicide was not necessary for the plaintiffs in the New York and Washington State cases it was considering because modern medical methods of obtaining relief from suffering were available to the plaintiffs. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor summarized the opinion of the majority of the justices in saying that for terminally ill patients in great pain there were “no legal barriers to obtaining medication from qualified physicians to alleviate that suffering, even to the point of causing unconsciousness and hastening death.”1 [/INST] <h4>CP solves </h4><p>Kathleen <strong>Foley and</strong> Herbert <strong>Hendin 2</strong>, Kathleen is a Professor in the Department of Neurology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University Attending Neurologist, Pain and Palliative Care Service, also Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Director; Herbert is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, New York Medical College and the Medical Director, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care”, 2002, Johns Hopkins University Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p>What most people do not know is that <u><strong><mark>such treatment is now possible</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Having experienced the painful death of a family member or friend, <mark>many assume it is not</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>When a knowledgeable physician addresses</mark> the desperation and <mark>suffering that underlie the request for assisted suicide</mark> and assures patients that he or she will continue to do so until the end of their lives, <mark>most patients change their minds</mark>, <mark>no longer want to hasten death, and are grateful for</mark> the <mark>time remaining</mark> to them</u></strong>. But at this time <u><strong><mark>only a minority receive such care</u></strong></mark>. ¶ <u><strong><mark>In the 1997 ruling</mark> upholding the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting assisted suicide</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>the</u></strong></mark> U.S. <u><strong><mark>Supreme Court declared</mark> </u></strong>that <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide was not necessary</u></strong></mark> for the plaintiffs in the New York and Washington State cases it was considering <u><strong><mark>because modern medical methods</mark> of obtaining relief from suffering <mark>were available</mark> to the plaintiffs. Justice </u></strong>Sandra Day <u><strong><mark>O’Connor summarized the opinion of the majority</mark> of the justices <mark>in saying</mark> that for terminally ill patients in great pain <mark>there were “no legal barriers to obtaining medication from qualified physicians to alleviate that suffering</u></strong></mark>, even to the point of causing unconsciousness and hastening death.”1</p> </s>

Plan costs PC

The fight over online gaming is about to heat up again in Congress. In recent years, Congress has been unable to sustain momentum for any piece of gambling legislation, pro or con Congress as well has debated how or whether to install federal regulation of online gaming, but has failed to reach any consensus

The fight over online gaming is about to heat up in Congress , Congress has been unable to sustain momentum for any piece of gambling legislation Congress as well has debated how or whether to install federal regulation of online gaming, but has failed to reach any consensus

WASHINGTON — The fight over online gaming is about to heat up again in Congress. U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is preparing to introduce a bill that would restore a pre-2011 federal ban on gambling over the Internet, a spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday. It would join a similar bill to be sponsored in the Senate by GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The bills might be introduced when Congress returns to session next week, aides said. A draft that has been circulating on Capitol Hill declares the legislation would “restore longstanding United States policy that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet gambling.” Its goals are consistent with the highly publicized campaign by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson to outlaw Web gaming. In recent years, Congress has been unable to sustain momentum for any piece of gambling legislation, pro or con. But lobbyists say a wild card this time is Adelson, the megadonor to Republicans and their causes who believes online gambling is unsafe and bad for society and who has vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to stop its spread. “All bets are off. It’s not like the guy has never shot for the sun, moon and stars,” said a gaming lobbyist who asked not to be identified to discuss activity behind the scenes as industry and anti-online gaming interests arm to resume battle. The bill draft appears to exempt pari-mutuel betting on horse races. But it might pose a problem for lotteries, according to people who have examined it. The 1961 Interstate Wire Act prohibited the operation of most betting businesses. But the law was reinterpreted by the Department of Justice in December 2011 to outlaw only sports gambling, an opinion that opened the way for states to legalize online poker and other casino games. Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have authorized forms of online gambling, and the practice is being considered in a dozen other states. Congress as well has debated how or whether to install federal regulation of online gaming, but has failed to reach any consensus. Major casino companies such as Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International want to legalize it and prefer a nationwide marketplace, viewing online gaming as a strategy to expand their brands, attract younger players and create new streams of revenue.

<h4><strong>Plan costs PC</h4><p>Tetreault 14</p><p></strong>Steve Tetreault. Review Journal: Fight over online gaming about to heat up again in Congress http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/fight-over-online-gaming-about-heat-again-congress 03/19/14 [aw]</p><p>WASHINGTON — <u><strong><mark>The fight over online gaming is about to heat up</mark> again <mark>in Congress</mark>.</u></strong> U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is preparing to introduce a bill that would restore a pre-2011 federal ban on gambling over the Internet, a spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday. It would join a similar bill to be sponsored in the Senate by GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The bills might be introduced when Congress returns to session next week, aides said. A draft that has been circulating on Capitol Hill declares the legislation would “restore longstanding United States policy that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet gambling.” Its goals are consistent with the highly publicized campaign by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson to outlaw Web gaming. <u><strong>In recent years<mark>, Congress has been unable to sustain momentum for any piece of gambling legislation</mark>, pro or con</u></strong>. But lobbyists say a wild card this time is Adelson, the megadonor to Republicans and their causes who believes online gambling is unsafe and bad for society and who has vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to stop its spread. “All bets are off. It’s not like the guy has never shot for the sun, moon and stars,” said a gaming lobbyist who asked not to be identified to discuss activity behind the scenes as industry and anti-online gaming interests arm to resume battle. The bill draft appears to exempt pari-mutuel betting on horse races. But it might pose a problem for lotteries, according to people who have examined it. The 1961 Interstate Wire Act prohibited the operation of most betting businesses. But the law was reinterpreted by the Department of Justice in December 2011 to outlaw only sports gambling, an opinion that opened the way for states to legalize online poker and other casino games. Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have authorized forms of online gambling, and the practice is being considered in a dozen other states. <u><strong><mark>Congress as well has debated how or whether to install federal regulation of online gaming, but has failed to reach any consensus</u></strong></mark>. Major casino companies such as Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International want to legalize it and prefer a nationwide marketplace, viewing online gaming as a strategy to expand their brands, attract younger players and create new streams of revenue. </p>

Tetreault 14 Steve Tetreault. Review Journal: Fight over online gaming about to heat up again in Congress http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/fight-over-online-gaming-about-heat-again-congress 03/19/14 [aw]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tetreault 14 Steve Tetreault. Review Journal: Fight over online gaming about to heat up again in Congress http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/fight-over-online-gaming-about-heat-again-congress 03/19/14 [aw] fulltext: WASHINGTON — The fight over online gaming is about to heat up again in Congress. U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is preparing to introduce a bill that would restore a pre-2011 federal ban on gambling over the Internet, a spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday. It would join a similar bill to be sponsored in the Senate by GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The bills might be introduced when Congress returns to session next week, aides said. A draft that has been circulating on Capitol Hill declares the legislation would “restore longstanding United States policy that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet gambling.” Its goals are consistent with the highly publicized campaign by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson to outlaw Web gaming. In recent years, Congress has been unable to sustain momentum for any piece of gambling legislation, pro or con. But lobbyists say a wild card this time is Adelson, the megadonor to Republicans and their causes who believes online gambling is unsafe and bad for society and who has vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to stop its spread. “All bets are off. It’s not like the guy has never shot for the sun, moon and stars,” said a gaming lobbyist who asked not to be identified to discuss activity behind the scenes as industry and anti-online gaming interests arm to resume battle. The bill draft appears to exempt pari-mutuel betting on horse races. But it might pose a problem for lotteries, according to people who have examined it. The 1961 Interstate Wire Act prohibited the operation of most betting businesses. But the law was reinterpreted by the Department of Justice in December 2011 to outlaw only sports gambling, an opinion that opened the way for states to legalize online poker and other casino games. Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have authorized forms of online gambling, and the practice is being considered in a dozen other states. Congress as well has debated how or whether to install federal regulation of online gaming, but has failed to reach any consensus. Major casino companies such as Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International want to legalize it and prefer a nationwide marketplace, viewing online gaming as a strategy to expand their brands, attract younger players and create new streams of revenue. [/INST] <h4><strong>Plan costs PC</h4><p>Tetreault 14</p><p></strong>Steve Tetreault. Review Journal: Fight over online gaming about to heat up again in Congress http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/fight-over-online-gaming-about-heat-again-congress 03/19/14 [aw]</p><p>WASHINGTON — <u><strong><mark>The fight over online gaming is about to heat up</mark> again <mark>in Congress</mark>.</u></strong> U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is preparing to introduce a bill that would restore a pre-2011 federal ban on gambling over the Internet, a spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday. It would join a similar bill to be sponsored in the Senate by GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The bills might be introduced when Congress returns to session next week, aides said. A draft that has been circulating on Capitol Hill declares the legislation would “restore longstanding United States policy that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet gambling.” Its goals are consistent with the highly publicized campaign by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson to outlaw Web gaming. <u><strong>In recent years<mark>, Congress has been unable to sustain momentum for any piece of gambling legislation</mark>, pro or con</u></strong>. But lobbyists say a wild card this time is Adelson, the megadonor to Republicans and their causes who believes online gambling is unsafe and bad for society and who has vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to stop its spread. “All bets are off. It’s not like the guy has never shot for the sun, moon and stars,” said a gaming lobbyist who asked not to be identified to discuss activity behind the scenes as industry and anti-online gaming interests arm to resume battle. The bill draft appears to exempt pari-mutuel betting on horse races. But it might pose a problem for lotteries, according to people who have examined it. The 1961 Interstate Wire Act prohibited the operation of most betting businesses. But the law was reinterpreted by the Department of Justice in December 2011 to outlaw only sports gambling, an opinion that opened the way for states to legalize online poker and other casino games. Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have authorized forms of online gambling, and the practice is being considered in a dozen other states. <u><strong><mark>Congress as well has debated how or whether to install federal regulation of online gaming, but has failed to reach any consensus</u></strong></mark>. Major casino companies such as Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International want to legalize it and prefer a nationwide marketplace, viewing online gaming as a strategy to expand their brands, attract younger players and create new streams of revenue. </p> </s>

Energy disclosure is the biggest and best internal link to stopping runaway warming

An essential first step in any effective climate change policy is to require major contributors to fully disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Congressional leaders are finally working seriously on long term-approaches to counter climate change all the major proposals leave a critical policy gap because they would not take effect for at least five years U.S emissions continue to increase and executives make decisions that lock in the emissions Congress could fill that policy gap now by requiring greater transparency legislating reporting of emissions would make markets work bette disclosure would expose inefficiencies and allow investors business partners employees residents and consumers to compare cars conditioners mowers and manufacturing plants As people factored that information into choices executives would have new incentives to cut emissions sooner rather than later Greater transparency would jump start cap-and-trade A transparency system is an essential element of U.S. climate change strategy Such a system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its debate. even if Congress approves cap-and-trade the new law will not create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other major contributors to reduce emissions That debate is likely to be long because regulations will determine which companies are the real winners or losers from government action Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of compliance Such delay may be inevitable but its costs will be high Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next The administration’s latest report projects a 19% increase in emissions The United States still holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Executives will need powerful incentives to alter current plans in order to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon Most are understandably reluctant to place their companies at a disadvantage by making emission-cutting moves unilaterally A carefully constructed transparency system would mobilize the power of public opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now Requiring disclosure would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such emissions. Once disclosed emissions data could be used to carry out emission-reduction plans by local zoning and permitting authorities to place conditions on the construction or alteration of plants investors to more accurately predict material risks; by consumers to choose systems Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars.

An essential first step in any effective climate policy is to require contributors to disclose emissions leaders are working on approaches to counter climate all proposals leave a policy gap Congress could fill that now by transparency reporting make markets work disclosure expose inefficiencies investors have new incentives cut emissions sooner rather than later transparency would jump start cap-and-trade transparency is an essential element delay costs will be high The United States holds the distinction of the largest producer of greenhouse gases Executives need incentives to make reductions Most are reluctant making moves unilaterally transparency would mobilize power data could carry out emission-reduction permitting authorities to place conditions on plants

An essential first step in any effective climate change policy is to require major contributors to fully disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Congressional leaders are finally working seriously on long term-approaches to counter climate change. But all the major proposals leave a critical policy gap because they would not take effect for at least five years. Meanwhile, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, and company executives continue to make decisions that lock in the emissions of future power plants, factories, and cars. Congress could fill that policy gap now by requiring greater transparency. In the immediate future, legislating product labeling and factory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions would make markets work better. Such disclosure would expose inefficiencies and allow investors, business partners, employees, community residents, and consumers to compare cars, air conditioners, lawn mowers, and manufacturing plants. As people factored that information into everyday choices, company executives would have new incentives to cut emissions sooner rather than later. Greater transparency would also help jump start whatever cap-and-trade or other regulatory approach emerges from the current congressional debate. A carefully constructed transparency system is therefore an essential element of U.S. climate change strategy. Such a system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its debate. Congress is debating long-term approaches to climate change. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are holding wide-ranging hearings, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to coordinate climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose variations on a cap-and-trade approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with government-created markets for trading emission permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps and in how they are set. The most ambitious proposal, introduced by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Ironically, though, even if the 110th Congress approves some variation on a cap-and-trade approach, the new law will not create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other major contributors to reduce emissions. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his action would only signal the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. That debate is likely to be long and acrimonious because the fine print of the regulations will determine which companies are the real winners or losers from government action. Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of compliance—all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. Such delay may be inevitable but its costs will be high. Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next decade and will produce increasingly serious consequences. The administration’s latest climate action report, circulated in draft, projects that a 19% increase in emissions between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding, and water shortages in many parts of the country and around the world. That increase could be as high as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and emissions of three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur hexafluoride, weighted for their relative contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. The United States still holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Each large contributor to increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of total U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in the price of natural gas have led some power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration project that such emissions will increase 1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less carbon emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.) Power companies are investing now in facilities that will shape the next half-century of electricity generation—and the next half-century of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards will have useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste, not even including paper and yard trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from petroleum products were burned. Carbon emissions from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the demands of the growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power cars, trucks, planes, and other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the EPA. Executives will need powerful incentives to alter current plans in order to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon. Most are understandably reluctant to place their companies at a competitive disadvantage by making bold and often costly emission-cutting moves unilaterally. In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may make executives more reluctant to act early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take effect. So far, neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next critical years. A carefully constructed transparency system would mobilize the power of public opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now. Requiring disclosure for each proposed and existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace, refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such emissions. Once disclosed, emissions data could be used by mayors and governors to design and carry out emission-reduction plans; by local zoning and permitting authorities to place conditions on the construction or alteration of plants; by investors to more accurately predict material risks; by consumers to choose among cars, air conditioners, and heating systems; and by employees to decide where they want to work. Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars.

<h4>Energy disclosure is the biggest and best internal link to stopping runaway warming </h4><p><strong>Fagotto and Graham 13</strong> (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at Harvard University and Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate Change”, November 27th<u><strong>, AB) </p><p><mark>An essential first step in any effective climate </mark>change <mark>policy</mark> <mark>is</mark> <mark>to</mark> <mark>require</mark> major <mark>contributors</mark> <mark>to</mark> fully <mark>disclose</mark> their greenhouse gas <mark>emissions</mark>. Congressional <mark>leaders</mark> <mark>are</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>finally <mark>working</mark> seriously <mark>on</mark> long term-<mark>approaches to counter</mark> <mark>climate</mark> change</u></strong>. But <u><strong><mark>all</mark> the major <mark>proposals</mark> <mark>leave</mark> <mark>a</mark> critical <mark>policy gap</mark> because they would not take effect for at least five years</u></strong>. Meanwhile, <u><strong>U.S</u></strong>. greenhouse gas <u><strong>emissions</u></strong> <u><strong>continue to increase</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> company <u><strong>executives</u></strong> continue to <u><strong>make decisions that lock in the emissions</u></strong> of future power plants, factories, and cars. <u><strong><mark>Congress could</mark> <mark>fill</mark> <mark>that</mark> policy gap <mark>now by </mark>requiring greater <mark>transparency</u></strong></mark>. In the immediate future, <u><strong>legislating</u></strong> product labeling and factory <u><strong><mark>reporting</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>of</u></strong> greenhouse gas <u><strong>emissions would <mark>make markets work</mark> bette</u></strong>r. Such <u><strong><mark>disclosure</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>would <mark>expose</mark> <mark>inefficiencies</mark> and allow <mark>investors</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>business</u></strong> <u><strong>partners</u></strong>, <u><strong>employees</u></strong>, community <u><strong>residents</u></strong>, <u><strong>and consumers</u></strong> <u><strong>to compare</u></strong> <u><strong>cars</u></strong>, air <u><strong>conditioners</u></strong>, lawn <u><strong>mowers</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> <u><strong>manufacturing</u></strong> <u><strong>plants</u></strong>. <u><strong>As people factored that information</u></strong> <u><strong>into</u></strong> everyday <u><strong>choices</u></strong>, company <u><strong>executives</u></strong> <u><strong>would <mark>have new incentives </mark>to <mark>cut emissions sooner rather than later</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Greater <mark>transparency</u></strong> <u><strong>would</u></strong></mark> also help <u><strong><mark>jump start</u></strong></mark> whatever <u><strong><mark>cap-and-trade</u></strong></mark> or other regulatory approach emerges from the current congressional debate. <u><strong>A</u></strong> carefully constructed <u><strong><mark>transparency</mark> system</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>is</u></strong></mark> therefore <u><strong><mark>an essential element</mark> of U.S. climate change strategy</u></strong>. <u><strong>Such a system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its debate. </u></strong>Congress is debating long-term approaches to climate change. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are holding wide-ranging hearings, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to coordinate climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose variations on a cap-and-trade approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with government-created markets for trading emission permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps and in how they are set. The most ambitious proposal, introduced by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Ironically, though, <u><strong>even if</u></strong> the 110th <u><strong>Congress approves</u></strong> some variation on a <u><strong>cap-and-trade</u></strong> approach, <u><strong>the new law will not create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other major contributors to reduce emissions</u></strong>. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his action would only signal the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. <u><strong>That debate is likely to be long</u></strong> and acrimonious <u><strong>because</u></strong> the fine print of the <u><strong>regulations</u></strong> <u><strong>will determine which companies are the real winners or losers from government action</u></strong>. <u><strong>Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of compliance</u></strong>—all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. <u><strong>Such <mark>delay</mark> may be inevitable but its <mark>costs will be high</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next</u></strong> decade and will produce increasingly serious consequences. <u><strong>The administration’s latest</u></strong> climate action <u><strong>report</u></strong>, circulated in draft, <u><strong>projects</u></strong> that <u><strong>a 19% increase in emissions</u></strong> between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding, and water shortages in many parts of the country and around the world. That increase could be as high as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and emissions of three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur hexafluoride, weighted for their relative contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. <u><strong><mark>The United States</mark> still <mark>holds</mark> <mark>the</mark> dubious <mark>distinction of</mark> being <mark>the</mark> world’s <mark>largest producer of greenhouse</mark> <mark>gases</mark>. </u></strong>Each large contributor to increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of total U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in the price of natural gas have led some power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration project that such emissions will increase 1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less carbon emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.) Power companies are investing now in facilities that will shape the next half-century of electricity generation—and the next half-century of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards will have useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste, not even including paper and yard trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from petroleum products were burned. Carbon emissions from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the demands of the growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power cars, trucks, planes, and other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the EPA. <u><strong><mark>Executives</mark> will <mark>need</mark> powerful <mark>incentives</mark> to alter current plans in order <mark>to</mark> <mark>make</mark> significant <mark>reductions</mark> in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Most are</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>understandably</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>reluctant</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>to place their companies at a</u></strong> competitive <u><strong>disadvantage by <mark>making</u></strong></mark> bold and often costly <u><strong>emission-cutting <mark>moves unilaterally</u></strong></mark>. In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may make executives more reluctant to act early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take effect. So far, neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next critical years. <u><strong>A carefully constructed <mark>transparency</mark> system <mark>would mobilize</mark> the <mark>power</mark> of public opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now</u></strong>. <u><strong>Requiring disclosure</u></strong> for each proposed and existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace, refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product <u><strong>would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such emissions. Once disclosed</u></strong>, <u><strong>emissions <mark>data</mark> <mark>could</mark> be used</u></strong> by mayors and governors <u><strong>to</u></strong> design and <u><strong><mark>carry out</mark> <mark>emission-reduction</mark> plans</u></strong>; <u><strong>by local zoning and <mark>permitting authorities</mark> <mark>to place conditions</mark> <mark>on</mark> the construction or alteration of <mark>plants</u></strong></mark>; by <u><strong>investors to more accurately predict material risks; by consumers to choose</u></strong> among cars, air conditioners, and heating <u><strong>systems</u></strong>; and by employees to decide where they want to work. <u><strong>Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars.</p></u></strong>

Fagotto and Graham 13 (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at Harvard University and Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate Change”, November 27th, AB)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Fagotto and Graham 13 (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at Harvard University and Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate Change”, November 27th, AB) fulltext: An essential first step in any effective climate change policy is to require major contributors to fully disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Congressional leaders are finally working seriously on long term-approaches to counter climate change. But all the major proposals leave a critical policy gap because they would not take effect for at least five years. Meanwhile, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, and company executives continue to make decisions that lock in the emissions of future power plants, factories, and cars. Congress could fill that policy gap now by requiring greater transparency. In the immediate future, legislating product labeling and factory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions would make markets work better. Such disclosure would expose inefficiencies and allow investors, business partners, employees, community residents, and consumers to compare cars, air conditioners, lawn mowers, and manufacturing plants. As people factored that information into everyday choices, company executives would have new incentives to cut emissions sooner rather than later. Greater transparency would also help jump start whatever cap-and-trade or other regulatory approach emerges from the current congressional debate. A carefully constructed transparency system is therefore an essential element of U.S. climate change strategy. Such a system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its debate. Congress is debating long-term approaches to climate change. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are holding wide-ranging hearings, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to coordinate climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose variations on a cap-and-trade approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with government-created markets for trading emission permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps and in how they are set. The most ambitious proposal, introduced by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Ironically, though, even if the 110th Congress approves some variation on a cap-and-trade approach, the new law will not create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other major contributors to reduce emissions. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his action would only signal the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. That debate is likely to be long and acrimonious because the fine print of the regulations will determine which companies are the real winners or losers from government action. Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of compliance—all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. Such delay may be inevitable but its costs will be high. Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next decade and will produce increasingly serious consequences. The administration’s latest climate action report, circulated in draft, projects that a 19% increase in emissions between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding, and water shortages in many parts of the country and around the world. That increase could be as high as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and emissions of three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur hexafluoride, weighted for their relative contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. The United States still holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Each large contributor to increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of total U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in the price of natural gas have led some power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration project that such emissions will increase 1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less carbon emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.) Power companies are investing now in facilities that will shape the next half-century of electricity generation—and the next half-century of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards will have useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste, not even including paper and yard trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from petroleum products were burned. Carbon emissions from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the demands of the growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power cars, trucks, planes, and other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the EPA. Executives will need powerful incentives to alter current plans in order to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon. Most are understandably reluctant to place their companies at a competitive disadvantage by making bold and often costly emission-cutting moves unilaterally. In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may make executives more reluctant to act early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take effect. So far, neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next critical years. A carefully constructed transparency system would mobilize the power of public opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now. Requiring disclosure for each proposed and existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace, refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such emissions. Once disclosed, emissions data could be used by mayors and governors to design and carry out emission-reduction plans; by local zoning and permitting authorities to place conditions on the construction or alteration of plants; by investors to more accurately predict material risks; by consumers to choose among cars, air conditioners, and heating systems; and by employees to decide where they want to work. Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars. [/INST] <h4>Energy disclosure is the biggest and best internal link to stopping runaway warming </h4><p><strong>Fagotto and Graham 13</strong> (Elena, Ph.D. at Erasmus University Rotterdam and senior researcher at Harvard University and Mary is a research fellow at both KSG and the Georgetown University Law Center“, http://issues.org/23-4/fagotto-2/ , Full Disclosure: Using Transparency to Fight Climate Change”, November 27th<u><strong>, AB) </p><p><mark>An essential first step in any effective climate </mark>change <mark>policy</mark> <mark>is</mark> <mark>to</mark> <mark>require</mark> major <mark>contributors</mark> <mark>to</mark> fully <mark>disclose</mark> their greenhouse gas <mark>emissions</mark>. Congressional <mark>leaders</mark> <mark>are</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>finally <mark>working</mark> seriously <mark>on</mark> long term-<mark>approaches to counter</mark> <mark>climate</mark> change</u></strong>. But <u><strong><mark>all</mark> the major <mark>proposals</mark> <mark>leave</mark> <mark>a</mark> critical <mark>policy gap</mark> because they would not take effect for at least five years</u></strong>. Meanwhile, <u><strong>U.S</u></strong>. greenhouse gas <u><strong>emissions</u></strong> <u><strong>continue to increase</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> company <u><strong>executives</u></strong> continue to <u><strong>make decisions that lock in the emissions</u></strong> of future power plants, factories, and cars. <u><strong><mark>Congress could</mark> <mark>fill</mark> <mark>that</mark> policy gap <mark>now by </mark>requiring greater <mark>transparency</u></strong></mark>. In the immediate future, <u><strong>legislating</u></strong> product labeling and factory <u><strong><mark>reporting</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>of</u></strong> greenhouse gas <u><strong>emissions would <mark>make markets work</mark> bette</u></strong>r. Such <u><strong><mark>disclosure</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>would <mark>expose</mark> <mark>inefficiencies</mark> and allow <mark>investors</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>business</u></strong> <u><strong>partners</u></strong>, <u><strong>employees</u></strong>, community <u><strong>residents</u></strong>, <u><strong>and consumers</u></strong> <u><strong>to compare</u></strong> <u><strong>cars</u></strong>, air <u><strong>conditioners</u></strong>, lawn <u><strong>mowers</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> <u><strong>manufacturing</u></strong> <u><strong>plants</u></strong>. <u><strong>As people factored that information</u></strong> <u><strong>into</u></strong> everyday <u><strong>choices</u></strong>, company <u><strong>executives</u></strong> <u><strong>would <mark>have new incentives </mark>to <mark>cut emissions sooner rather than later</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Greater <mark>transparency</u></strong> <u><strong>would</u></strong></mark> also help <u><strong><mark>jump start</u></strong></mark> whatever <u><strong><mark>cap-and-trade</u></strong></mark> or other regulatory approach emerges from the current congressional debate. <u><strong>A</u></strong> carefully constructed <u><strong><mark>transparency</mark> system</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>is</u></strong></mark> therefore <u><strong><mark>an essential element</mark> of U.S. climate change strategy</u></strong>. <u><strong>Such a system would fill a legislative void and provide immediate benefits as Congress continues its debate. </u></strong>Congress is debating long-term approaches to climate change. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are holding wide-ranging hearings, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCA) has created a select committee to coordinate climate change action in the House. Three major bills propose variations on a cap-and-trade approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. All combine industry emission limits or “caps” with government-created markets for trading emission permits. The bills differ mainly in the progressive severity of caps and in how they are set. The most ambitious proposal, introduced by Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), proposes caps that would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Ironically, though, <u><strong>even if</u></strong> the 110th <u><strong>Congress approves</u></strong> some variation on a <u><strong>cap-and-trade</u></strong> approach, <u><strong>the new law will not create any immediate incentives for manufacturers, power providers, factory farms, and other major contributors to reduce emissions</u></strong>. If President Bush signed such legislation in 2008, his action would only signal the beginning of another debate over the rules that would govern the system. <u><strong>That debate is likely to be long</u></strong> and acrimonious <u><strong>because</u></strong> the fine print of the <u><strong>regulations</u></strong> <u><strong>will determine which companies are the real winners or losers from government action</u></strong>. <u><strong>Regulations will govern the mechanics of trading emission permits, the allocation of “caps” among industries and companies, and the timing of compliance</u></strong>—all costly and contentious issues for energy-intensive businesses. <u><strong>Such <mark>delay</mark> may be inevitable but its <mark>costs will be high</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Even conservative projections conclude that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase rapidly during the next</u></strong> decade and will produce increasingly serious consequences. <u><strong>The administration’s latest</u></strong> climate action <u><strong>report</u></strong>, circulated in draft, <u><strong>projects</u></strong> that <u><strong>a 19% increase in emissions</u></strong> between 2000 and 2020 will contribute to persistent drought, coastal flooding, and water shortages in many parts of the country and around the world. That increase could be as high as 30% under a business-as-usual scenario. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas, increased by 20% from 1990 to 2005, and emissions of three more potent fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocompounds, and sulfur hexafluoride, weighted for their relative contribution to climate change, increased by 82.5%. <u><strong><mark>The United States</mark> still <mark>holds</mark> <mark>the</mark> dubious <mark>distinction of</mark> being <mark>the</mark> world’s <mark>largest producer of greenhouse</mark> <mark>gases</mark>. </u></strong>Each large contributor to increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has a unique story. Carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity, responsible for 41% of total U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2005, continue to increase faster than energy use because dramatic increases in the price of natural gas have led some power providers to increase their reliance on coal. The most recent estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration project that such emissions will increase 1.2% a year from 2005 to 2030. (The burning of petroleum and natural gas results in 25% and 45% less carbon emissions per unit respectively than does the burning of coal.) Power companies are investing now in facilities that will shape the next half-century of electricity generation—and the next half-century of greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards will have useful lives of 50 years or more. Carbon emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste, not even including paper and yard trimmings, increased 91% from 1990 to 2005 as more plastics, synthetic rubber, and other wastes from petroleum products were burned. Carbon emissions from cement manufacture increased 38% as construction activity increased to meet the demands of the growing U.S. economy. Carbon emissions from the burning of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel to power cars, trucks, planes, and other forms of transportation increased 32% during the same period because of increased travel and “the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the U.S. vehicle fleet,” according to the EPA. <u><strong><mark>Executives</mark> will <mark>need</mark> powerful <mark>incentives</mark> to alter current plans in order <mark>to</mark> <mark>make</mark> significant <mark>reductions</mark> in greenhouse gas emissions any time soon</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Most are</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>understandably</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>reluctant</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>to place their companies at a</u></strong> competitive <u><strong>disadvantage by <mark>making</u></strong></mark> bold and often costly <u><strong>emission-cutting <mark>moves unilaterally</u></strong></mark>. In fact, the prolonged congressional debate may make executives more reluctant to act early since their companies may reap large emission-cutting credits once regulations take effect. So far, neither the administration nor Congress has come up with any way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next critical years. <u><strong>A carefully constructed <mark>transparency</mark> system <mark>would mobilize</mark> the <mark>power</mark> of public opinion, inform choice, and help markets work better now</u></strong>. <u><strong>Requiring disclosure</u></strong> for each proposed and existing major factory and power plant as well as for each new car, truck, furnace, refrigerator, and other energy-intensive product <u><strong>would expose their relative carbon efficiencies as well as their total contributions to such emissions. Once disclosed</u></strong>, <u><strong>emissions <mark>data</mark> <mark>could</mark> be used</u></strong> by mayors and governors <u><strong>to</u></strong> design and <u><strong><mark>carry out</mark> <mark>emission-reduction</mark> plans</u></strong>; <u><strong>by local zoning and <mark>permitting authorities</mark> <mark>to place conditions</mark> <mark>on</mark> the construction or alteration of <mark>plants</u></strong></mark>; by <u><strong>investors to more accurately predict material risks; by consumers to choose</u></strong> among cars, air conditioners, and heating <u><strong>systems</u></strong>; and by employees to decide where they want to work. <u><strong>Environmental groups, industry associations, and local and national media could use the information to help to pinpoint the most inefficient factories and cars.</p></u></strong> </s>

Dickinson is wrong - liberalism is incapable of checking the worst excesses of biopolitics

(Mitchell, Professor of Sociology at Macquarie University, 2001, “Demonic Societies: Liberalism, biopolitics, and sovereignty.” Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, ed. Hanson and Stepputat, p. 50-1) although liberalism may try to make safe the biopolitical imperative it has shown itself permanently incapable of arresting the emergence of rationalities that make the optimization of the life of some dependent on the disallowing of the life of others Liberalism is fundamentally concerned to govern through what it conceives as processes that are external to the sphere of government limited by the respect for rights and liberties of individual subjects. Liberal rule thus fosters forms of knowledge of vital processes and seeks to govern through their application. to the extent that liberalism depends on the formation of responsible and autonomous subjects through biopolitics and discipline, it fosters the type of governmental practices that are the ground of such rationalities. sovereignty and biopolitics are so heterogeneous to one another that the derivation of political norms from the democratization of the former cannot act as a prophylactic for the possible outcomes of the latter biopolitics captures and expands the division between political life and mere existence, already found within sovereignty. the framework of right can act as a resource for forces engaged in contestation of the effects of biopower; it cannot provide a guarantee as the efficacy of such struggle and may even be the means of the consolidation of those effects.

liberalism shown itself permanently incapable of arresting the emergence of rationalities that make the optimization of the life of some dependent on the disallowing of the life of others sovereignty and biopolitics are so heterogeneous to one another that the derivation of political norms from democratization of the former cannot act as a prophylactic for the outcomes of the latter. the framework of right cannot provide a guarantee and may even be the means of the consolidation of those effects.

(Mitchell, Professor of Sociology at Macquarie University, 2001, “Demonic Societies: Liberalism, biopolitics, and sovereignty.” Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, ed. Hanson and Stepputat, p. 50-1) Finally, although liberalism may try to make safe the biopolitical imperative of the optimization of life, it has shown itself permanently incapable of arresting—from eugenics to contemporary genetics---the emergence of rationalities that make the optimization of the life of some dependent on the disallowing of the life of others. I can only suggest some general reasons for this. Liberalism is fundamentally concerned to govern through what it conceives as processes that are external to the sphere of government limited by the respect for rights and liberties of individual subjects. Liberal rule thus fosters forms of knowledge of vital processes and seeks to govern through their application. Moreover, to the extent that liberalism depends on the formation of responsible and autonomous subjects through biopolitics and discipline, it fosters the type of governmental practices that are the ground of such rationalities. Further, and perhaps more simply, we might consider the possibility that sovereignty and biopolitics are so heterogeneous to one another that the derivation of political norms from the democratization of the former cannot act as a prophylactic for the possible outcomes of the latter. We might also consider the alternative to this thesis, that biopolitics captures and expands the division between political life and mere existence, already found within sovereignty. In either case, the framework of right and law can act as a resource for forces engaged in contestation of the effects of biopower; it cannot provide a guarantee as the efficacy of such struggle and may even be the means of the consolidation of those effects.

<h4>Dickinson is wrong - liberalism is incapable of checking the worst excesses of biopolitics </h4><p><strong>Dean ‘1</strong> </p><p><u><strong>(Mitchell, Professor of Sociology at Macquarie University, 2001, “Demonic Societies: Liberalism, biopolitics, and sovereignty.” Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, ed. Hanson and Stepputat, p. 50-1)</p><p></u></strong>Finally, <u>although <mark>liberalism</mark> may try to make safe the biopolitical imperative</u> of the optimization of life, <u>it has <mark>shown</u> <u>itself permanently <strong>incapable</strong> of arresting</u></mark>—from eugenics to contemporary genetics---<u><mark>the emergence of rationalities that make the optimization of the life of some dependent on the disallowing of the life of others</u></mark>. I can only suggest some general reasons for this. <u>Liberalism is fundamentally concerned to govern through what it conceives as processes that are external to the sphere of government limited by the respect for rights and liberties of individual subjects. Liberal rule thus fosters forms of knowledge of vital processes and seeks to govern through their application.</u> Moreover, <u>to the extent that liberalism depends on the formation of responsible and autonomous subjects through biopolitics and discipline, it fosters the type of governmental practices that are the ground of such rationalities.</u> Further, and perhaps more simply, we might consider the possibility that <u><mark>sovereignty and biopolitics are so heterogeneous to one another that the derivation of political norms from</mark> the <mark>democratization of the former cannot act as a prophylactic for the</mark> possible <mark>outcomes of the latter</u>.</mark> We might also consider the alternative to this thesis, that <u>biopolitics captures and expands the division between political life and mere existence, already found within sovereignty. </u>In either case, <u><mark>the framework of right</u></mark> and law <u>can act as a resource for forces engaged in contestation of the effects of biopower; it <mark>cannot provide a guarantee</mark> as the efficacy of such struggle <strong><mark>and may even be the means of the consolidation of those effects.</mark> </p></u></strong>

Dean ‘1

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Dean ‘1 fulltext: (Mitchell, Professor of Sociology at Macquarie University, 2001, “Demonic Societies: Liberalism, biopolitics, and sovereignty.” Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, ed. Hanson and Stepputat, p. 50-1) Finally, although liberalism may try to make safe the biopolitical imperative of the optimization of life, it has shown itself permanently incapable of arresting—from eugenics to contemporary genetics---the emergence of rationalities that make the optimization of the life of some dependent on the disallowing of the life of others. I can only suggest some general reasons for this. Liberalism is fundamentally concerned to govern through what it conceives as processes that are external to the sphere of government limited by the respect for rights and liberties of individual subjects. Liberal rule thus fosters forms of knowledge of vital processes and seeks to govern through their application. Moreover, to the extent that liberalism depends on the formation of responsible and autonomous subjects through biopolitics and discipline, it fosters the type of governmental practices that are the ground of such rationalities. Further, and perhaps more simply, we might consider the possibility that sovereignty and biopolitics are so heterogeneous to one another that the derivation of political norms from the democratization of the former cannot act as a prophylactic for the possible outcomes of the latter. We might also consider the alternative to this thesis, that biopolitics captures and expands the division between political life and mere existence, already found within sovereignty. In either case, the framework of right and law can act as a resource for forces engaged in contestation of the effects of biopower; it cannot provide a guarantee as the efficacy of such struggle and may even be the means of the consolidation of those effects. [/INST] <h4>Dickinson is wrong - liberalism is incapable of checking the worst excesses of biopolitics </h4><p><strong>Dean ‘1</strong> </p><p><u><strong>(Mitchell, Professor of Sociology at Macquarie University, 2001, “Demonic Societies: Liberalism, biopolitics, and sovereignty.” Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, ed. Hanson and Stepputat, p. 50-1)</p><p></u></strong>Finally, <u>although <mark>liberalism</mark> may try to make safe the biopolitical imperative</u> of the optimization of life, <u>it has <mark>shown</u> <u>itself permanently <strong>incapable</strong> of arresting</u></mark>—from eugenics to contemporary genetics---<u><mark>the emergence of rationalities that make the optimization of the life of some dependent on the disallowing of the life of others</u></mark>. I can only suggest some general reasons for this. <u>Liberalism is fundamentally concerned to govern through what it conceives as processes that are external to the sphere of government limited by the respect for rights and liberties of individual subjects. Liberal rule thus fosters forms of knowledge of vital processes and seeks to govern through their application.</u> Moreover, <u>to the extent that liberalism depends on the formation of responsible and autonomous subjects through biopolitics and discipline, it fosters the type of governmental practices that are the ground of such rationalities.</u> Further, and perhaps more simply, we might consider the possibility that <u><mark>sovereignty and biopolitics are so heterogeneous to one another that the derivation of political norms from</mark> the <mark>democratization of the former cannot act as a prophylactic for the</mark> possible <mark>outcomes of the latter</u>.</mark> We might also consider the alternative to this thesis, that <u>biopolitics captures and expands the division between political life and mere existence, already found within sovereignty. </u>In either case, <u><mark>the framework of right</u></mark> and law <u>can act as a resource for forces engaged in contestation of the effects of biopower; it <mark>cannot provide a guarantee</mark> as the efficacy of such struggle <strong><mark>and may even be the means of the consolidation of those effects.</mark> </p></u></strong> </s>

Counterplan solves compassion and death control---PAS is self-pity to rid ourselves of the reminder of our own finitude

Compassion: What True Co-suffering Entails Rejecting the argument from compassion used by the protagonists of assisted suicide is not the same as rejecting the role of compassion in the care of suffering persons. The proper role of the emotion of co-suffering is to compel us to act in such a way toward the sufferer that our effort to put ourselves in the sufferers place is authentically compassionate. This is not simply to communicate pity or mercy, but genuinely to make some of the suffering person’s burden our own. True compassion is accompanied by a desire to help in a way that communicates solidarity without losing ethical bearings we need to show emotional solidarity with the one who is suffering through voice, touch, silence, or conversation True compassion makes clear our attachment to the person not to our own philosophy of dying There are times when detachment is appropriate Patients need to know compassion does not undermine professionalism or our capacity to act with benign paternalism when the patient's response to illness is self-destructive The medical virtue of equanimity is a call for calm appraisal of the clinical situation when emotions are threatening to engulf the doctor as well as the patient and the patients family. Seriously ill, dying, or suffering patients have heightened sensitivity They tend to associate the most minor occurrences with existential plight. guilt worthlessness, and loss of dignity arises from how they perceive our responses to their predicament. By offering assisted suicide we confirm the sufferer' devaluation of his or her own life Our "compassion" contributes to suffering and reinforces the desperate plea for release True compassion means we truly share the other's suffering our behavior can communicate concern, care, and feeling for the sufferer our human identification In this way, the sufferer can regain worth and dignity the illness has taken away We must recognize assisting in suicide may be an act of self-pity as much as compassion The patient's death releases caregivers from frustration, fatigue, hostility, and guilt. A person who is dying reminds us of our own finitude Our desire to rid ourselves of this reminder can be the unconscious motive for our "compassionate" act of assisted suicide true compassion means relieving pain to the greatest extent possible it is a serious moral failure and malpractice not to use pain medication optimally Assurance of our presence is more comforting than the availability of a lethal dose of medication on the bedside table That lethal dose only assures the patient we think his or her life is unworthy of living. Compassionate caring confirms our solidarity and allows for healing emotional and spiritual growth It is neither compassionate nor caring to assuage our own emotion of co-suffering by hastening the death of the sufferer.

The proper role of co-suffering is to make he suffering person’s burden our own True compassion is a desire to help without losing ethical bearings we need emotional solidarity through touch, silence, or conversation True compassion makes clear our attachment to the person, not our own philosophy of dying There are times when detachment is appropriate Patients need to know compassion does not undermine professionalism or benign paternalism The medical virtue of equanimity is a call for calm appraisal of the situation when emotions are threatening to engulf the doctor patient and family dying patients tend to associate minor occurrences with existential plight By offering assisted suicide we confirm the sufferer' devaluation of his or her own life True compassion can communicate concern, care, and human identification the sufferer can regain the worth and dignity the illness has taken away assisting suicide may be self-pity A person who is dying reminds us of our own finitude Our desire to rid ourselves of this reminder can be the unconscious motive for our "compassionate" act of assisted suicide it is a serious moral failure, and malpractice not to use pain medication optimally presence is more comforting than a lethal dose of medication on the bedside table Compassionate caring allows for healing emotional and spiritual growth It is neither compassionate nor caring to hasten death

Compassion: What True Co-suffering Entails Rejecting the argument from compassion used by the protagonists of euthanasia and assisted suicide is not the same as rejecting the role of compassion in the care of suffering persons. The proper role of the emotion of co-suffering is to compel us to act in such a way toward the sufferer that our effort to put ourselves in the sufferers place is authentically compassionate. This is not simply to communicate pity or mercy, but genuinely to make some of the suffering person’s burden our own. True compassion is an emotion accompanied by a desire to help, but to help in a way that communicates our solidarity with the sufferer without losing our ethical bearings in the process. ¶ To be helpful, we do need to show our emotional solidarity with the one who is suffering. At appropriate times—through voice, touch, silence, or conversation—our feelings for the dying person can be made manifest to him or her. True compassion makes clear our attachment to the person, not to our own philosophy of dying or reasons for living. Genuine compassion is indispensable in humane and loving care of suffering and dying persons. Without it, the suffering individual feels abandoned, ostracized from the world of human interaction and communal feeling, pitied, despised, devalued, and without dignity. Absence of compassion—or the perception of its absence—adds immeasurably to suffering and reinforces any incipient tendency to seek death in the face of suffering. ¶ There are times, however, when some degree of detachment is appropriate. Patients need to know that our compassion does not undermine our professionalism, or our capacity to act with benign paternalism when the patient's response to illness is self-destructive. The traditional medical virtue of equanimity has been seriously misunderstood.19 It is not a call to serene, uninterested detachment, but a call for calm appraisal of the clinical situation when emotions are threatening to engulf the doctor as well as the patient and the patients family. ¶ In my own clinical teaching, I often ask dying patients what message they want most to communicate to medical students and residents. Invariably, they say, "Please tell them to put themselves in my place.' These words sum up our professional failings to show true compassion for those who are suffering or dying. These patients are speaking not only of the cruder aspects of the many impersonal ways in which we relate to them, the rudeness and uninterested detachment, but also of the subtler lapses as well: our overly hasty visits, our failure to touch the patient physically, our demeaning turns of phrase, our habit of belittling the patient’s fear or of hearing without listening, the subtle imputations of loss of dignity, self-pity, and fear—all of which reinforce the patient's loss of self-worth. ¶ Seriously ill, dying, or suffering patients have a heightened sensitivity to everything and everyone in their milieu. They tend to associate even the most minor occurrences with their own existential plight. They can sense indifference and insincerity as well as fear, anxiety, or the fascination-repulsion their physical appearance may induce in others. Much of the guilt, sense of worthlessness, and loss of dignity that suffering patients feel arises from how they perceive our responses to their predicament. By offering the possibility of an assisted suicide or leaving the lethal drugs at the bedside, we confirm the sufferer' devaluation of his or her own life. Our "compassion" contributes to the patient's suffering and reinforces the desperate plea for release by any means. ¶ True compassion means we truly share the other's suffering. Saint Anselm puts it this way: "Compassion is our heart made wretched by the suffering of the wretched." Obviously, we cannot enter the world of another' suffering completely. But by our behavior we can communicate our concern, care, and feeling for the sufferer, our human identification with him or her. In this way, the sufferer can regain some sense of the worth and dignity the predicament of illness has taken away. True compassion is a response to a plea for help. It is a sign that we comprehend, to some extent, what is happening to suffering people even when we cannot relieve that suffering entirely. Patients know that we cannot enter their predicament fully, but they can recognize when we try to see ourselves in their "place." ¶ True compassion requires that family members, friends, and physicians recognize their complicity in the patient's loss of dignity. We must recognize, too, that for those who assist in or approve of it, assisting in suicide may be an act of self-pity as much as compassion for another. The patient's death releases caregivers from frustration, fatigue, hostility, and guilt. A person who is debilitated, dying, and emaciated reminds us of our own finitude, of the fact that we, too, may someday suffer the same way. Our desire to rid ourselves of this reminder can be the unconscious motive for our "compassionate" act of euthanasia or assisted suicide. ¶ It goes without saying that true compassion means relieving pain to the greatest extent possible. Pain per se is the reason for seeking death in a minority of cases, but it is a serious moral failure, and serious malpractice as well, not to use pain medication optimally. Compassion also means recognizing the futility of treatment when the burdens disproportionately outweigh the benefits. It means appreciating the fact that every person suffers differently and for different reasons. True compassion requires discernment of the unique constellation of causes that generate suffering in this patient. It means directing our relief to those causes as they express themselves in the person of the patient. ¶ Above all, compassionate participation in the other persons suffering means being present, available, and accessible, even in silence if we do not know what to say. Our presence assures the person that we will not let him or her die alone—a major source of fear and suffering in terminally ill patients. Assurance of our presence is more comforting than the availability of a lethal dose of medication on the bedside table, as the advocates of suicide so confidently aver. That lethal dose only assures the patient that we, too, think his or her life is unworthy of living. ¶ Compassionate caring permits the sufferer to continue as a valued member of the human community until death occurs. It confirms our solidarity with the sufferer and, paradoxically, allows for healing and even emotional and spiritual growth. It is neither compassionate nor caring to assuage our own emotion of co-suffering by hastening the death of the sufferer.

<h4>Counterplan solves <u>compassion and death control</u>---PAS is self-pity to rid ourselves of the reminder of our own finitude </h4><p>Edmund <strong>Pellegrino 2</strong>, M.D.—was the Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics and was the founder of the Edmund D. Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics (renamed in his honor in 2013) at Georgetown University, “Compassion Is Not Enough”, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p><u>Compassion: What True Co-suffering Entails </p><p><strong>Rejecting the argument from compassion used by the protagonists of</u></strong> euthanasia and <u><strong>assisted suicide is not the same as rejecting the role of compassion in the care of suffering persons.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The proper role of</mark> the emotion of <mark>co-suffering is to</mark> compel us to act in such a way toward the sufferer that our effort to put ourselves in the sufferers place is authentically compassionate. This is not simply to communicate pity or mercy, but genuinely to <mark>make</mark> some of t<mark>he suffering person’s burden our own</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>True compassion is</u></strong></mark> an emotion <u><strong>accompanied by <mark>a desire to help</u></strong></mark>, but to help <u><strong>in a way that communicates</u></strong> our <u><strong>solidarity</u></strong> with the sufferer <u><strong><mark>without losing</u></strong></mark> our <u><strong><mark>ethical bearings</u></strong></mark> in the process. ¶ To be helpful, <u><strong><mark>we</u></strong></mark> do <u><strong><mark>need</mark> to show</u></strong> our <u><strong><mark>emotional solidarity</mark> with the one who is suffering</u></strong>. At appropriate times—<u><strong><mark>through </mark>voice, <mark>touch, silence, or conversation</u></strong></mark>—our feelings for the dying person can be made manifest to him or her. <u><strong><mark>True compassion makes clear our attachment to the person</u></strong>, <u><strong>not</mark> to <mark>our own philosophy of dying</mark> </u></strong>or reasons for living. Genuine compassion is indispensable in humane and loving care of suffering and dying persons. Without it, the suffering individual feels abandoned, ostracized from the world of human interaction and communal feeling, pitied, despised, devalued, and without dignity. Absence of compassion—or the perception of its absence—adds immeasurably to suffering and reinforces any incipient tendency to seek death in the face of suffering. ¶ <u><strong><mark>There are times</u></strong></mark>, however, <u><strong><mark>when</u></strong></mark> some degree of <u><strong><mark>detachment is appropriate</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Patients need to know</mark> </u></strong>that our <u><strong><mark>compassion does not undermine</u></strong></mark> our <u><strong><mark>professionalism</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>or</mark> our capacity to act with <mark>benign paternalism</mark> when the patient's response to illness is self-destructive</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The</mark> </u></strong>traditional <u><strong><mark>medical virtue of equanimity</u></strong></mark> has been seriously misunderstood.19 It <u><strong><mark>is</u></strong></mark> not a call to serene, uninterested detachment, but <u><strong><mark>a call for calm appraisal of the</mark> clinical <mark>situation when emotions are threatening to engulf the doctor</mark> as well as the <mark>patient and</mark> the patients <mark>family</mark>. </u>¶<u> </u></strong>In my own clinical teaching, I often ask dying patients what message they want most to communicate to medical students and residents. Invariably, they say, "Please tell them to put themselves in my place.' These words sum up our professional failings to show true compassion for those who are suffering or dying. These patients are speaking not only of the cruder aspects of the many impersonal ways in which we relate to them, the rudeness and uninterested detachment, but also of the subtler lapses as well: our overly hasty visits, our failure to touch the patient physically, our demeaning turns of phrase, our habit of belittling the patient’s fear or of hearing without listening, the subtle imputations of loss of dignity, self-pity, and fear—all of which reinforce the patient's loss of self-worth. ¶ <u><strong>Seriously ill, <mark>dying</mark>, or suffering <mark>patients</mark> have</u></strong> a <u><strong>heightened sensitivity</u></strong> to everything and everyone in their milieu. <u><strong>They <mark>tend to associate</u></strong></mark> even <u><strong>the most <mark>minor occurrences with</u></strong></mark> their own <u><strong><mark>existential plight</mark>.</u></strong> They can sense indifference and insincerity as well as fear, anxiety, or the fascination-repulsion their physical appearance may induce in others. Much of the <u><strong>guilt</u></strong>, sense of <u><strong>worthlessness, and</u></strong> <u><strong>loss of dignity</u></strong> that suffering patients feel <u><strong>arises from how they perceive our responses to their predicament.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>By offering</u></strong></mark> the possibility of an <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide</u></strong></mark> or leaving the lethal drugs at the bedside, <u><strong><mark>we confirm the sufferer' devaluation of his or her own life</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Our "compassion" contributes to</u></strong> the patient's <u><strong>suffering and reinforces the desperate plea for release</u></strong> by any means. ¶ <u><strong><mark>True compassion</mark> means we truly share the other's suffering</u></strong>. Saint Anselm puts it this way: "Compassion is our heart made wretched by the suffering of the wretched." Obviously, we cannot enter the world of another' suffering completely. But by <u><strong>our behavior</u></strong> we <u><strong><mark>can communicate</u></strong></mark> our <u><strong><mark>concern, care, and</mark> feeling for the sufferer</u></strong>, <u><strong>our <mark>human identification</u></strong></mark> with him or her. <u><strong>In this way, <mark>the sufferer can regain</mark> </u></strong>some sense of <mark>the <u><strong>worth and dignity the</u></strong></mark> predicament of <u><strong><mark>illness has taken away</u></strong></mark>. True compassion is a response to a plea for help. It is a sign that we comprehend, to some extent, what is happening to suffering people even when we cannot relieve that suffering entirely. Patients know that we cannot enter their predicament fully, but they can recognize when we try to see ourselves in their "place." ¶ True compassion requires that family members, friends, and physicians recognize their complicity in the patient's loss of dignity. <u><strong>We must recognize</u></strong>, too, that for those who assist in or approve of it, <u><strong><mark>assisting</mark> in <mark>suicide may be</mark> an act of <mark>self-pity</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>as much as compassion</u></strong> for another. <u><strong>The patient's death releases caregivers from frustration, fatigue, hostility, and guilt.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>A person who is</u></strong></mark> debilitated, <u><strong><mark>dying</u></strong></mark>, and emaciated <u><strong><mark>reminds us of our own finitude</u></strong></mark>, of the fact that we, too, may someday suffer the same way. <u><strong><mark>Our desire to rid ourselves of this reminder can be the unconscious motive for our "compassionate" act of</u></strong></mark> euthanasia or <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide</u></strong></mark>. ¶ It goes without saying that <u><strong>true compassion means relieving pain to the greatest extent possible</u></strong>. Pain per se is the reason for seeking death in a minority of cases, but <u><strong><mark>it is a serious moral failure</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong></mark> serious <u><strong><mark>malpractice</u></strong></mark> as well, <u><strong><mark>not to use pain medication optimally</u></strong></mark>. Compassion also means recognizing the futility of treatment when the burdens disproportionately outweigh the benefits. It means appreciating the fact that every person suffers differently and for different reasons. True compassion requires discernment of the unique constellation of causes that generate suffering in this patient. It means directing our relief to those causes as they express themselves in the person of the patient. ¶ Above all, compassionate participation in the other persons suffering means being present, available, and accessible, even in silence if we do not know what to say. Our presence assures the person that we will not let him or her die alone—a major source of fear and suffering in terminally ill patients. <u><strong>Assurance of our <mark>presence is more comforting than</mark> the availability of <mark>a lethal dose of medication on the bedside table</u></strong></mark>, as the advocates of suicide so confidently aver. <u><strong>That lethal dose only assures the patient</u></strong> that <u><strong>we</u></strong>, too, <u><strong>think his or her life is unworthy of living. </u>¶<u> <mark>Compassionate caring</u></strong></mark> permits the sufferer to continue as a valued member of the human community until death occurs. It <u><strong>confirms our solidarity</u></strong> with the sufferer <u><strong>and</u></strong>, paradoxically, <u><strong><mark>allows for healing</u></strong></mark> and even <u><strong><mark>emotional and spiritual growth</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>It is neither compassionate nor caring to</mark> assuage our own emotion of co-suffering by <mark>hasten</mark>ing the <mark>death</mark> of the sufferer. </p></u></strong>

Edmund Pellegrino 2, M.D.—was the Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics and was the founder of the Edmund D. Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics (renamed in his honor in 2013) at Georgetown University, “Compassion Is Not Enough”, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Edmund Pellegrino 2, M.D.—was the Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics and was the founder of the Edmund D. Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics (renamed in his honor in 2013) at Georgetown University, “Compassion Is Not Enough”, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1 fulltext: Compassion: What True Co-suffering Entails Rejecting the argument from compassion used by the protagonists of euthanasia and assisted suicide is not the same as rejecting the role of compassion in the care of suffering persons. The proper role of the emotion of co-suffering is to compel us to act in such a way toward the sufferer that our effort to put ourselves in the sufferers place is authentically compassionate. This is not simply to communicate pity or mercy, but genuinely to make some of the suffering person’s burden our own. True compassion is an emotion accompanied by a desire to help, but to help in a way that communicates our solidarity with the sufferer without losing our ethical bearings in the process. ¶ To be helpful, we do need to show our emotional solidarity with the one who is suffering. At appropriate times—through voice, touch, silence, or conversation—our feelings for the dying person can be made manifest to him or her. True compassion makes clear our attachment to the person, not to our own philosophy of dying or reasons for living. Genuine compassion is indispensable in humane and loving care of suffering and dying persons. Without it, the suffering individual feels abandoned, ostracized from the world of human interaction and communal feeling, pitied, despised, devalued, and without dignity. Absence of compassion—or the perception of its absence—adds immeasurably to suffering and reinforces any incipient tendency to seek death in the face of suffering. ¶ There are times, however, when some degree of detachment is appropriate. Patients need to know that our compassion does not undermine our professionalism, or our capacity to act with benign paternalism when the patient's response to illness is self-destructive. The traditional medical virtue of equanimity has been seriously misunderstood.19 It is not a call to serene, uninterested detachment, but a call for calm appraisal of the clinical situation when emotions are threatening to engulf the doctor as well as the patient and the patients family. ¶ In my own clinical teaching, I often ask dying patients what message they want most to communicate to medical students and residents. Invariably, they say, "Please tell them to put themselves in my place.' These words sum up our professional failings to show true compassion for those who are suffering or dying. These patients are speaking not only of the cruder aspects of the many impersonal ways in which we relate to them, the rudeness and uninterested detachment, but also of the subtler lapses as well: our overly hasty visits, our failure to touch the patient physically, our demeaning turns of phrase, our habit of belittling the patient’s fear or of hearing without listening, the subtle imputations of loss of dignity, self-pity, and fear—all of which reinforce the patient's loss of self-worth. ¶ Seriously ill, dying, or suffering patients have a heightened sensitivity to everything and everyone in their milieu. They tend to associate even the most minor occurrences with their own existential plight. They can sense indifference and insincerity as well as fear, anxiety, or the fascination-repulsion their physical appearance may induce in others. Much of the guilt, sense of worthlessness, and loss of dignity that suffering patients feel arises from how they perceive our responses to their predicament. By offering the possibility of an assisted suicide or leaving the lethal drugs at the bedside, we confirm the sufferer' devaluation of his or her own life. Our "compassion" contributes to the patient's suffering and reinforces the desperate plea for release by any means. ¶ True compassion means we truly share the other's suffering. Saint Anselm puts it this way: "Compassion is our heart made wretched by the suffering of the wretched." Obviously, we cannot enter the world of another' suffering completely. But by our behavior we can communicate our concern, care, and feeling for the sufferer, our human identification with him or her. In this way, the sufferer can regain some sense of the worth and dignity the predicament of illness has taken away. True compassion is a response to a plea for help. It is a sign that we comprehend, to some extent, what is happening to suffering people even when we cannot relieve that suffering entirely. Patients know that we cannot enter their predicament fully, but they can recognize when we try to see ourselves in their "place." ¶ True compassion requires that family members, friends, and physicians recognize their complicity in the patient's loss of dignity. We must recognize, too, that for those who assist in or approve of it, assisting in suicide may be an act of self-pity as much as compassion for another. The patient's death releases caregivers from frustration, fatigue, hostility, and guilt. A person who is debilitated, dying, and emaciated reminds us of our own finitude, of the fact that we, too, may someday suffer the same way. Our desire to rid ourselves of this reminder can be the unconscious motive for our "compassionate" act of euthanasia or assisted suicide. ¶ It goes without saying that true compassion means relieving pain to the greatest extent possible. Pain per se is the reason for seeking death in a minority of cases, but it is a serious moral failure, and serious malpractice as well, not to use pain medication optimally. Compassion also means recognizing the futility of treatment when the burdens disproportionately outweigh the benefits. It means appreciating the fact that every person suffers differently and for different reasons. True compassion requires discernment of the unique constellation of causes that generate suffering in this patient. It means directing our relief to those causes as they express themselves in the person of the patient. ¶ Above all, compassionate participation in the other persons suffering means being present, available, and accessible, even in silence if we do not know what to say. Our presence assures the person that we will not let him or her die alone—a major source of fear and suffering in terminally ill patients. Assurance of our presence is more comforting than the availability of a lethal dose of medication on the bedside table, as the advocates of suicide so confidently aver. That lethal dose only assures the patient that we, too, think his or her life is unworthy of living. ¶ Compassionate caring permits the sufferer to continue as a valued member of the human community until death occurs. It confirms our solidarity with the sufferer and, paradoxically, allows for healing and even emotional and spiritual growth. It is neither compassionate nor caring to assuage our own emotion of co-suffering by hastening the death of the sufferer. [/INST] <h4>Counterplan solves <u>compassion and death control</u>---PAS is self-pity to rid ourselves of the reminder of our own finitude </h4><p>Edmund <strong>Pellegrino 2</strong>, M.D.—was the Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics and was the founder of the Edmund D. Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics (renamed in his honor in 2013) at Georgetown University, “Compassion Is Not Enough”, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p><u>Compassion: What True Co-suffering Entails </p><p><strong>Rejecting the argument from compassion used by the protagonists of</u></strong> euthanasia and <u><strong>assisted suicide is not the same as rejecting the role of compassion in the care of suffering persons.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The proper role of</mark> the emotion of <mark>co-suffering is to</mark> compel us to act in such a way toward the sufferer that our effort to put ourselves in the sufferers place is authentically compassionate. This is not simply to communicate pity or mercy, but genuinely to <mark>make</mark> some of t<mark>he suffering person’s burden our own</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>True compassion is</u></strong></mark> an emotion <u><strong>accompanied by <mark>a desire to help</u></strong></mark>, but to help <u><strong>in a way that communicates</u></strong> our <u><strong>solidarity</u></strong> with the sufferer <u><strong><mark>without losing</u></strong></mark> our <u><strong><mark>ethical bearings</u></strong></mark> in the process. ¶ To be helpful, <u><strong><mark>we</u></strong></mark> do <u><strong><mark>need</mark> to show</u></strong> our <u><strong><mark>emotional solidarity</mark> with the one who is suffering</u></strong>. At appropriate times—<u><strong><mark>through </mark>voice, <mark>touch, silence, or conversation</u></strong></mark>—our feelings for the dying person can be made manifest to him or her. <u><strong><mark>True compassion makes clear our attachment to the person</u></strong>, <u><strong>not</mark> to <mark>our own philosophy of dying</mark> </u></strong>or reasons for living. Genuine compassion is indispensable in humane and loving care of suffering and dying persons. Without it, the suffering individual feels abandoned, ostracized from the world of human interaction and communal feeling, pitied, despised, devalued, and without dignity. Absence of compassion—or the perception of its absence—adds immeasurably to suffering and reinforces any incipient tendency to seek death in the face of suffering. ¶ <u><strong><mark>There are times</u></strong></mark>, however, <u><strong><mark>when</u></strong></mark> some degree of <u><strong><mark>detachment is appropriate</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Patients need to know</mark> </u></strong>that our <u><strong><mark>compassion does not undermine</u></strong></mark> our <u><strong><mark>professionalism</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>or</mark> our capacity to act with <mark>benign paternalism</mark> when the patient's response to illness is self-destructive</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The</mark> </u></strong>traditional <u><strong><mark>medical virtue of equanimity</u></strong></mark> has been seriously misunderstood.19 It <u><strong><mark>is</u></strong></mark> not a call to serene, uninterested detachment, but <u><strong><mark>a call for calm appraisal of the</mark> clinical <mark>situation when emotions are threatening to engulf the doctor</mark> as well as the <mark>patient and</mark> the patients <mark>family</mark>. </u>¶<u> </u></strong>In my own clinical teaching, I often ask dying patients what message they want most to communicate to medical students and residents. Invariably, they say, "Please tell them to put themselves in my place.' These words sum up our professional failings to show true compassion for those who are suffering or dying. These patients are speaking not only of the cruder aspects of the many impersonal ways in which we relate to them, the rudeness and uninterested detachment, but also of the subtler lapses as well: our overly hasty visits, our failure to touch the patient physically, our demeaning turns of phrase, our habit of belittling the patient’s fear or of hearing without listening, the subtle imputations of loss of dignity, self-pity, and fear—all of which reinforce the patient's loss of self-worth. ¶ <u><strong>Seriously ill, <mark>dying</mark>, or suffering <mark>patients</mark> have</u></strong> a <u><strong>heightened sensitivity</u></strong> to everything and everyone in their milieu. <u><strong>They <mark>tend to associate</u></strong></mark> even <u><strong>the most <mark>minor occurrences with</u></strong></mark> their own <u><strong><mark>existential plight</mark>.</u></strong> They can sense indifference and insincerity as well as fear, anxiety, or the fascination-repulsion their physical appearance may induce in others. Much of the <u><strong>guilt</u></strong>, sense of <u><strong>worthlessness, and</u></strong> <u><strong>loss of dignity</u></strong> that suffering patients feel <u><strong>arises from how they perceive our responses to their predicament.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>By offering</u></strong></mark> the possibility of an <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide</u></strong></mark> or leaving the lethal drugs at the bedside, <u><strong><mark>we confirm the sufferer' devaluation of his or her own life</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Our "compassion" contributes to</u></strong> the patient's <u><strong>suffering and reinforces the desperate plea for release</u></strong> by any means. ¶ <u><strong><mark>True compassion</mark> means we truly share the other's suffering</u></strong>. Saint Anselm puts it this way: "Compassion is our heart made wretched by the suffering of the wretched." Obviously, we cannot enter the world of another' suffering completely. But by <u><strong>our behavior</u></strong> we <u><strong><mark>can communicate</u></strong></mark> our <u><strong><mark>concern, care, and</mark> feeling for the sufferer</u></strong>, <u><strong>our <mark>human identification</u></strong></mark> with him or her. <u><strong>In this way, <mark>the sufferer can regain</mark> </u></strong>some sense of <mark>the <u><strong>worth and dignity the</u></strong></mark> predicament of <u><strong><mark>illness has taken away</u></strong></mark>. True compassion is a response to a plea for help. It is a sign that we comprehend, to some extent, what is happening to suffering people even when we cannot relieve that suffering entirely. Patients know that we cannot enter their predicament fully, but they can recognize when we try to see ourselves in their "place." ¶ True compassion requires that family members, friends, and physicians recognize their complicity in the patient's loss of dignity. <u><strong>We must recognize</u></strong>, too, that for those who assist in or approve of it, <u><strong><mark>assisting</mark> in <mark>suicide may be</mark> an act of <mark>self-pity</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>as much as compassion</u></strong> for another. <u><strong>The patient's death releases caregivers from frustration, fatigue, hostility, and guilt.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>A person who is</u></strong></mark> debilitated, <u><strong><mark>dying</u></strong></mark>, and emaciated <u><strong><mark>reminds us of our own finitude</u></strong></mark>, of the fact that we, too, may someday suffer the same way. <u><strong><mark>Our desire to rid ourselves of this reminder can be the unconscious motive for our "compassionate" act of</u></strong></mark> euthanasia or <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide</u></strong></mark>. ¶ It goes without saying that <u><strong>true compassion means relieving pain to the greatest extent possible</u></strong>. Pain per se is the reason for seeking death in a minority of cases, but <u><strong><mark>it is a serious moral failure</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong></mark> serious <u><strong><mark>malpractice</u></strong></mark> as well, <u><strong><mark>not to use pain medication optimally</u></strong></mark>. Compassion also means recognizing the futility of treatment when the burdens disproportionately outweigh the benefits. It means appreciating the fact that every person suffers differently and for different reasons. True compassion requires discernment of the unique constellation of causes that generate suffering in this patient. It means directing our relief to those causes as they express themselves in the person of the patient. ¶ Above all, compassionate participation in the other persons suffering means being present, available, and accessible, even in silence if we do not know what to say. Our presence assures the person that we will not let him or her die alone—a major source of fear and suffering in terminally ill patients. <u><strong>Assurance of our <mark>presence is more comforting than</mark> the availability of <mark>a lethal dose of medication on the bedside table</u></strong></mark>, as the advocates of suicide so confidently aver. <u><strong>That lethal dose only assures the patient</u></strong> that <u><strong>we</u></strong>, too, <u><strong>think his or her life is unworthy of living. </u>¶<u> <mark>Compassionate caring</u></strong></mark> permits the sufferer to continue as a valued member of the human community until death occurs. It <u><strong>confirms our solidarity</u></strong> with the sufferer <u><strong>and</u></strong>, paradoxically, <u><strong><mark>allows for healing</u></strong></mark> and even <u><strong><mark>emotional and spiritual growth</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>It is neither compassionate nor caring to</mark> assuage our own emotion of co-suffering by <mark>hasten</mark>ing the <mark>death</mark> of the sufferer. </p></u></strong> </s>

That directly trades-off with the political capital necessary to prevent a veto override on Iran and sustain the deal. Failure will spur prolif and war with Iran.

Republicans are likely to try to torpedo Obama's ongoing efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran Throughout his presidency, Obama has prioritized these negotiations; he likely doesn't want to leave office without having made a deal. if Congress doesn't like the deal, or just wants to see Obama lose, it has the power to torpedo it by imposing new sanctions on Iran McConnell may have the votes to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries, we could see one of the most important legislative fights of Obama's presidency. The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power — which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal." Imposing new sanctions on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it would undermine Obama's authority to negotiate with Iran at all, sending the message to Tehran that Obama is not worth dealing with because he can't control his own foreign policy. So if Obama wants to make a deal with Iran, he needs Congress to play ball. make no mistake — imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through on his promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its nuclear program. it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The United States is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it depends on international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions bite. If it looks like the US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international sanctions regime could collapse. It's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. But a two-thirds vote could override any veto — and an override is entirely within the realm of possibility. For a variety of reasons Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle. The real fight will be among the Democrats — those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume a lot of energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues. concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats." if the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran. The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities

Republicans are likely to try to torpedo a deal Obama has prioritized these negotiations if Congress doesn't like the deal it has the power to torpedo it McConnell may have the votes we could see the fight of Obama's presidency new sanctions would undermine authority to negotiate sending the message to Tehran that Obama can't control foreign policy if Obama wants a deal he needs Congress to play ball new sanctions or limiting authority would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through it has zero incentive to limit its program it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The U S depends on international cooperation If the US won't abide the sanctions regime could collapse Obama could veto But a two-thirds vote could override any veto entirely within possibility The real fight, will be among the Democrats it would consume energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer on other issues if the Senate prioritizes destroying a deal, Obama will have to fight to keep it if Iran's program isn't stopped peacefully, then the outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war it's been one of the top priorities

There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond just the US: Republicans are likely to try to torpedo President Obama's ongoing efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. And they just might pull it off. November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon come to a head. Throughout his presidency, Obama has prioritized these negotiations; he likely doesn't want to leave office without having made a deal. But if Congress doesn't like the deal, or just wants to see Obama lose, it has the power to torpedo it by imposing new sanctions on Iran. Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not be so kind, and he may have the votes to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries, we could see one of the most important legislative fights of Obama's presidency. Why Congress can bully Obama on Iran sanctions At their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include several other nations, but the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its nuclear development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran. "The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international community have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To underscore the point, Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for 23 full pages. The US's sanctions are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil and do business with American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the American national interest. "In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions." The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power — which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress (where I worked for a little under two years, though not with Sofer directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal." Imposing new sanctions on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it would undermine Obama's authority to negotiate with Iran at all, sending the message to Tehran that Obama is not worth dealing with because he can't control his own foreign policy. So if Obama wants to make a deal with Iran, he needs Congress to play ball. But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants to. Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran deal To understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year. In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting nuclear program components like uranium production. Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December. (There is also a line of argument, though often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and that US policy should focus on coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans, joined by more hawkish Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new Iran sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote. McConnell blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security," he said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural roadblock that stood between Obama and new Iran sanctions. To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations could fall apart long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like the terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the ones on the books. And make no mistake — imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through on his promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its nuclear program. "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead." Moreover, it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The United States is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it depends on international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions bite. If it looks like the US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international sanctions regime could collapse. Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer worthwhile. "Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the international sanctions regime falls apart." This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term It's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. But a two-thirds vote could override any veto — and, according to Sofer, an override is entirely within the realm of possibility. "There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer says. For a variety of reasons, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle. The real fight, Sofer says, will be among the Democrats — those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto — you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on Iran," Sofer says. But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume a lot of energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues. "I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats." So if the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran. The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.

<h4>That <u>directly trades-off</u> with the political capital necessary to prevent a veto override on Iran and sustain the deal. Failure will spur prolif and war with Iran.</h4><p><strong>Beauchamp, 11/6/14</strong> --- B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines, now writes for Vox (Zack, “How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,” http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress, JMP)</p><p>There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond just the US: <u><strong><mark>Republicans are likely to try to torpedo</u></strong></mark> President <u><strong>Obama's ongoing efforts to reach <mark>a</mark> nuclear <mark>deal</mark> with Iran</u></strong>. And they just might pull it off.</p><p>November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon come to a head. <u><strong>Throughout his presidency, <mark>Obama has prioritized these negotiations</mark>; he likely doesn't want to leave office without having made a deal.</p><p></u></strong>But <u><strong><mark>if Congress doesn't like the deal</mark>, or just wants to see Obama lose, <mark>it has the power to torpedo it</mark> by imposing new sanctions on Iran</u></strong>. Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch <u><strong><mark>McConnell</u></strong></mark> may not be so kind, and he <u><strong><mark>may have the votes</mark> to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries, <mark>we could see</mark> one of <mark>the </mark>most important legislative <mark>fight</mark>s <mark>of Obama's presidency</mark>.</p><p></u></strong>Why Congress can bully Obama on Iran sanctions</p><p>At their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include several other nations, but the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its nuclear development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran.</p><p>"The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international community have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To underscore the point, Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for 23 full pages.</p><p>The US's sanctions are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil and do business with American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the American national interest. "In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions."</p><p><u><strong>The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power — which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress</u></strong> (where I worked for a little under two years, though not with Sofer<u><strong> directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal."</p><p>Imposing <mark>new sanctions</mark> on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it <mark>would undermine</mark> Obama's <mark>authority to negotiate</mark> with Iran at all, <mark>sending the message to Tehran that Obama </mark>is not worth dealing with because he <mark>can't control</mark> his own <mark>foreign policy</mark>.</p><p>So <mark>if Obama wants</mark> to make <mark>a deal</mark> with Iran, <mark>he needs Congress to play ball</mark>.</u></strong> But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants to.</p><p>Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran deal</p><p>To understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year.</p><p>In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting nuclear program components like uranium production.</p><p>Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December. (There is also a line of argument, though often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and that US policy should focus on coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans, joined by more hawkish Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new Iran sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote.</p><p>McConnell blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security," he said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural roadblock that stood between Obama and new Iran sanctions.</p><p>To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations could fall apart long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like the terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the ones on the books.</p><p>And <u><strong>make no mistake — imposing <mark>new sanctions or limiting</mark> Obama's <mark>authority</mark> to waive the current ones <mark>would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through</mark> on his promises to relax sanctions, <mark>it has zero incentive to limit its</mark> nuclear <mark>program</mark>.</u></strong> "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead."</p><p>Moreover, <u><strong><mark>it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it <mark>depends on international cooperation</mark> in order to ensure the sanctions bite. <mark>If</mark> it looks like <mark>the US won't abide</mark> by the terms of a deal, <mark>the</mark> broad-based international <mark>sanctions regime could collapse</mark>.</u></strong> Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer worthwhile.</p><p>"Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the international sanctions regime falls apart."</p><p>This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term</p><p><u><strong>It's true that <mark>Obama could veto</mark> any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. <mark>But a two-thirds vote could override any veto</mark> — and</u></strong>, according to Sofer, <u><strong>an override is <mark>entirely within</mark> the realm of <mark>possibility</mark>.</p><p></u></strong>"There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer says. <u><strong>For a variety of reasons</u></strong>, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, <u><strong>Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle.</p><p><mark>The real fight</u></strong>,</mark> Sofer says, <u><strong><mark>will be among the Democrats</mark> — those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto</u></strong> — you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on Iran," Sofer says. <u><strong>But <mark>it</mark>'d be a really tough battle, one that <mark>would consume</mark> a lot of <mark>energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer</mark> to spend pushing <mark>on other issues</mark>.</p><p></u></strong>"I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer<u><strong> concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats."</p><p></u></strong>So <u><strong><mark>if the</mark> new Republican <mark>Senate prioritizes destroying a</mark>n Iran <mark>deal, Obama will have to fight</mark> very hard <mark>to keep it</mark> — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: <mark>if Iran's</mark> nuclear <mark>program isn't stopped peacefully, then the</mark> most likely <mark>outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war</mark> with Iran.</p><p>The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why <mark>it's been one of the </mark>administration's <mark>top priorities</u></strong></mark> since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.</p>

Beauchamp, 11/6/14 --- B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines, now writes for Vox (Zack, “How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,” http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress, JMP)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Beauchamp, 11/6/14 --- B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines, now writes for Vox (Zack, “How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,” http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress, JMP) fulltext: There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond just the US: Republicans are likely to try to torpedo President Obama's ongoing efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. And they just might pull it off. November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon come to a head. Throughout his presidency, Obama has prioritized these negotiations; he likely doesn't want to leave office without having made a deal. But if Congress doesn't like the deal, or just wants to see Obama lose, it has the power to torpedo it by imposing new sanctions on Iran. Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not be so kind, and he may have the votes to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries, we could see one of the most important legislative fights of Obama's presidency. Why Congress can bully Obama on Iran sanctions At their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include several other nations, but the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its nuclear development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran. "The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international community have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To underscore the point, Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for 23 full pages. The US's sanctions are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil and do business with American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the American national interest. "In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions." The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power — which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress (where I worked for a little under two years, though not with Sofer directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal." Imposing new sanctions on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it would undermine Obama's authority to negotiate with Iran at all, sending the message to Tehran that Obama is not worth dealing with because he can't control his own foreign policy. So if Obama wants to make a deal with Iran, he needs Congress to play ball. But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants to. Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran deal To understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year. In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting nuclear program components like uranium production. Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December. (There is also a line of argument, though often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and that US policy should focus on coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans, joined by more hawkish Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new Iran sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote. McConnell blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security," he said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural roadblock that stood between Obama and new Iran sanctions. To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations could fall apart long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like the terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the ones on the books. And make no mistake — imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through on his promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its nuclear program. "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead." Moreover, it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The United States is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it depends on international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions bite. If it looks like the US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international sanctions regime could collapse. Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer worthwhile. "Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the international sanctions regime falls apart." This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term It's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. But a two-thirds vote could override any veto — and, according to Sofer, an override is entirely within the realm of possibility. "There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer says. For a variety of reasons, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle. The real fight, Sofer says, will be among the Democrats — those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto — you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on Iran," Sofer says. But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume a lot of energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues. "I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats." So if the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran. The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years. [/INST] <h4>That <u>directly trades-off</u> with the political capital necessary to prevent a veto override on Iran and sustain the deal. Failure will spur prolif and war with Iran.</h4><p><strong>Beauchamp, 11/6/14</strong> --- B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines, now writes for Vox (Zack, “How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,” http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress, JMP)</p><p>There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond just the US: <u><strong><mark>Republicans are likely to try to torpedo</u></strong></mark> President <u><strong>Obama's ongoing efforts to reach <mark>a</mark> nuclear <mark>deal</mark> with Iran</u></strong>. And they just might pull it off.</p><p>November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon come to a head. <u><strong>Throughout his presidency, <mark>Obama has prioritized these negotiations</mark>; he likely doesn't want to leave office without having made a deal.</p><p></u></strong>But <u><strong><mark>if Congress doesn't like the deal</mark>, or just wants to see Obama lose, <mark>it has the power to torpedo it</mark> by imposing new sanctions on Iran</u></strong>. Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch <u><strong><mark>McConnell</u></strong></mark> may not be so kind, and he <u><strong><mark>may have the votes</mark> to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries, <mark>we could see</mark> one of <mark>the </mark>most important legislative <mark>fight</mark>s <mark>of Obama's presidency</mark>.</p><p></u></strong>Why Congress can bully Obama on Iran sanctions</p><p>At their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include several other nations, but the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its nuclear development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran.</p><p>"The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international community have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To underscore the point, Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for 23 full pages.</p><p>The US's sanctions are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil and do business with American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the American national interest. "In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions."</p><p><u><strong>The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power — which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress</u></strong> (where I worked for a little under two years, though not with Sofer<u><strong> directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal."</p><p>Imposing <mark>new sanctions</mark> on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it <mark>would undermine</mark> Obama's <mark>authority to negotiate</mark> with Iran at all, <mark>sending the message to Tehran that Obama </mark>is not worth dealing with because he <mark>can't control</mark> his own <mark>foreign policy</mark>.</p><p>So <mark>if Obama wants</mark> to make <mark>a deal</mark> with Iran, <mark>he needs Congress to play ball</mark>.</u></strong> But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants to.</p><p>Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran deal</p><p>To understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year.</p><p>In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting nuclear program components like uranium production.</p><p>Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December. (There is also a line of argument, though often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and that US policy should focus on coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans, joined by more hawkish Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new Iran sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote.</p><p>McConnell blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security," he said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural roadblock that stood between Obama and new Iran sanctions.</p><p>To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations could fall apart long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like the terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the ones on the books.</p><p>And <u><strong>make no mistake — imposing <mark>new sanctions or limiting</mark> Obama's <mark>authority</mark> to waive the current ones <mark>would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through</mark> on his promises to relax sanctions, <mark>it has zero incentive to limit its</mark> nuclear <mark>program</mark>.</u></strong> "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead."</p><p>Moreover, <u><strong><mark>it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it <mark>depends on international cooperation</mark> in order to ensure the sanctions bite. <mark>If</mark> it looks like <mark>the US won't abide</mark> by the terms of a deal, <mark>the</mark> broad-based international <mark>sanctions regime could collapse</mark>.</u></strong> Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer worthwhile.</p><p>"Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the international sanctions regime falls apart."</p><p>This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term</p><p><u><strong>It's true that <mark>Obama could veto</mark> any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. <mark>But a two-thirds vote could override any veto</mark> — and</u></strong>, according to Sofer, <u><strong>an override is <mark>entirely within</mark> the realm of <mark>possibility</mark>.</p><p></u></strong>"There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer says. <u><strong>For a variety of reasons</u></strong>, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, <u><strong>Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle.</p><p><mark>The real fight</u></strong>,</mark> Sofer says, <u><strong><mark>will be among the Democrats</mark> — those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto</u></strong> — you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on Iran," Sofer says. <u><strong>But <mark>it</mark>'d be a really tough battle, one that <mark>would consume</mark> a lot of <mark>energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer</mark> to spend pushing <mark>on other issues</mark>.</p><p></u></strong>"I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer<u><strong> concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats."</p><p></u></strong>So <u><strong><mark>if the</mark> new Republican <mark>Senate prioritizes destroying a</mark>n Iran <mark>deal, Obama will have to fight</mark> very hard <mark>to keep it</mark> — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: <mark>if Iran's</mark> nuclear <mark>program isn't stopped peacefully, then the</mark> most likely <mark>outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war</mark> with Iran.</p><p>The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why <mark>it's been one of the </mark>administration's <mark>top priorities</u></strong></mark> since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.</p> </s>

Warming is real and anthropogenic

) global warming is real and primarily human caused 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase in our atmosphere has increased Mann et al. compiled 900 years' worth of temperature data the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented permafrost thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to die the permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise data show that the sea level was unchanged over the past 10,000 years

warming is real an human caused Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere has increased Mann compiled 900 years' of data the magnitude and rapidity of warming the last 200 years is unmatched The icecaps are thinning at an alarming rate Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever permafrost thawed damaging villages the permafrost releases greenhouse gases All ice ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise,

(M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology and biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused” Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest) How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase. Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in die 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, die timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),4 but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.5 As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf - over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon - yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to die North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.6 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.7 Even a small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of die world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned.

<h4><strong>Warming is real and anthropogenic </h4><p>Prothero 12</p><p></strong>(M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology and biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused” Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>How do we know that <u><strong>global <mark>warming is real an</mark>d primarily <mark>human caused</u></strong></mark>? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. <u><strong>1. <mark>Carbon</mark> <mark>Dioxide</mark> Increase</u></strong>. Carbon dioxide <u><strong><mark>in our atmosphere</mark> <mark>has increased</u></strong></mark> at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. <u><strong><mark>Mann</mark> et al.</u></strong> (1999) <u><strong><mark>compiled</u></strong></mark> the past <u><strong><mark>900 years'</mark> worth <mark>of</mark> temperature <mark>data</u></strong></mark> from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in die 1700s and 1800s. But <u><strong><mark>the magnitude</mark> <mark>and</mark> <mark>rapidity of </mark>the <mark>warming</mark> represented by <mark>the last 200 years is</mark> simply <mark>unmatched</u></strong></mark> in all of human history. More revealing, die timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. <u><strong>2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. <mark>The</mark> polar <mark>icecaps are thinning</mark> and breaking up <mark>at an</mark> <mark>alarming rate</u></strong></mark>. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),4 but now <u><strong>the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030</u></strong> (and possibly sooner) <u><strong>less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.</u></strong>5 As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf - over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. <u><strong>3. Melting Glaciers. <mark>Glaciers are</mark> <mark>all</mark> <mark>retreating at the highest rates ever</mark> documented</u></strong>. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon - yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The <u><strong><mark>permafrost</u></strong></mark> that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now <u><strong><mark>thawed</mark>, <mark>damaging</mark> the Inuit <mark>villages</mark> on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to die</u></strong> North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, <u><strong><mark>the</mark> <mark>permafrost releases</mark> huge amounts of <mark>greenhouse gases</u></strong></mark> which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.6 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. <u><strong>4. Sea Level Rise. <mark>All</mark> that melted <mark>ice</mark> eventually <mark>ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise</u></strong>,</mark> as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological <u><strong>data show that the sea level was</u></strong> virtually <u><strong>unchanged over the past 10,000 years</u></strong> since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.7 Even a small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of die world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned. </p>

Prothero 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Prothero 12 fulltext: (M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology and biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused” Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest) How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase. Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in die 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, die timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),4 but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.5 As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf - over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon - yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to die North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.6 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.7 Even a small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of die world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned. [/INST] <h4><strong>Warming is real and anthropogenic </h4><p>Prothero 12</p><p></strong>(M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology and biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused” Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>How do we know that <u><strong>global <mark>warming is real an</mark>d primarily <mark>human caused</u></strong></mark>? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. <u><strong>1. <mark>Carbon</mark> <mark>Dioxide</mark> Increase</u></strong>. Carbon dioxide <u><strong><mark>in our atmosphere</mark> <mark>has increased</u></strong></mark> at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. <u><strong><mark>Mann</mark> et al.</u></strong> (1999) <u><strong><mark>compiled</u></strong></mark> the past <u><strong><mark>900 years'</mark> worth <mark>of</mark> temperature <mark>data</u></strong></mark> from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in die 1700s and 1800s. But <u><strong><mark>the magnitude</mark> <mark>and</mark> <mark>rapidity of </mark>the <mark>warming</mark> represented by <mark>the last 200 years is</mark> simply <mark>unmatched</u></strong></mark> in all of human history. More revealing, die timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. <u><strong>2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. <mark>The</mark> polar <mark>icecaps are thinning</mark> and breaking up <mark>at an</mark> <mark>alarming rate</u></strong></mark>. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),4 but now <u><strong>the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030</u></strong> (and possibly sooner) <u><strong>less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.</u></strong>5 As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf - over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. <u><strong>3. Melting Glaciers. <mark>Glaciers are</mark> <mark>all</mark> <mark>retreating at the highest rates ever</mark> documented</u></strong>. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon - yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The <u><strong><mark>permafrost</u></strong></mark> that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now <u><strong><mark>thawed</mark>, <mark>damaging</mark> the Inuit <mark>villages</mark> on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to die</u></strong> North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, <u><strong><mark>the</mark> <mark>permafrost releases</mark> huge amounts of <mark>greenhouse gases</u></strong></mark> which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.6 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. <u><strong>4. Sea Level Rise. <mark>All</mark> that melted <mark>ice</mark> eventually <mark>ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise</u></strong>,</mark> as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological <u><strong>data show that the sea level was</u></strong> virtually <u><strong>unchanged over the past 10,000 years</u></strong> since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.7 Even a small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of die world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned. </p> </s>

Fear leads to preemption not passivity

Fear is the palpable action in the present of a threatening future cause To avoid the [inaction] paralysis, you simply act You turn the indeterminate cause into an actual effect so you can deal with it The logic of preemption operates on this plane You're afraid Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists? It could have been So make it one Because "now we can all agree" that Iraq is a breeding ground That prove that the potential was always there. On the Homeland Security front , who knows what threats may be incubating Preemption combines a proprietary epistemology with a unique ontology to make present a future cause that sets a self-perpetuating movement into operation Preemption compensates for the absence of an actual cause by producing an actual effect in its place Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war. This is the "permanent state of emergency" so presciently described by Walter Benjamin. In current Bush administration parlance, it has come to be called "Long War" replacing the Cold War: a preemptive war with an in-built tendency to be never-ending. Deterrence produced asymmetrical conflict as a by-product. The MADly balanced East-West bipolarity spun off a North-South sub-polarity. This was less a polarity than an axis of imbalance. The "South" was neither a second Western First nor another Eastern Second. It was an anomalous Third. In this chaotic " Third World ," local conflicts prefiguring the present "imbalance of terror" proliferated. The phrase "the war on terror" was in fact first popularized by Richard Nixon in 1972 in response to the attack at the Munich Olympics when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spectacularly overspilled northward. Asymmetrical conflicts, however, were perceivable by the reigning logic of deterrence only as a reflection of itself. The dynamic of deterrence were overlaid upon them. Their heterogeneity was overcoded by the familiar US-Soviet duality. Globally such conflicts figured only as opportunities to reproduce the worldwide balance of terror on a reduced scale. The strategy of "containment" adopted toward them was for the two sides in the dominant dyad to operate in each local theater through proxies in such a way that their influence, on the whole, balanced out. "I decided," Nixon said after Munich , "that we must maintain a balance."11 He did not, as Bush did after 9-11, decide to skew things by going unilaterally "kinetic." The rhetoric of the "war on terror" fell into abeyance during the remainder of the 1970s, as Southern asymmetries tended to be overcoded as global rebalancings, and going kinetic was "contained" to the status of local anomaly.

Fear is the palpable action in the present of a threatening future cause To avoid [inaction] you simply act You turn the indeterminate cause into an actual effect so you can deal with it The logic of preemption operates on this plane You're afraid Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists? It could have been. So make it one Because "now we can all agree" that Iraq is a breeding ground That prove that the potential was always there. On the Homeland Security front , who knows what threats may be incubating Preemption combines a proprietary epistemology with a unique ontology to make present a future cause that sets a self-perpetuating movement into operation Preemption compensates for the absence of an actual cause by producing an actual effect in its place Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war.

Fear is always a good reason to go politically conditional. Fear is the palpable action in the present of a threatening future cause. It acts just as palpably whether the threat is determinate or not. It weakens your resolve, creates stress, lowers consumer confidence, and may ultimately lead to individual and/or economic paralysis. To avoid the [inaction] paralysis, which would make yourself even more of a target and carry the fear to even higher level, you must simply act. In Bush administration parlance, you "go kinetic."6 You leap into action on a level with the potential that frightens you. You do that, once again, by inciting the potential to take an actual shape you can respond to. You trigger a production of what you fear. You turn the objectively indeterminate cause into an actual effect so you can actually deal with it in some way. Any time you feel the need to act, then all you have to do is actuate a fear. The production of the effect follows as smoothly as a reflex. This affective dynamic is still very much in place, independent of Rumsfeld's individual fate. It will remain in place as long as fear and remains politically actuatable. The logic of preemption operates on this affective plane, in this proliferative or ontogenetic way: in a way that contributes to the reflex production of the specific being of the threat. You're afraid Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists? It could have been. If it could have been, it would have been. So go ahead, make it one. "Bring 'em on," the President said, following Hollywood-trained reflex. He knew it in his "guts." He couldn't have gone wrong. His reflex was right. Because "now we can all agree" that Iraq is in actual fact a breeding ground for "terrrorists". That just goes to prove that the potential was always there. Before, there was doubt in some quarters that Saddam had to be removed from power. Some agreed he had to go, some didn't. Now we can all agree. It was right to remove him because doing so made Iraq become what it always could have been. And that's the truth. Truth, in this new world order, is by nature retroactive. Fact grows conditionally in the affective soil of an indeterminately present futurity. It becomes objective as that present reflexively plays out, as a effect of the preemptive action taken. The reality-based community wastes time studying empirical reality, the Bushites said: "we create it." And because of that, "we" the preemptors will always be right. We always will have been right to preempt, because we have objectively produced a recursive truth-effect for your judicious study. And while you are looking back studying the truth of it, we will have acted with reflex speed again, effecting a new reality. 7 We will always have had no choice but to prosecute the "war on terror," ever more vigilantly and ever more intensely on every potential front. We, preemptors, are the producers of your world. Get used to it. The War in Iraq is a success to the extent that it made the productivity of the preemptive "war on terror" a self-perpetuating movement. Even if the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the war would have to continue on other fronts no matter who controls Congress or who is in the White House. It would have to continue in Afghanistan, for example, where the assymetrical tactics perfected in Iraq are now being applied to renew the conflict there. Or in Iran, which also always could have/would have been a terrorist breeding ground. Or it could morph and move to the Mexican-US border, itself morphed into a distributed frontline proliferating throughout the territory in the moving form of "illegal immigration". On the indefinite Homeland Security front of a protieform war, who knows what threats may be spinelessly incubating where, abetted by those who lack the "backbone" to go kinetic. Preemption is like deterrence in that it combines a proprietary epistemology with a unique ontology in such a way as to make present a future cause that sets a self-perpetuating movement into operation. Its differences from deterrence hinge on its taking objectively indeterminate or potential threat as its self-constitutive cause rather than fully formed and specified threat. It situates itself on the ground of ontogenetic potential. There, rather than deterring the feared effect, it actualizes the potential in a shape to which it hopes it can respond. It assumes a proliferation of potential threats, and mirrors that capacity in its own operation. It becomes proliferative. It assumes the objective imbalance of a far-from-equilibrium state as a permanent condition. Rather than trying to right the imbalance, it seizes it as an opportunity for itself. Preemption also sets a race in motion. But this is a race run on the edge of chaos. It is a race of movement-flushing, detection, perception, and affective actuation, run in irreparably chaotic or quasi-chaotic conditions. The race of preemption has any number of laps, each ending in the actual effecting of a threat. Each actualization of a threat triggers the next lap, as a continuation of the first in the same direction, or in another way in a different field. Deterrence revolved around an objective cause. Preemption revolves around a proliferative effect. Both are operative logics. The operative logic of deterrence, however, remained causal even as it displaced its cause's effect. Preemption is an effective operative logic rather than a causal operative logic. Since its ground is potential, there is no actual cause for it to organize itself around. It compensates for the absence of an actual cause by producing an actual effect in its place. This it makes the motor of its movement: it converts an absent or virtual cause really, directly into a taking-actual-effect. It does this affectively. It uses affect to effectively trigger a virtual causality.8 Preemption is when the futurity of unspecified threat is affectively held in the present in a perpetual state of potential emergence(y) so that a movement of actualization may be triggered that is not only self-propelling but also effectively, indefinitely, ontologically productive, because it works from a virtual cause whose potential no single actualization exhausts. Preemption's operational parameters mean that is never univocal. It operates in the element of vagueness and objective uncertainty. Due to its proliferative nature, it cannot be monolithic. Its logic cannot close in around its self-causing as the logic deterrence does. It includes an essential openness in its productive logic.9 It incites its adversary to take emergent form. It then strives to become as proteiform as its ever-emergent adversary can be. It is as shape-shifting as it is self-driving. It infiltrates across boundaries, sweeping up existing formations in its own transversal movement. Faced with gravity-bound formations too inertial for it to sweep up and carry off with its own operative logic, it contents itself with opening windows of opportunity to pass through. This is the case with the domestic legal and juridical structure in the US. It can't sweep that away. But it can build into that structure escape holes for itself. These take the form of formal provisions vastly expanding the power of the executive, in the person of the president in his role as commander-in-chief, to declare states of exception which suspend the normal legal course in order to enable a continued flow of preemptive action.10 Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war. This is the "permanent state of emergency" so presciently described by Walter Benjamin. In current Bush administration parlance, it has come to be called "Long War" replacing the Cold War: a preemptive war with an in-built tendency to be never-ending. Deterrence produced asymmetrical conflict as a by-product. The MADly balanced East-West bipolarity spun off a North-South sub-polarity. This was less a polarity than an axis of imbalance. The "South" was neither a second Western First nor another Eastern Second. It was an anomalous Third. In this chaotic " Third World ," local conflicts prefiguring the present "imbalance of terror" proliferated. The phrase "the war on terror" was in fact first popularized by Richard Nixon in 1972 in response to the attack at the Munich Olympics when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spectacularly overspilled northward. Asymmetrical conflicts, however, were perceivable by the reigning logic of deterrence only as a reflection of itself. The dynamic of deterrence were overlaid upon them. Their heterogeneity was overcoded by the familiar US-Soviet duality. Globally such conflicts figured only as opportunities to reproduce the worldwide balance of terror on a reduced scale. The strategy of "containment" adopted toward them was for the two sides in the dominant dyad to operate in each local theater through proxies in such a way that their influence, on the whole, balanced out. "I decided," Nixon said after Munich , "that we must maintain a balance."11 He did not, as Bush did after 9-11, decide to skew things by going unilaterally "kinetic." The rhetoric of the "war on terror" fell into abeyance during the remainder of the 1970s, as Southern asymmetries tended to be overcoded as global rebalancings, and going kinetic was "contained" to the status of local anomaly.

<h4>Fear leads to preemption not passivity</h4><p><strong>Massumi 07</strong> (Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal , “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”) </p><p>Fear is always a good reason to go politically conditional. <u><strong><mark>Fear</strong></mark> <strong><mark>is the palpable action in the present of a threatening future cause</u></strong></mark>. It acts just as palpably whether the threat is determinate or not. It weakens your resolve, creates stress, lowers consumer confidence, and may ultimately lead to individual and/or economic paralysis.<u> <strong><mark>To avoid</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>the <mark>[inaction] </mark>paralysis</strong>, </u>which would make yourself even more of a target and carry the fear to even higher level,<u> <strong><mark>you </u></strong></mark>must<u><strong><mark> simply act</u></strong></mark>. In Bush administration parlance, you "go kinetic."6 You leap into action on a level with the potential that frightens you. You do that, once again, by inciting the potential to take an actual shape you can respond to. You trigger a production of what you fear.<u> <strong><mark>You turn the </u></strong></mark>objectively<u> <strong><mark>indeterminate cause into an actual effect so you can </u></strong></mark>actually<u><strong><mark> deal with it </u></strong></mark>in some way. Any time you feel the need to act, then all you have to do is actuate a fear. The production of the effect follows as smoothly as a reflex. This affective dynamic is still very much in place, independent of Rumsfeld's individual fate. It will remain in place as long as fear and remains politically actuatable. <u><strong><mark>The logic of preemption operates on this</u></strong></mark> affective<u> <strong><mark>plane</u></strong></mark>, in this proliferative or ontogenetic way: in a way that contributes to the reflex production of the specific being of the threat. <u><strong><mark>You're afraid Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists? It could have been</u></strong>.</mark> If it could have been, it would have been.<u> <strong><mark>So </u></strong></mark>go ahead,<u><strong> <mark>make it one</u></strong></mark>. "Bring 'em on," the President said, following Hollywood-trained reflex. He knew it in his "guts." He couldn't have gone wrong. His reflex was right.<u> <strong><mark>Because "now we can all agree" that Iraq is </u></strong></mark>in actual fact<u><strong> <mark>a breeding ground </u></strong></mark>for "terrrorists".<u><strong> <mark>That </u></strong></mark>just goes to<u><strong> <mark>prove that the potential was always there.</strong></mark> </u>Before, there was doubt in some quarters that Saddam had to be removed from power. Some agreed he had to go, some didn't. Now we can all agree. It was right to remove him because doing so made Iraq become what it always could have been. And that's the truth. Truth, in this new world order, is by nature retroactive. Fact grows conditionally in the affective soil of an indeterminately present futurity. It becomes objective as that present reflexively plays out, as a effect of the preemptive action taken. The reality-based community wastes time studying empirical reality, the Bushites said: "we create it." And because of that, "we" the preemptors will always be right. We always will have been right to preempt, because we have objectively produced a recursive truth-effect for your judicious study. And while you are looking back studying the truth of it, we will have acted with reflex speed again, effecting a new reality. 7 We will always have had no choice but to prosecute the "war on terror," ever more vigilantly and ever more intensely on every potential front. We, preemptors, are the producers of your world. Get used to it. The War in Iraq is a success to the extent that it made the productivity of the preemptive "war on terror" a self-perpetuating movement. Even if the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the war would have to continue on other fronts no matter who controls Congress or who is in the White House. It would have to continue in Afghanistan, for example, where the assymetrical tactics perfected in Iraq are now being applied to renew the conflict there. Or in Iran, which also always could have/would have been a terrorist breeding ground. Or it could morph and move to the Mexican-US border, itself morphed into a distributed frontline proliferating throughout the territory in the moving form of "illegal immigration". <u><strong><mark>On the </u></strong></mark>indefinite<u><strong><mark> Homeland Security front </u></strong></mark>of a protieform war<u><strong><mark>, who knows what threats may be </u></strong></mark>spinelessly<u><strong> <mark>incubating</strong></mark> </u>where, abetted by those who lack the "backbone" to go kinetic.<u> <strong><mark>Preemption</strong></mark> </u>is like deterrence in that it<u> <strong><mark>combines a proprietary epistemology with a unique ontology </u></strong></mark>in such a way as <u><strong><mark>to make present a future cause that sets a self-perpetuating movement into operation</u></strong></mark>. Its differences from deterrence hinge on its taking objectively indeterminate or potential threat as its self-constitutive cause rather than fully formed and specified threat. It situates itself on the ground of ontogenetic potential. There, rather than deterring the feared effect, it actualizes the potential in a shape to which it hopes it can respond. It assumes a proliferation of potential threats, and mirrors that capacity in its own operation. It becomes proliferative. It assumes the objective imbalance of a far-from-equilibrium state as a permanent condition. Rather than trying to right the imbalance, it seizes it as an opportunity for itself. Preemption also sets a race in motion. But this is a race run on the edge of chaos. It is a race of movement-flushing, detection, perception, and affective actuation, run in irreparably chaotic or quasi-chaotic conditions. The race of preemption has any number of laps, each ending in the actual effecting of a threat. Each actualization of a threat triggers the next lap, as a continuation of the first in the same direction, or in another way in a different field. Deterrence revolved around an objective cause. Preemption revolves around a proliferative effect. Both are operative logics. The operative logic of deterrence, however, remained causal even as it displaced its cause's effect. <u><strong><mark>Preemption</strong></mark> </u>is an effective operative logic rather than a causal operative logic. Since its ground is potential, there is no actual cause for it to organize itself around. It <u><strong><mark>compensates for the absence of an actual cause by producing an actual effect in its place</u></strong></mark>. This it makes the motor of its movement: it converts an absent or virtual cause really, directly into a taking-actual-effect. It does this affectively. It uses affect to effectively trigger a virtual causality.8 Preemption is when the futurity of unspecified threat is affectively held in the present in a perpetual state of potential emergence(y) so that a movement of actualization may be triggered that is not only self-propelling but also effectively, indefinitely, ontologically productive, because it works from a virtual cause whose potential no single actualization exhausts. Preemption's operational parameters mean that is never univocal. It operates in the element of vagueness and objective uncertainty. Due to its proliferative nature, it cannot be monolithic. Its logic cannot close in around its self-causing as the logic deterrence does. It includes an essential openness in its productive logic.9 It incites its adversary to take emergent form. It then strives to become as proteiform as its ever-emergent adversary can be. It is as shape-shifting as it is self-driving. It infiltrates across boundaries, sweeping up existing formations in its own transversal movement. Faced with gravity-bound formations too inertial for it to sweep up and carry off with its own operative logic, it contents itself with opening windows of opportunity to pass through. This is the case with the domestic legal and juridical structure in the US. It can't sweep that away. But it can build into that structure escape holes for itself. These take the form of formal provisions vastly expanding the power of the executive, in the person of the president in his role as commander-in-chief, to declare states of exception which suspend the normal legal course in order to enable a continued flow of preemptive action.10 <u><strong><mark>Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war.</strong></mark> <strong>This is the "permanent state of emergency" so presciently described by Walter Benjamin. In current Bush administration parlance, it has come to be called "Long War" replacing the Cold War: a preemptive war with an in-built tendency to be never-ending. Deterrence produced asymmetrical conflict as a by-product. The MADly balanced East-West bipolarity spun off a North-South sub-polarity. This was less a polarity than an axis of imbalance. The "South" was neither a second Western First nor another Eastern Second. It was an anomalous Third. In this chaotic " Third World ," local conflicts prefiguring the present "imbalance of terror" proliferated. The phrase "the war on terror" was in fact first popularized by Richard Nixon in 1972 in response to the attack at the Munich Olympics when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spectacularly overspilled northward. Asymmetrical conflicts, however, were perceivable by the reigning logic of deterrence only as a reflection of itself. The dynamic of deterrence were overlaid upon them. Their heterogeneity was overcoded by the familiar US-Soviet duality. Globally such conflicts figured only as opportunities to reproduce the worldwide balance of terror on a reduced scale. The strategy of "containment" adopted toward them was for the two sides in the dominant dyad to operate in each local theater through proxies in such a way that their influence, on the whole, balanced out. "I decided," Nixon said after Munich , "that we must maintain a balance."11 He did not, as Bush did after 9-11, decide to skew things by going unilaterally "kinetic." The rhetoric of the "war on terror" fell into abeyance during the remainder of the 1970s, as Southern asymmetries tended to be overcoded as global rebalancings, and going kinetic was "contained" to the status of local anomaly. </p></u></strong>

Massumi 07 (Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal , “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Massumi 07 (Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal , “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”) fulltext: Fear is always a good reason to go politically conditional. Fear is the palpable action in the present of a threatening future cause. It acts just as palpably whether the threat is determinate or not. It weakens your resolve, creates stress, lowers consumer confidence, and may ultimately lead to individual and/or economic paralysis. To avoid the [inaction] paralysis, which would make yourself even more of a target and carry the fear to even higher level, you must simply act. In Bush administration parlance, you "go kinetic."6 You leap into action on a level with the potential that frightens you. You do that, once again, by inciting the potential to take an actual shape you can respond to. You trigger a production of what you fear. You turn the objectively indeterminate cause into an actual effect so you can actually deal with it in some way. Any time you feel the need to act, then all you have to do is actuate a fear. The production of the effect follows as smoothly as a reflex. This affective dynamic is still very much in place, independent of Rumsfeld's individual fate. It will remain in place as long as fear and remains politically actuatable. The logic of preemption operates on this affective plane, in this proliferative or ontogenetic way: in a way that contributes to the reflex production of the specific being of the threat. You're afraid Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists? It could have been. If it could have been, it would have been. So go ahead, make it one. "Bring 'em on," the President said, following Hollywood-trained reflex. He knew it in his "guts." He couldn't have gone wrong. His reflex was right. Because "now we can all agree" that Iraq is in actual fact a breeding ground for "terrrorists". That just goes to prove that the potential was always there. Before, there was doubt in some quarters that Saddam had to be removed from power. Some agreed he had to go, some didn't. Now we can all agree. It was right to remove him because doing so made Iraq become what it always could have been. And that's the truth. Truth, in this new world order, is by nature retroactive. Fact grows conditionally in the affective soil of an indeterminately present futurity. It becomes objective as that present reflexively plays out, as a effect of the preemptive action taken. The reality-based community wastes time studying empirical reality, the Bushites said: "we create it." And because of that, "we" the preemptors will always be right. We always will have been right to preempt, because we have objectively produced a recursive truth-effect for your judicious study. And while you are looking back studying the truth of it, we will have acted with reflex speed again, effecting a new reality. 7 We will always have had no choice but to prosecute the "war on terror," ever more vigilantly and ever more intensely on every potential front. We, preemptors, are the producers of your world. Get used to it. The War in Iraq is a success to the extent that it made the productivity of the preemptive "war on terror" a self-perpetuating movement. Even if the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the war would have to continue on other fronts no matter who controls Congress or who is in the White House. It would have to continue in Afghanistan, for example, where the assymetrical tactics perfected in Iraq are now being applied to renew the conflict there. Or in Iran, which also always could have/would have been a terrorist breeding ground. Or it could morph and move to the Mexican-US border, itself morphed into a distributed frontline proliferating throughout the territory in the moving form of "illegal immigration". On the indefinite Homeland Security front of a protieform war, who knows what threats may be spinelessly incubating where, abetted by those who lack the "backbone" to go kinetic. Preemption is like deterrence in that it combines a proprietary epistemology with a unique ontology in such a way as to make present a future cause that sets a self-perpetuating movement into operation. Its differences from deterrence hinge on its taking objectively indeterminate or potential threat as its self-constitutive cause rather than fully formed and specified threat. It situates itself on the ground of ontogenetic potential. There, rather than deterring the feared effect, it actualizes the potential in a shape to which it hopes it can respond. It assumes a proliferation of potential threats, and mirrors that capacity in its own operation. It becomes proliferative. It assumes the objective imbalance of a far-from-equilibrium state as a permanent condition. Rather than trying to right the imbalance, it seizes it as an opportunity for itself. Preemption also sets a race in motion. But this is a race run on the edge of chaos. It is a race of movement-flushing, detection, perception, and affective actuation, run in irreparably chaotic or quasi-chaotic conditions. The race of preemption has any number of laps, each ending in the actual effecting of a threat. Each actualization of a threat triggers the next lap, as a continuation of the first in the same direction, or in another way in a different field. Deterrence revolved around an objective cause. Preemption revolves around a proliferative effect. Both are operative logics. The operative logic of deterrence, however, remained causal even as it displaced its cause's effect. Preemption is an effective operative logic rather than a causal operative logic. Since its ground is potential, there is no actual cause for it to organize itself around. It compensates for the absence of an actual cause by producing an actual effect in its place. This it makes the motor of its movement: it converts an absent or virtual cause really, directly into a taking-actual-effect. It does this affectively. It uses affect to effectively trigger a virtual causality.8 Preemption is when the futurity of unspecified threat is affectively held in the present in a perpetual state of potential emergence(y) so that a movement of actualization may be triggered that is not only self-propelling but also effectively, indefinitely, ontologically productive, because it works from a virtual cause whose potential no single actualization exhausts. Preemption's operational parameters mean that is never univocal. It operates in the element of vagueness and objective uncertainty. Due to its proliferative nature, it cannot be monolithic. Its logic cannot close in around its self-causing as the logic deterrence does. It includes an essential openness in its productive logic.9 It incites its adversary to take emergent form. It then strives to become as proteiform as its ever-emergent adversary can be. It is as shape-shifting as it is self-driving. It infiltrates across boundaries, sweeping up existing formations in its own transversal movement. Faced with gravity-bound formations too inertial for it to sweep up and carry off with its own operative logic, it contents itself with opening windows of opportunity to pass through. This is the case with the domestic legal and juridical structure in the US. It can't sweep that away. But it can build into that structure escape holes for itself. These take the form of formal provisions vastly expanding the power of the executive, in the person of the president in his role as commander-in-chief, to declare states of exception which suspend the normal legal course in order to enable a continued flow of preemptive action.10 Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war. This is the "permanent state of emergency" so presciently described by Walter Benjamin. In current Bush administration parlance, it has come to be called "Long War" replacing the Cold War: a preemptive war with an in-built tendency to be never-ending. Deterrence produced asymmetrical conflict as a by-product. The MADly balanced East-West bipolarity spun off a North-South sub-polarity. This was less a polarity than an axis of imbalance. The "South" was neither a second Western First nor another Eastern Second. It was an anomalous Third. In this chaotic " Third World ," local conflicts prefiguring the present "imbalance of terror" proliferated. The phrase "the war on terror" was in fact first popularized by Richard Nixon in 1972 in response to the attack at the Munich Olympics when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spectacularly overspilled northward. Asymmetrical conflicts, however, were perceivable by the reigning logic of deterrence only as a reflection of itself. The dynamic of deterrence were overlaid upon them. Their heterogeneity was overcoded by the familiar US-Soviet duality. Globally such conflicts figured only as opportunities to reproduce the worldwide balance of terror on a reduced scale. The strategy of "containment" adopted toward them was for the two sides in the dominant dyad to operate in each local theater through proxies in such a way that their influence, on the whole, balanced out. "I decided," Nixon said after Munich , "that we must maintain a balance."11 He did not, as Bush did after 9-11, decide to skew things by going unilaterally "kinetic." The rhetoric of the "war on terror" fell into abeyance during the remainder of the 1970s, as Southern asymmetries tended to be overcoded as global rebalancings, and going kinetic was "contained" to the status of local anomaly. [/INST] <h4>Fear leads to preemption not passivity</h4><p><strong>Massumi 07</strong> (Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal , “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”) </p><p>Fear is always a good reason to go politically conditional. <u><strong><mark>Fear</strong></mark> <strong><mark>is the palpable action in the present of a threatening future cause</u></strong></mark>. It acts just as palpably whether the threat is determinate or not. It weakens your resolve, creates stress, lowers consumer confidence, and may ultimately lead to individual and/or economic paralysis.<u> <strong><mark>To avoid</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>the <mark>[inaction] </mark>paralysis</strong>, </u>which would make yourself even more of a target and carry the fear to even higher level,<u> <strong><mark>you </u></strong></mark>must<u><strong><mark> simply act</u></strong></mark>. In Bush administration parlance, you "go kinetic."6 You leap into action on a level with the potential that frightens you. You do that, once again, by inciting the potential to take an actual shape you can respond to. You trigger a production of what you fear.<u> <strong><mark>You turn the </u></strong></mark>objectively<u> <strong><mark>indeterminate cause into an actual effect so you can </u></strong></mark>actually<u><strong><mark> deal with it </u></strong></mark>in some way. Any time you feel the need to act, then all you have to do is actuate a fear. The production of the effect follows as smoothly as a reflex. This affective dynamic is still very much in place, independent of Rumsfeld's individual fate. It will remain in place as long as fear and remains politically actuatable. <u><strong><mark>The logic of preemption operates on this</u></strong></mark> affective<u> <strong><mark>plane</u></strong></mark>, in this proliferative or ontogenetic way: in a way that contributes to the reflex production of the specific being of the threat. <u><strong><mark>You're afraid Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists? It could have been</u></strong>.</mark> If it could have been, it would have been.<u> <strong><mark>So </u></strong></mark>go ahead,<u><strong> <mark>make it one</u></strong></mark>. "Bring 'em on," the President said, following Hollywood-trained reflex. He knew it in his "guts." He couldn't have gone wrong. His reflex was right.<u> <strong><mark>Because "now we can all agree" that Iraq is </u></strong></mark>in actual fact<u><strong> <mark>a breeding ground </u></strong></mark>for "terrrorists".<u><strong> <mark>That </u></strong></mark>just goes to<u><strong> <mark>prove that the potential was always there.</strong></mark> </u>Before, there was doubt in some quarters that Saddam had to be removed from power. Some agreed he had to go, some didn't. Now we can all agree. It was right to remove him because doing so made Iraq become what it always could have been. And that's the truth. Truth, in this new world order, is by nature retroactive. Fact grows conditionally in the affective soil of an indeterminately present futurity. It becomes objective as that present reflexively plays out, as a effect of the preemptive action taken. The reality-based community wastes time studying empirical reality, the Bushites said: "we create it." And because of that, "we" the preemptors will always be right. We always will have been right to preempt, because we have objectively produced a recursive truth-effect for your judicious study. And while you are looking back studying the truth of it, we will have acted with reflex speed again, effecting a new reality. 7 We will always have had no choice but to prosecute the "war on terror," ever more vigilantly and ever more intensely on every potential front. We, preemptors, are the producers of your world. Get used to it. The War in Iraq is a success to the extent that it made the productivity of the preemptive "war on terror" a self-perpetuating movement. Even if the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the war would have to continue on other fronts no matter who controls Congress or who is in the White House. It would have to continue in Afghanistan, for example, where the assymetrical tactics perfected in Iraq are now being applied to renew the conflict there. Or in Iran, which also always could have/would have been a terrorist breeding ground. Or it could morph and move to the Mexican-US border, itself morphed into a distributed frontline proliferating throughout the territory in the moving form of "illegal immigration". <u><strong><mark>On the </u></strong></mark>indefinite<u><strong><mark> Homeland Security front </u></strong></mark>of a protieform war<u><strong><mark>, who knows what threats may be </u></strong></mark>spinelessly<u><strong> <mark>incubating</strong></mark> </u>where, abetted by those who lack the "backbone" to go kinetic.<u> <strong><mark>Preemption</strong></mark> </u>is like deterrence in that it<u> <strong><mark>combines a proprietary epistemology with a unique ontology </u></strong></mark>in such a way as <u><strong><mark>to make present a future cause that sets a self-perpetuating movement into operation</u></strong></mark>. Its differences from deterrence hinge on its taking objectively indeterminate or potential threat as its self-constitutive cause rather than fully formed and specified threat. It situates itself on the ground of ontogenetic potential. There, rather than deterring the feared effect, it actualizes the potential in a shape to which it hopes it can respond. It assumes a proliferation of potential threats, and mirrors that capacity in its own operation. It becomes proliferative. It assumes the objective imbalance of a far-from-equilibrium state as a permanent condition. Rather than trying to right the imbalance, it seizes it as an opportunity for itself. Preemption also sets a race in motion. But this is a race run on the edge of chaos. It is a race of movement-flushing, detection, perception, and affective actuation, run in irreparably chaotic or quasi-chaotic conditions. The race of preemption has any number of laps, each ending in the actual effecting of a threat. Each actualization of a threat triggers the next lap, as a continuation of the first in the same direction, or in another way in a different field. Deterrence revolved around an objective cause. Preemption revolves around a proliferative effect. Both are operative logics. The operative logic of deterrence, however, remained causal even as it displaced its cause's effect. <u><strong><mark>Preemption</strong></mark> </u>is an effective operative logic rather than a causal operative logic. Since its ground is potential, there is no actual cause for it to organize itself around. It <u><strong><mark>compensates for the absence of an actual cause by producing an actual effect in its place</u></strong></mark>. This it makes the motor of its movement: it converts an absent or virtual cause really, directly into a taking-actual-effect. It does this affectively. It uses affect to effectively trigger a virtual causality.8 Preemption is when the futurity of unspecified threat is affectively held in the present in a perpetual state of potential emergence(y) so that a movement of actualization may be triggered that is not only self-propelling but also effectively, indefinitely, ontologically productive, because it works from a virtual cause whose potential no single actualization exhausts. Preemption's operational parameters mean that is never univocal. It operates in the element of vagueness and objective uncertainty. Due to its proliferative nature, it cannot be monolithic. Its logic cannot close in around its self-causing as the logic deterrence does. It includes an essential openness in its productive logic.9 It incites its adversary to take emergent form. It then strives to become as proteiform as its ever-emergent adversary can be. It is as shape-shifting as it is self-driving. It infiltrates across boundaries, sweeping up existing formations in its own transversal movement. Faced with gravity-bound formations too inertial for it to sweep up and carry off with its own operative logic, it contents itself with opening windows of opportunity to pass through. This is the case with the domestic legal and juridical structure in the US. It can't sweep that away. But it can build into that structure escape holes for itself. These take the form of formal provisions vastly expanding the power of the executive, in the person of the president in his role as commander-in-chief, to declare states of exception which suspend the normal legal course in order to enable a continued flow of preemptive action.10 <u><strong><mark>Preemption stands for conflict unlimited: the potential for peace amended to become a perpetual state of undeclared war.</strong></mark> <strong>This is the "permanent state of emergency" so presciently described by Walter Benjamin. In current Bush administration parlance, it has come to be called "Long War" replacing the Cold War: a preemptive war with an in-built tendency to be never-ending. Deterrence produced asymmetrical conflict as a by-product. The MADly balanced East-West bipolarity spun off a North-South sub-polarity. This was less a polarity than an axis of imbalance. The "South" was neither a second Western First nor another Eastern Second. It was an anomalous Third. In this chaotic " Third World ," local conflicts prefiguring the present "imbalance of terror" proliferated. The phrase "the war on terror" was in fact first popularized by Richard Nixon in 1972 in response to the attack at the Munich Olympics when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spectacularly overspilled northward. Asymmetrical conflicts, however, were perceivable by the reigning logic of deterrence only as a reflection of itself. The dynamic of deterrence were overlaid upon them. Their heterogeneity was overcoded by the familiar US-Soviet duality. Globally such conflicts figured only as opportunities to reproduce the worldwide balance of terror on a reduced scale. The strategy of "containment" adopted toward them was for the two sides in the dominant dyad to operate in each local theater through proxies in such a way that their influence, on the whole, balanced out. "I decided," Nixon said after Munich , "that we must maintain a balance."11 He did not, as Bush did after 9-11, decide to skew things by going unilaterally "kinetic." The rhetoric of the "war on terror" fell into abeyance during the remainder of the 1970s, as Southern asymmetries tended to be overcoded as global rebalancings, and going kinetic was "contained" to the status of local anomaly. </p></u></strong> </s>

Once legalized, PAS will expand uncontrollably---regulations are a myth

Physical pain and psychological suffering are great evils to relieve them by assisted suicide is an even greater evil. Those practices threaten the future security of the living Once a society allows one person to take the life of another based on their mutual private standards of a life worth living, there can be no safe or sure way to contain the deadly virus thus introduced. It will go where it will thereafter The belief that physician-assisted suicide can be safely regulated is a myth confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship makes it impossible to provide adequate oversight we cannot know what goes on in the privacy of the doctor-patient encounter, we can never know whether, and to what extent, laws regulating physician-assisted suicide will be violated or ignored physicians will have enormous discretion but no way of knowing how to make a definitive evaluation of the extent of, or the legitimacy of, the suffering the patient reports.

pain and suffering are great evils assisted suicide is an even greater evil there can be no way to contain the deadly virus The belief that p a s can be regulated is a myth confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship makes it impossible to provide adequate oversight we can never know what laws will be violated physicians will have discretion but no way to make a definitive evaluation of suffering

Physical pain and psychological suffering among those who are critically ill and dying are great evils. The attempt to relieve them by the introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide is an even greater evil. Those practices threaten the future security of the living. They no less threaten the dying themselves. Once a society allows one person to take the life of another based on their mutual private standards of a life worth living, there can be no safe or sure way to contain the deadly virus thus introduced. It will go where it will thereafter. The belief that physician-assisted suicide can be safely regulated is a myth—the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship makes it impossible to provide adequate oversight. Since we cannot know what goes on in the privacy of the doctor-patient encounter, we can never know whether, and to what extent, laws regulating physician-assisted suicide (and euthanasia as well) will be violated or ignored. The lack of any correlation between suffering and a desire for suicide means, of necessity, that physicians will have enormous discretion in assisting in suicide—but no way of knowing how to make a definitive evaluation of the extent of, or the legitimacy of, the suffering the patient reports.

<h4>Once legalized, PAS will expand uncontrollably---regulations are a <strong>myth</h4><p></strong>Daniel <strong>Callahan 2</strong>, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in<u><strong> “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p>Physical <mark>pain and</mark> psychological <mark>suffering</mark> </u></strong>among those who are critically ill and dying <u><strong><mark>are great evils</u></strong></mark>. The attempt <u><strong>to relieve them by</u></strong> the introduction of euthanasia and <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide is an even greater evil</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Those practices threaten the future security of the living</u></strong>. They no less threaten the dying themselves. <u><strong>Once a society allows one person to take the life of another based on their mutual private standards of a life worth living, <mark>there can be no</mark> safe or sure <mark>way to contain the deadly virus</mark> thus introduced.</u></strong> <u><strong>It will go where it will thereafter</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The belief that p</mark>hysician-<mark>a</mark>ssisted <mark>s</mark>uicide <mark>can be</mark> safely <mark>regulated is a myth</u></strong></mark>—the <u><strong><mark>confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship makes it impossible to provide adequate oversight</u></strong></mark>. Since <u><strong>we cannot know what goes on in the privacy of the doctor-patient encounter, <mark>we can never know</mark> whether, and to <mark>what</mark> extent, <mark>laws</mark> regulating physician-assisted suicide</u></strong> (and euthanasia as well) <u><strong><mark>will be violated</mark> or ignored</u></strong>. The lack of any correlation between suffering and a desire for suicide means, of necessity, that <u><strong><mark>physicians will have</mark> enormous <mark>discretion</u></strong></mark> in assisting in suicide—<u><strong><mark>but no way</mark> of knowing how <mark>to make a definitive evaluation of</mark> the extent of, or the legitimacy of, the <mark>suffering</mark> the patient reports. </p></u></strong>

Daniel Callahan 2, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Daniel Callahan 2, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1 fulltext: Physical pain and psychological suffering among those who are critically ill and dying are great evils. The attempt to relieve them by the introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide is an even greater evil. Those practices threaten the future security of the living. They no less threaten the dying themselves. Once a society allows one person to take the life of another based on their mutual private standards of a life worth living, there can be no safe or sure way to contain the deadly virus thus introduced. It will go where it will thereafter. The belief that physician-assisted suicide can be safely regulated is a myth—the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship makes it impossible to provide adequate oversight. Since we cannot know what goes on in the privacy of the doctor-patient encounter, we can never know whether, and to what extent, laws regulating physician-assisted suicide (and euthanasia as well) will be violated or ignored. The lack of any correlation between suffering and a desire for suicide means, of necessity, that physicians will have enormous discretion in assisting in suicide—but no way of knowing how to make a definitive evaluation of the extent of, or the legitimacy of, the suffering the patient reports. [/INST] <h4>Once legalized, PAS will expand uncontrollably---regulations are a <strong>myth</h4><p></strong>Daniel <strong>Callahan 2</strong>, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in<u><strong> “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p>Physical <mark>pain and</mark> psychological <mark>suffering</mark> </u></strong>among those who are critically ill and dying <u><strong><mark>are great evils</u></strong></mark>. The attempt <u><strong>to relieve them by</u></strong> the introduction of euthanasia and <u><strong><mark>assisted suicide is an even greater evil</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Those practices threaten the future security of the living</u></strong>. They no less threaten the dying themselves. <u><strong>Once a society allows one person to take the life of another based on their mutual private standards of a life worth living, <mark>there can be no</mark> safe or sure <mark>way to contain the deadly virus</mark> thus introduced.</u></strong> <u><strong>It will go where it will thereafter</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The belief that p</mark>hysician-<mark>a</mark>ssisted <mark>s</mark>uicide <mark>can be</mark> safely <mark>regulated is a myth</u></strong></mark>—the <u><strong><mark>confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship makes it impossible to provide adequate oversight</u></strong></mark>. Since <u><strong>we cannot know what goes on in the privacy of the doctor-patient encounter, <mark>we can never know</mark> whether, and to <mark>what</mark> extent, <mark>laws</mark> regulating physician-assisted suicide</u></strong> (and euthanasia as well) <u><strong><mark>will be violated</mark> or ignored</u></strong>. The lack of any correlation between suffering and a desire for suicide means, of necessity, that <u><strong><mark>physicians will have</mark> enormous <mark>discretion</u></strong></mark> in assisting in suicide—<u><strong><mark>but no way</mark> of knowing how <mark>to make a definitive evaluation of</mark> the extent of, or the legitimacy of, the <mark>suffering</mark> the patient reports. </p></u></strong> </s>

Goes nuclear

an attack on Iran might escalate into a global nuclear war World War I escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China, firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn in Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy. there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation Recent research has shown that besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result. nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world

attack might escalate into nuclear war, minor conflict would escalate into large-scale war destabilizing a region Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary government might introduc nuclear weapons Russia and China might be drawn in war would cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the economy besides making the world uninhabitable nuclear war would damage ag famine would result nuclear war could destroy civilization

Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran. But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China, firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn into a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy. In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation. Recent research has shown that besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result. Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world, US citizens included.

<h4>Goes nuclear</h4><p><strong>Avery, 13</strong> --- Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen (11/6/2013, John Scales Avery, “An Attack on Iran Could Escalate into Global Nuclear War,” http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm)</p><p>Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to demand <u><strong>an <mark>attack</mark> on Iran</u></strong>. But such an attack <u><strong><mark>might escalate into</mark> a global <mark>nuclear war</u></strong>,</mark> with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary <u><strong>World War I</u></strong>, we should remember that this colossal disaster <u><strong>escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a <mark>minor conflict</mark>. There is a danger that an attack on Iran <mark>would escalate into</mark> a <mark>large-scale war</mark> in the Middle East, entirely <mark>destabilizing a region</u></strong></mark> that is already deep in problems. <u><strong>The unstable government of <mark>Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary</mark> Pakistani <mark>government</mark> <mark>might</mark> enter the war on the side of Iran, thus <mark>introduc</mark>ing <mark>nuclear weapons</mark> into the conflict.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Russia and China</mark>, firm allies of Iran, <mark>might</mark> also <mark>be drawn in</u></strong></mark>to a general war in the Middle East. <u><strong>Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a <mark>war would</mark> certainly <mark>cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the</mark> global <mark>economy</mark>.</strong> </u>In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, <u><strong>there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation</u></strong>. <u><strong>Recent research has shown that <mark>besides making</mark> large areas of <mark>the world uninhabitable</mark> through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a <mark>nuclear war would damage</mark> global <mark>ag</mark>riculture to such a extent that a global <mark>famine</mark> of previously unknown proportions <mark>would result</mark>.</u></strong> Thus, <u><strong><mark>nuclear war</mark> is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It <mark>could destroy</mark> human <mark>civilization</mark> and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world</u></strong>, US citizens included.</p>

Avery, 13 --- Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen (11/6/2013, John Scales Avery, “An Attack on Iran Could Escalate into Global Nuclear War,” http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Avery, 13 --- Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen (11/6/2013, John Scales Avery, “An Attack on Iran Could Escalate into Global Nuclear War,” http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm) fulltext: Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran. But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China, firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn into a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy. In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation. Recent research has shown that besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result. Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world, US citizens included. [/INST] <h4>Goes nuclear</h4><p><strong>Avery, 13</strong> --- Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen (11/6/2013, John Scales Avery, “An Attack on Iran Could Escalate into Global Nuclear War,” http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm)</p><p>Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to demand <u><strong>an <mark>attack</mark> on Iran</u></strong>. But such an attack <u><strong><mark>might escalate into</mark> a global <mark>nuclear war</u></strong>,</mark> with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary <u><strong>World War I</u></strong>, we should remember that this colossal disaster <u><strong>escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a <mark>minor conflict</mark>. There is a danger that an attack on Iran <mark>would escalate into</mark> a <mark>large-scale war</mark> in the Middle East, entirely <mark>destabilizing a region</u></strong></mark> that is already deep in problems. <u><strong>The unstable government of <mark>Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary</mark> Pakistani <mark>government</mark> <mark>might</mark> enter the war on the side of Iran, thus <mark>introduc</mark>ing <mark>nuclear weapons</mark> into the conflict.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Russia and China</mark>, firm allies of Iran, <mark>might</mark> also <mark>be drawn in</u></strong></mark>to a general war in the Middle East. <u><strong>Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a <mark>war would</mark> certainly <mark>cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the</mark> global <mark>economy</mark>.</strong> </u>In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, <u><strong>there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation</u></strong>. <u><strong>Recent research has shown that <mark>besides making</mark> large areas of <mark>the world uninhabitable</mark> through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a <mark>nuclear war would damage</mark> global <mark>ag</mark>riculture to such a extent that a global <mark>famine</mark> of previously unknown proportions <mark>would result</mark>.</u></strong> Thus, <u><strong><mark>nuclear war</mark> is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It <mark>could destroy</mark> human <mark>civilization</mark> and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world</u></strong>, US citizens included.</p> </s>

Uncertainty means vote aff – without action, our ability to predict exactly what will happen and adapt is minimal

The 4°C scenarios are devastating: inundation of coastal cities unprecedented heat waves exacerbated water scarcity cyclones irreversible loss of systems a 4° world comes with high uncertainty new risks threaten our ability to anticipate and plan adaptation Despite intentions to keep warming below 2° , higher levels are increasingly likely a 4° world would be so dramatically different from today’s that it is hard to describe accurately; the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient climate change affects everything solutions lie in risk management designed with a 4° world in mind

The 4° scenarios are devastating inundation of coastal cities unprecedented heat waves exacerbated scarcity cyclones irreversible loss of systems a 4° world comes with high uncertainty new risks threaten our ability to anticipate and plan adaptation Despite intentions to keep warming below 2° higher levels are increasingly likely a 4° world would be so dramatically different from today’s that it is hard to describe accurately the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient climate change affects everything solutions lie in risk management designed with a 4° world in mind

It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency. This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes. The 4°C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems. And most importantly, a 4°C world is so different from the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and plan for future adaptation needs. The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development. It is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought. Despite the global community’s best intentions to keep global warming below a 2°C increase above pre-industrial climate, higher levels of warming are increasingly likely. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes. Data and evidence drive the work of the World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense. But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the implications of a 4°C world? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world. It would be so dramatically different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately; much relies on complex projections and interpretations. We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest. A 4°C world can, and must, be avoided. The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth. This report is a stark reminder that climate change affects everything. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk management and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C degree world in mind. The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge.

<h4>Uncertainty means vote aff – without action, our ability to predict exactly what will happen and adapt is minimal</h4><p><strong>Kim, 2012</strong> (Dr. Jim Yong, President of the World Bank Group, “Turn Down The heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided”, November, World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)</p><p>It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency. This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes. <u><strong><mark>The 4°</mark>C<mark> scenarios are devastating</mark>: </u></strong>the <u><strong><mark>inundation of coastal cities</u></strong></mark>; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; <u><strong><mark>unprecedented</mark> <mark>heat waves</u></strong></mark> in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially <u><strong><mark>exacerbated</mark> water <mark>scarcity</u></strong></mark> in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity<u><strong> </u></strong>tropical <u><strong><mark>cyclones</u></strong></mark>; and<u><strong> <mark>irreversible loss of </u></strong></mark>biodiversity, including coral reef<u><strong> <mark>systems</u></strong></mark>. And most importantly, <u><strong><mark>a 4°</u></strong></mark>C<u><strong> <mark>world </u></strong></mark>is so different from the current one that it<u><strong> <mark>comes with high uncertainty </u></strong></mark>and<u><strong> <mark>new risks </u></strong></mark>that<u><strong> <mark>threaten our ability to anticipate and plan </u></strong></mark>for future<u><strong> <mark>adaptation</mark> </u></strong>needs. The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development. It is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought. <u><strong><mark>Despite </u></strong></mark>the global community’s best<u><strong> <mark>intentions to keep </u></strong></mark>global<u><strong> <mark>warming below</mark> </u></strong>a<u><strong> <mark>2°</u></strong></mark>C increase above pre-industrial climate<u><strong>, <mark>higher levels </u></strong></mark>of warming<u><strong> <mark>are increasingly likely</u></strong></mark>. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes.<u><strong> </u></strong>Data and evidence drive the work of the World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense. But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the implications of <u><strong><mark>a 4°</u></strong></mark>C<u><strong> <mark>world</u></strong></mark>? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world. It <u><strong><mark>would be so dramatically different from today’s </u></strong></mark>world<u><strong> <mark>that it is hard to describe accurately</mark>;</u></strong> much relies on complex projections and interpretations. We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But <u><strong><mark>the fact that such</mark> <mark>scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient </u></strong></mark>to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest. A 4°C world can, and must, be avoided. The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth. This report is a stark reminder that <u><strong><mark>climate change affects everything</u></strong></mark>. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The<u><strong> <mark>solutions lie in</mark> </u></strong>effective<u><strong> <mark>risk management</mark> </u></strong>and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is<u><strong> <mark>designed with</mark> </u></strong>the threat of <u><strong><mark>a 4°</u></strong></mark>C degree<u><strong> <mark>world in mind</u></strong></mark>. The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge.</p>

Kim, 2012 (Dr. Jim Yong, President of the World Bank Group, “Turn Down The heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided”, November, World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kim, 2012 (Dr. Jim Yong, President of the World Bank Group, “Turn Down The heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided”, November, World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf) fulltext: It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency. This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes. The 4°C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems. And most importantly, a 4°C world is so different from the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and plan for future adaptation needs. The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development. It is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought. Despite the global community’s best intentions to keep global warming below a 2°C increase above pre-industrial climate, higher levels of warming are increasingly likely. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes. Data and evidence drive the work of the World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense. But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the implications of a 4°C world? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world. It would be so dramatically different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately; much relies on complex projections and interpretations. We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest. A 4°C world can, and must, be avoided. The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth. This report is a stark reminder that climate change affects everything. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk management and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C degree world in mind. The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge. [/INST] <h4>Uncertainty means vote aff – without action, our ability to predict exactly what will happen and adapt is minimal</h4><p><strong>Kim, 2012</strong> (Dr. Jim Yong, President of the World Bank Group, “Turn Down The heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided”, November, World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)</p><p>It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency. This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes. <u><strong><mark>The 4°</mark>C<mark> scenarios are devastating</mark>: </u></strong>the <u><strong><mark>inundation of coastal cities</u></strong></mark>; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; <u><strong><mark>unprecedented</mark> <mark>heat waves</u></strong></mark> in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially <u><strong><mark>exacerbated</mark> water <mark>scarcity</u></strong></mark> in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity<u><strong> </u></strong>tropical <u><strong><mark>cyclones</u></strong></mark>; and<u><strong> <mark>irreversible loss of </u></strong></mark>biodiversity, including coral reef<u><strong> <mark>systems</u></strong></mark>. And most importantly, <u><strong><mark>a 4°</u></strong></mark>C<u><strong> <mark>world </u></strong></mark>is so different from the current one that it<u><strong> <mark>comes with high uncertainty </u></strong></mark>and<u><strong> <mark>new risks </u></strong></mark>that<u><strong> <mark>threaten our ability to anticipate and plan </u></strong></mark>for future<u><strong> <mark>adaptation</mark> </u></strong>needs. The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development. It is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought. <u><strong><mark>Despite </u></strong></mark>the global community’s best<u><strong> <mark>intentions to keep </u></strong></mark>global<u><strong> <mark>warming below</mark> </u></strong>a<u><strong> <mark>2°</u></strong></mark>C increase above pre-industrial climate<u><strong>, <mark>higher levels </u></strong></mark>of warming<u><strong> <mark>are increasingly likely</u></strong></mark>. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes.<u><strong> </u></strong>Data and evidence drive the work of the World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense. But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the implications of <u><strong><mark>a 4°</u></strong></mark>C<u><strong> <mark>world</u></strong></mark>? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world. It <u><strong><mark>would be so dramatically different from today’s </u></strong></mark>world<u><strong> <mark>that it is hard to describe accurately</mark>;</u></strong> much relies on complex projections and interpretations. We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But <u><strong><mark>the fact that such</mark> <mark>scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient </u></strong></mark>to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest. A 4°C world can, and must, be avoided. The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth. This report is a stark reminder that <u><strong><mark>climate change affects everything</u></strong></mark>. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The<u><strong> <mark>solutions lie in</mark> </u></strong>effective<u><strong> <mark>risk management</mark> </u></strong>and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is<u><strong> <mark>designed with</mark> </u></strong>the threat of <u><strong><mark>a 4°</u></strong></mark>C degree<u><strong> <mark>world in mind</u></strong></mark>. The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge.</p> </s>

3. Their Western conception of death is incompatible with the alt

The anagram in Saussure, the Witz in Freud, graffiti in New York, the Accident in the media are all treated by Baudrillard as symbolic events wherein death, denied and repressed, poses a challenge to life. From the standpoint of 9(11, his theory of death in primitive and modern cultures is most pertinent. Like Foucault, Baudrillard sees the history of Western culture in terms of a genealogy of discrimination and exclusion: At the very core of the "rationality" of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death. the dead in primitive societies played integral roles in the lives of the living by serving as partners in symbolic exchange. A gift to the dead was believed to yield a return, and by exchanging with the dead through ritual sacrifices, celebrations and feasts, they managed to absorb the rupturing energy of death back into the group. But there is an irreversible evolution from savage societies to our own: little by little, the dead cease to exist They are thrown out of the group's symbolic circulation. They are no longer beings with a full role to play, worthy partners in exchange....Today it is not normal to be dead, and this is new. . . . Death is a delinquency, and an incurable deviancy. Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value by our measurements. We give them nothing and expect nothing from them in return, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response The primitives, Baudrillard maintains, responded to this challenge collectively through symbolic exchanges with their dead and deities. Their belief in the sign's transparency, its symbolic singularity, can be seen in animistic practices such as voodoo, where the enemy's hair is thought to contain his or her spirit. If the dead are only humans of a different nature, and if the sign is what it stands for, then a symbolic sacrifice to a dead person is every bit as binding as a gift to a living person . But Americans are not "primitives"--we do not value death symbolically, but rather only as a subtraction from life. Capitalism's implicit promise, in every ad campaign and marketing strategy, is that to consume is to live. Because we devalue death and thereby the dead, we view them only as a dreaded caste of unfortunates, and not as continuing partners in exchange. Ultimately, however, it is not so much the dead but our own deaths, our negative doubles, that we insult by denying their value. When we posit death as the negation of life, we bifurcate our identities and begin a process of mourning over our own eventual deaths, a process which lasts our whole lives. The more we devalue our death-images, that is, the greater they become, until they haunt our every moment, as in Don DeLillo's darkest comedy, White Noise. This leads us, according to Baudrillard, to an obsession with death that can be felt in the media fascination with catastrophes like 9(11. Death "becomes the object of a perverse desire.

by exchanging with the dead through ritual they managed to absorb the rupturing energy of death back into the group. little by little, the dead cease to exist They are thrown out of circulation. Today it is not normal to be dead, and this is new. . . . Death is a delinquency we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value We give them nothing and expect nothing from them in return If the dead are only humans of a different nature then a symbolic sacrifice is every bit as binding as a gift to a living person Americans do not value death symbolically, but as a subtraction from life to consume is to live When we posit death as the negation of life we bifurcate our identities and begin mourning over our own eventual deaths, a process which lasts our whole lives. The more we devalue our death-images the greater they become, until they haunt our every moment, This leads us to an obsession with death that can be felt in the media fascination with catastrophes like 9(11. Death "becomes the object of a perverse desire.

Despite this transparent warning, in Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976) Baudrillard went on to sketch several examples of symbolic exchange in relation to death in today's political economy. The anagram in Saussure, the Witz in Freud, graffiti in New York, the Accident in the media are all treated by Baudrillard as symbolic events wherein death, denied and repressed, poses a challenge to life. From the standpoint of 9(11, his theory of death in primitive and modern cultures is most pertinent. Like Foucault, Baudrillard sees the history of Western culture in terms of a genealogy of discrimination and exclusion: At the very core of the "rationality" of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death. (Symbolic 126) According to Baudrillard, the dead in primitive societies played integral roles in the lives of the living by serving as partners in symbolic exchange. A gift to the dead was believed to yield a return, and by exchanging with the dead through ritual sacrifices, celebrations and feasts, they managed to absorb the rupturing energy of death back into the group. But there is an irreversible evolution from savage societies to our own: little by little, the dead cease to exist. They are thrown out of the group's symbolic circulation. They are no longer beings with a full role to play, worthy partners in exchange....Today it is not normal to be dead, and this is new. . . . Death is a delinquency, and an incurable deviancy. (126) Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value by our measurements. We give them nothing and expect nothing from them in return, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response. How do we respond to the symbolic challenge of death and the dead, the challenge they pose to our conscious experience? This is the question of 9(11. The primitives, Baudrillard maintains, responded to this challenge collectively through symbolic exchanges with their dead and deities. Their belief in the sign's transparency, its symbolic singularity, can be seen in animistic practices such as voodoo, where the enemy's hair is thought to contain his or her spirit. If the dead are only humans of a different nature, and if the sign is what it stands for, then a symbolic sacrifice to a dead person is every bit as binding as a gift to a living person. The obligation to return is placed upon the dead, and they reciprocate by somehow honoring or benefiting the living. Most Christians believe in and employ this same mechanism when they pray to the resurrected Christ, but even they do not believe that their symbolic gestures are anything but metaphors. We no longer believe in the one to one correspondence of signifier and signified, and we know the loved one is not really contained in the lock of hair. Americans will doubtless commemorate the deaths of those killed on 9(11 as long as our nation exists, but we know that our gifts to the dead are only symbolic, which for us means imaginary. Baudrillard's postmodern-primitive symbolic, on the other hand, aimed to obliterate the difference in value between the imaginary and the real, the signifier and the signified, and to expose the metaphysical prejudice at the heart of all such valuations. His wager was that this would be done through aesthetic violence and not real violence, but having erased the difference between the two, there was never any guarantee that others wouldn't take such theoretical "violence" to its literal ends. Graffiti art, scarification and tattooing are just the benign counterparts of true terrorism, which takes ritual sacrifice and initiation to their extremes. Literalists and extremists, fundamentalists of all sorts, find their logic foretold in Baudrillard's references to the primitives. What the terrorists enacted on 9(11 was what Baudrillard would call a symbolic event of the first order, and they were undeniably primitive in their belief that God, the dead, and the living would somehow honor and benefit them in the afterlife. Unable to defeat the U.S. in economic or military terms, they employ the rule of prestation in symbolic exchange with the gift of their own deaths. But Americans are not "primitives"--we do not value death symbolically, but rather only as a subtraction from life. Capitalism's implicit promise, in every ad campaign and marketing strategy, is that to consume is to live. We score up life against death as gain against loss, as if through accumulation we achieve mastery over the qualitative presence of death that haunts life. Our official holidays honoring the dead serve no other function than to encourage consumption. When it comes to actually dealing with death and the dead, even in public, we do so in private. As Baudrillard points out, "This entails a considerable difference in enjoyment: we trade with our dead in a kind of melancholy, while the primitives live with their dead under the auspices of the ritual and the feast" (134-35). Because we devalue death and thereby the dead, we view them only as a dreaded caste of unfortunates, and not as continuing partners in exchange. Ultimately, however, it is not so much the dead but our own deaths, our negative doubles, that we insult by denying their value. When we posit death as the negation of life, we bifurcate our identities and begin a process of mourning over our own eventual deaths, a process which lasts our whole lives. The more we devalue our death-images, that is, the greater they become, until they haunt our every moment, as in Don DeLillo's darkest comedy, White Noise. This leads us, according to Baudrillard, to an obsession with death that can be felt in the media fascination with catastrophes like 9(11. Death "becomes the object of a perverse desire. Desire invests the very separation of life and death" (147). Political economy's inability to absorb the rupturing energy of death is thus compensated by the symbolic yield of the media catastrophe. In these events we experience an artificial death which fascinates us, bored as we are by the routine order of the system and the "natural" death it prescribes for us. Natural death represents an unnegotiable negation of life and the tedious certainty of an unwanted end. It therefore inspires insurrection, until "reason itself is pursued by the hope of a universal revolt against its own norms and privileges" (162). The terrorist spectacle is an example of such a revolt, in which death gains symbolic distinction and becomes more than simply "natural." We may not think we identify with the terrorists' superstitions about honor in the next life, but in events like 9(11, Baudrillard would suggest, we nevertheless identify despite ourselves with both with the terrorists and their victims: We are all hostages, and that's the secret of hostage-taking, and we are all dreaming, instead of dying stupidly working oneself to the ground, of receiving death and of giving death. Giving and receiving constitute one symbolic act (the symbolic act par excellence), which rids death of all the indifferent negativity it holds for us in the "natural" order of capital. (166)

<h4>3. Their Western conception of death is incompatible with the alt </h4><p><strong>Butterfield 2002</strong> (Bradley. University of Wisconsin, La Crosse M.A. and Ph.D. in Comparative Literature, University of Oregon. The Baudrillardian Symbolic, 9(11, and the War of Good and Evil. PMC 13.1 2002. Project Muse.) </p><p>Despite this transparent warning, in Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976) Baudrillard went on to sketch several examples of symbolic exchange in relation to death in today's political economy. <u>The anagram in Saussure, the Witz in Freud, graffiti in New York, the Accident in the media are all treated by Baudrillard as symbolic events wherein death, denied and repressed, poses a challenge to life. From the standpoint of 9(11, his theory of death in primitive and modern cultures is most pertinent. Like Foucault, Baudrillard sees the history of Western culture in terms of a genealogy of discrimination and exclusion<strong>: At the very core of the "rationality" of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other,</strong> more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: <strong>the exclusion of the dead and of death</strong>.</u> (Symbolic 126) According to Baudrillard, <u><strong>the dead</strong> in primitive societies <strong>played integral roles in the lives of the living</strong> <strong>by serving as partners in symbolic exchange. A gift to the dead was believed to yield a return, and <mark>by exchanging with the dead through ritual </mark>sacrifices, celebrations and feasts, <mark>they managed to absorb the rupturing energy of death back into the group.</mark> But</u></strong> <u>there is an irreversible evolution from savage societies to our own: <strong><mark>little by little, the dead cease to exist</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>They are thrown out of</mark> the group's symbolic <mark>circulation.</mark> They are no longer beings with a full role to play, worthy partners in exchange....<mark>Today it is not normal to be dead, and this is new. . . . Death is a <strong>delinquency</strong></mark>, and an <strong>incurable deviancy</strong>.</u> (126) <u>Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because <mark>we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value</mark> by our measurements. <mark>We <strong>give them nothing</strong> and <strong>expect nothing</strong> from them in return</mark>, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response</u>. How do we respond to the symbolic challenge of death and the dead, the challenge they pose to our conscious experience? This is the question of 9(11. <u>The primitives, Baudrillard maintains, responded to this challenge collectively through symbolic exchanges with their dead and deities. Their belief in the sign's transparency, its symbolic singularity, can be seen in animistic practices such as voodoo, where the enemy's</u> <u>hair is thought to contain his or her spirit<strong>. <mark>If the dead are only humans of a different nature</mark>, and if the sign is what it stands for, <mark>then a symbolic sacrifice </mark>to a dead person <mark>is every bit as binding as a gift to a living person</u></strong></mark>. The obligation to return is placed upon the dead, and they reciprocate by somehow honoring or benefiting the living. Most Christians believe in and employ this same mechanism when they pray to the resurrected Christ, but even they do not believe that their symbolic gestures are anything but metaphors. We no longer believe in the one to one correspondence of signifier and signified, and we know the loved one is not really contained in the lock of hair. Americans will doubtless commemorate the deaths of those killed on 9(11 as long as our nation exists, but we know that<u> </u>our gifts to the dead are only symbolic, which for us means imaginary. Baudrillard's postmodern-primitive symbolic, on the other hand, aimed to obliterate the difference in value between the imaginary and the real, the signifier and the signified, and to expose the metaphysical prejudice at the heart of all such valuations. His wager was that this would be done through aesthetic violence and not real violence, but having erased the difference between the two, there was never any guarantee that others wouldn't take such theoretical "violence" to its literal ends. Graffiti art, scarification and tattooing are just the benign counterparts of true terrorism, which takes ritual sacrifice and initiation to their extremes. Literalists and extremists, fundamentalists of all sorts, find their logic foretold in Baudrillard's references to the primitives. What the terrorists enacted on 9(11 was what Baudrillard would call a symbolic event of the first order, and they were undeniably primitive in their belief that God, the dead, and the living would somehow honor and benefit them in the afterlife. Unable to defeat the U.S. in economic or military terms, they employ the rule of prestation in symbolic exchange with the gift of their own deaths<u>. <strong>But <mark>Americans</mark> are not "primitives"--we <mark>do not value death symbolically, but </mark>rather only <mark>as a subtraction from life</mark>. Capitalism's implicit promise, in every ad campaign and marketing strategy, is that <mark>to consume is to live</mark>.</u></strong> We score up life against death as gain against loss, as if through accumulation we achieve mastery over the qualitative presence of death that haunts life. Our official holidays honoring the dead serve no other function than to encourage consumption. When it comes to actually dealing with death and the dead, even in public, we do so in private. As Baudrillard points out, "This entails a considerable difference in enjoyment: we trade with our dead in a kind of melancholy, while the primitives live with their dead under the auspices of the ritual and the feast" (134-35). <u><strong>Because we devalue death and thereby the dead, we view them only as a dreaded caste of unfortunates, and not as continuing partners in exchange. Ultimately, however, it is not so much the dead but our own deaths, our negative doubles, that we insult by denying their value. <mark>When we posit death as the negation of life</mark>,</strong> <strong><mark>we bifurcate our identities and begin </mark>a process of <mark>mourning over our own eventual deaths, a process which lasts our whole lives.</mark> <mark>The more we devalue our death-images</mark>, that is, <mark>the greater they become, until they haunt our every moment,</mark> as in Don DeLillo's darkest comedy, White Noise. <mark>This leads us</mark>, according to Baudrillard, <mark>to an obsession with death that can be felt in the media fascination with catastrophes like 9(11. Death "becomes the object of a perverse desire. </u></strong></mark>Desire invests the very separation of life and death" (147). Political economy's inability to absorb the rupturing energy of death is thus compensated by the symbolic yield of the media catastrophe. In these events we experience an artificial death which fascinates us, bored as we are by the routine order of the system and the "natural" death it prescribes for us. Natural death represents an unnegotiable negation of life and the tedious certainty of an unwanted end. It therefore inspires insurrection, until "reason itself is pursued by the hope of a universal revolt against its own norms and privileges" (162). The terrorist spectacle is an example of such a revolt, in which death gains symbolic distinction and becomes more than simply "natural." We may not think we identify with the terrorists' superstitions about honor in the next life, but in events like 9(11, Baudrillard would suggest, we nevertheless identify despite ourselves with both with the terrorists and their victims: We are all hostages, and that's the secret of hostage-taking, and we are all dreaming, instead of dying stupidly working oneself to the ground, of receiving death and of giving death. Giving and receiving constitute one symbolic act (the symbolic act par excellence), which rids death of all the indifferent negativity it holds for us in the "natural" order of capital. (166)</p>

Butterfield 2002 (Bradley. University of Wisconsin, La Crosse M.A. and Ph.D. in Comparative Literature, University of Oregon. The Baudrillardian Symbolic, 9(11, and the War of Good and Evil. PMC 13.1 2002. Project Muse.)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Butterfield 2002 (Bradley. University of Wisconsin, La Crosse M.A. and Ph.D. in Comparative Literature, University of Oregon. The Baudrillardian Symbolic, 9(11, and the War of Good and Evil. PMC 13.1 2002. Project Muse.) fulltext: Despite this transparent warning, in Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976) Baudrillard went on to sketch several examples of symbolic exchange in relation to death in today's political economy. The anagram in Saussure, the Witz in Freud, graffiti in New York, the Accident in the media are all treated by Baudrillard as symbolic events wherein death, denied and repressed, poses a challenge to life. From the standpoint of 9(11, his theory of death in primitive and modern cultures is most pertinent. Like Foucault, Baudrillard sees the history of Western culture in terms of a genealogy of discrimination and exclusion: At the very core of the "rationality" of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death. (Symbolic 126) According to Baudrillard, the dead in primitive societies played integral roles in the lives of the living by serving as partners in symbolic exchange. A gift to the dead was believed to yield a return, and by exchanging with the dead through ritual sacrifices, celebrations and feasts, they managed to absorb the rupturing energy of death back into the group. But there is an irreversible evolution from savage societies to our own: little by little, the dead cease to exist. They are thrown out of the group's symbolic circulation. They are no longer beings with a full role to play, worthy partners in exchange....Today it is not normal to be dead, and this is new. . . . Death is a delinquency, and an incurable deviancy. (126) Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value by our measurements. We give them nothing and expect nothing from them in return, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response. How do we respond to the symbolic challenge of death and the dead, the challenge they pose to our conscious experience? This is the question of 9(11. The primitives, Baudrillard maintains, responded to this challenge collectively through symbolic exchanges with their dead and deities. Their belief in the sign's transparency, its symbolic singularity, can be seen in animistic practices such as voodoo, where the enemy's hair is thought to contain his or her spirit. If the dead are only humans of a different nature, and if the sign is what it stands for, then a symbolic sacrifice to a dead person is every bit as binding as a gift to a living person. The obligation to return is placed upon the dead, and they reciprocate by somehow honoring or benefiting the living. Most Christians believe in and employ this same mechanism when they pray to the resurrected Christ, but even they do not believe that their symbolic gestures are anything but metaphors. We no longer believe in the one to one correspondence of signifier and signified, and we know the loved one is not really contained in the lock of hair. Americans will doubtless commemorate the deaths of those killed on 9(11 as long as our nation exists, but we know that our gifts to the dead are only symbolic, which for us means imaginary. Baudrillard's postmodern-primitive symbolic, on the other hand, aimed to obliterate the difference in value between the imaginary and the real, the signifier and the signified, and to expose the metaphysical prejudice at the heart of all such valuations. His wager was that this would be done through aesthetic violence and not real violence, but having erased the difference between the two, there was never any guarantee that others wouldn't take such theoretical "violence" to its literal ends. Graffiti art, scarification and tattooing are just the benign counterparts of true terrorism, which takes ritual sacrifice and initiation to their extremes. Literalists and extremists, fundamentalists of all sorts, find their logic foretold in Baudrillard's references to the primitives. What the terrorists enacted on 9(11 was what Baudrillard would call a symbolic event of the first order, and they were undeniably primitive in their belief that God, the dead, and the living would somehow honor and benefit them in the afterlife. Unable to defeat the U.S. in economic or military terms, they employ the rule of prestation in symbolic exchange with the gift of their own deaths. But Americans are not "primitives"--we do not value death symbolically, but rather only as a subtraction from life. Capitalism's implicit promise, in every ad campaign and marketing strategy, is that to consume is to live. We score up life against death as gain against loss, as if through accumulation we achieve mastery over the qualitative presence of death that haunts life. Our official holidays honoring the dead serve no other function than to encourage consumption. When it comes to actually dealing with death and the dead, even in public, we do so in private. As Baudrillard points out, "This entails a considerable difference in enjoyment: we trade with our dead in a kind of melancholy, while the primitives live with their dead under the auspices of the ritual and the feast" (134-35). Because we devalue death and thereby the dead, we view them only as a dreaded caste of unfortunates, and not as continuing partners in exchange. Ultimately, however, it is not so much the dead but our own deaths, our negative doubles, that we insult by denying their value. When we posit death as the negation of life, we bifurcate our identities and begin a process of mourning over our own eventual deaths, a process which lasts our whole lives. The more we devalue our death-images, that is, the greater they become, until they haunt our every moment, as in Don DeLillo's darkest comedy, White Noise. This leads us, according to Baudrillard, to an obsession with death that can be felt in the media fascination with catastrophes like 9(11. Death "becomes the object of a perverse desire. Desire invests the very separation of life and death" (147). Political economy's inability to absorb the rupturing energy of death is thus compensated by the symbolic yield of the media catastrophe. In these events we experience an artificial death which fascinates us, bored as we are by the routine order of the system and the "natural" death it prescribes for us. Natural death represents an unnegotiable negation of life and the tedious certainty of an unwanted end. It therefore inspires insurrection, until "reason itself is pursued by the hope of a universal revolt against its own norms and privileges" (162). The terrorist spectacle is an example of such a revolt, in which death gains symbolic distinction and becomes more than simply "natural." We may not think we identify with the terrorists' superstitions about honor in the next life, but in events like 9(11, Baudrillard would suggest, we nevertheless identify despite ourselves with both with the terrorists and their victims: We are all hostages, and that's the secret of hostage-taking, and we are all dreaming, instead of dying stupidly working oneself to the ground, of receiving death and of giving death. Giving and receiving constitute one symbolic act (the symbolic act par excellence), which rids death of all the indifferent negativity it holds for us in the "natural" order of capital. (166) [/INST] <h4>3. Their Western conception of death is incompatible with the alt </h4><p><strong>Butterfield 2002</strong> (Bradley. University of Wisconsin, La Crosse M.A. and Ph.D. in Comparative Literature, University of Oregon. The Baudrillardian Symbolic, 9(11, and the War of Good and Evil. PMC 13.1 2002. Project Muse.) </p><p>Despite this transparent warning, in Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976) Baudrillard went on to sketch several examples of symbolic exchange in relation to death in today's political economy. <u>The anagram in Saussure, the Witz in Freud, graffiti in New York, the Accident in the media are all treated by Baudrillard as symbolic events wherein death, denied and repressed, poses a challenge to life. From the standpoint of 9(11, his theory of death in primitive and modern cultures is most pertinent. Like Foucault, Baudrillard sees the history of Western culture in terms of a genealogy of discrimination and exclusion<strong>: At the very core of the "rationality" of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other,</strong> more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: <strong>the exclusion of the dead and of death</strong>.</u> (Symbolic 126) According to Baudrillard, <u><strong>the dead</strong> in primitive societies <strong>played integral roles in the lives of the living</strong> <strong>by serving as partners in symbolic exchange. A gift to the dead was believed to yield a return, and <mark>by exchanging with the dead through ritual </mark>sacrifices, celebrations and feasts, <mark>they managed to absorb the rupturing energy of death back into the group.</mark> But</u></strong> <u>there is an irreversible evolution from savage societies to our own: <strong><mark>little by little, the dead cease to exist</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>They are thrown out of</mark> the group's symbolic <mark>circulation.</mark> They are no longer beings with a full role to play, worthy partners in exchange....<mark>Today it is not normal to be dead, and this is new. . . . Death is a <strong>delinquency</strong></mark>, and an <strong>incurable deviancy</strong>.</u> (126) <u>Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because <mark>we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value</mark> by our measurements. <mark>We <strong>give them nothing</strong> and <strong>expect nothing</strong> from them in return</mark>, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response</u>. How do we respond to the symbolic challenge of death and the dead, the challenge they pose to our conscious experience? This is the question of 9(11. <u>The primitives, Baudrillard maintains, responded to this challenge collectively through symbolic exchanges with their dead and deities. Their belief in the sign's transparency, its symbolic singularity, can be seen in animistic practices such as voodoo, where the enemy's</u> <u>hair is thought to contain his or her spirit<strong>. <mark>If the dead are only humans of a different nature</mark>, and if the sign is what it stands for, <mark>then a symbolic sacrifice </mark>to a dead person <mark>is every bit as binding as a gift to a living person</u></strong></mark>. The obligation to return is placed upon the dead, and they reciprocate by somehow honoring or benefiting the living. Most Christians believe in and employ this same mechanism when they pray to the resurrected Christ, but even they do not believe that their symbolic gestures are anything but metaphors. We no longer believe in the one to one correspondence of signifier and signified, and we know the loved one is not really contained in the lock of hair. Americans will doubtless commemorate the deaths of those killed on 9(11 as long as our nation exists, but we know that<u> </u>our gifts to the dead are only symbolic, which for us means imaginary. Baudrillard's postmodern-primitive symbolic, on the other hand, aimed to obliterate the difference in value between the imaginary and the real, the signifier and the signified, and to expose the metaphysical prejudice at the heart of all such valuations. His wager was that this would be done through aesthetic violence and not real violence, but having erased the difference between the two, there was never any guarantee that others wouldn't take such theoretical "violence" to its literal ends. Graffiti art, scarification and tattooing are just the benign counterparts of true terrorism, which takes ritual sacrifice and initiation to their extremes. Literalists and extremists, fundamentalists of all sorts, find their logic foretold in Baudrillard's references to the primitives. What the terrorists enacted on 9(11 was what Baudrillard would call a symbolic event of the first order, and they were undeniably primitive in their belief that God, the dead, and the living would somehow honor and benefit them in the afterlife. Unable to defeat the U.S. in economic or military terms, they employ the rule of prestation in symbolic exchange with the gift of their own deaths<u>. <strong>But <mark>Americans</mark> are not "primitives"--we <mark>do not value death symbolically, but </mark>rather only <mark>as a subtraction from life</mark>. Capitalism's implicit promise, in every ad campaign and marketing strategy, is that <mark>to consume is to live</mark>.</u></strong> We score up life against death as gain against loss, as if through accumulation we achieve mastery over the qualitative presence of death that haunts life. Our official holidays honoring the dead serve no other function than to encourage consumption. When it comes to actually dealing with death and the dead, even in public, we do so in private. As Baudrillard points out, "This entails a considerable difference in enjoyment: we trade with our dead in a kind of melancholy, while the primitives live with their dead under the auspices of the ritual and the feast" (134-35). <u><strong>Because we devalue death and thereby the dead, we view them only as a dreaded caste of unfortunates, and not as continuing partners in exchange. Ultimately, however, it is not so much the dead but our own deaths, our negative doubles, that we insult by denying their value. <mark>When we posit death as the negation of life</mark>,</strong> <strong><mark>we bifurcate our identities and begin </mark>a process of <mark>mourning over our own eventual deaths, a process which lasts our whole lives.</mark> <mark>The more we devalue our death-images</mark>, that is, <mark>the greater they become, until they haunt our every moment,</mark> as in Don DeLillo's darkest comedy, White Noise. <mark>This leads us</mark>, according to Baudrillard, <mark>to an obsession with death that can be felt in the media fascination with catastrophes like 9(11. Death "becomes the object of a perverse desire. </u></strong></mark>Desire invests the very separation of life and death" (147). Political economy's inability to absorb the rupturing energy of death is thus compensated by the symbolic yield of the media catastrophe. In these events we experience an artificial death which fascinates us, bored as we are by the routine order of the system and the "natural" death it prescribes for us. Natural death represents an unnegotiable negation of life and the tedious certainty of an unwanted end. It therefore inspires insurrection, until "reason itself is pursued by the hope of a universal revolt against its own norms and privileges" (162). The terrorist spectacle is an example of such a revolt, in which death gains symbolic distinction and becomes more than simply "natural." We may not think we identify with the terrorists' superstitions about honor in the next life, but in events like 9(11, Baudrillard would suggest, we nevertheless identify despite ourselves with both with the terrorists and their victims: We are all hostages, and that's the secret of hostage-taking, and we are all dreaming, instead of dying stupidly working oneself to the ground, of receiving death and of giving death. Giving and receiving constitute one symbolic act (the symbolic act par excellence), which rids death of all the indifferent negativity it holds for us in the "natural" order of capital. (166)</p> </s>

That justifies euthanasia---there’s no way to hold the line

We come to a striking pitfall of the arguments for physician-assisted suicide there will remain no logical way to hold the line against euthanasia take care of those unable to take their own lives deny euthanasia to any person who requests it and deny euthanasia physician-assisted suicide to those who suffer but are incompetent even if they do not request it arguments given in favor of euthanasia logically entail the possibility We can erect legal safeguards and specify required procedures to keep that scenario from coming to pass, but over time they will provide poor protection if the logic of the moral premises on which they are based is fatally flawed. The safeguards will appear arbitrary and flimsy and will invite covert evasion or outright rejection.

We come to a striking pitfall of the arguments for p a s there will remain no way to hold the line against euthanasia take care of those unable to take their own lives deny euthanasia to any person who requests it and deny p a s to those who suffer but are incompetent, even if they do not request it safeguards and required procedures will provide poor protection safeguards will appear arbitrary and flimsy and will invite covert evasion or outright rejection.

We come here to a striking pitfall of the common arguments for physician-assisted suicide. Once the key premises of that argument are accepted, there will remain no logical way in the future to (1) for long hold the line against euthanasia, to take care of those physically or psycho- logically unable to take their own lives; (2) deny euthanasia to any competent person who requests it for whatever reason, terminal illness or not; and (3) deny euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to those who suffer but are incompetent, even if they do not request it. I am not saying that such a scenario will in fact take place, but only that the arguments given in favor of euthanasia logically entail the possibility. We can erect legal safeguards and specify required procedures to keep that scenario from coming to pass, but over time they will provide poor protection if the logic of the moral premises on which they are based is fatally flawed. The safeguards will appear arbitrary and flimsy and will invite covert evasion or outright rejection.

<h4>That justifies euthanasia---there’s no way to hold the line</h4><p>Daniel <strong>Callahan 2</strong>, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in<u><strong> “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p><mark>We come</u></strong></mark> here <u><strong><mark>to a striking pitfall of the</u></strong></mark> common <u><strong><mark>arguments for p</mark>hysician-<mark>a</mark>ssisted <mark>s</mark>uicide</u></strong>. Once the key premises of that argument are accepted, <u><strong><mark>there will remain no</mark> logical <mark>way</u></strong></mark> in the future <u><strong><mark>to</u></strong></mark> (1) for long <u><strong><mark>hold the line against euthanasia</u></strong></mark>, to <u><strong><mark>take care of those</u></strong></mark> physically or psycho- logically <u><strong><mark>unable to take their own lives</u></strong></mark>; (2) <u><strong><mark>deny euthanasia to any</u></strong></mark> competent <u><strong><mark>person who requests it</u></strong></mark> for whatever reason, terminal illness or not; <u><strong><mark>and</u></strong></mark> (3) <u><strong><mark>deny</mark> euthanasia</u></strong> and <u><strong><mark>p</mark>hysician-<mark>a</mark>ssisted <mark>s</mark>uicide</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>to those who suffer but are incompetent</u></strong>, <u><strong>even if they do not request it</u></strong></mark>. I am not saying that such a scenario will in fact take place, but only that the <u><strong>arguments given in favor of euthanasia logically entail the possibility</u></strong>. <u><strong>We can erect legal <mark>safeguards and</mark> specify <mark>required procedures</mark> to keep that scenario from coming to pass, but over time they <mark>will provide poor protection</mark> if the logic of the moral premises on which they are based is fatally flawed. The <mark>safeguards will appear arbitrary and flimsy and will invite covert evasion or outright rejection.</mark> </p></u></strong>

Daniel Callahan 2, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Daniel Callahan 2, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1 fulltext: We come here to a striking pitfall of the common arguments for physician-assisted suicide. Once the key premises of that argument are accepted, there will remain no logical way in the future to (1) for long hold the line against euthanasia, to take care of those physically or psycho- logically unable to take their own lives; (2) deny euthanasia to any competent person who requests it for whatever reason, terminal illness or not; and (3) deny euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to those who suffer but are incompetent, even if they do not request it. I am not saying that such a scenario will in fact take place, but only that the arguments given in favor of euthanasia logically entail the possibility. We can erect legal safeguards and specify required procedures to keep that scenario from coming to pass, but over time they will provide poor protection if the logic of the moral premises on which they are based is fatally flawed. The safeguards will appear arbitrary and flimsy and will invite covert evasion or outright rejection. [/INST] <h4>That justifies euthanasia---there’s no way to hold the line</h4><p>Daniel <strong>Callahan 2</strong>, Ph.D.—Senior Research Scholar and President Emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, “Reason, Self-Determination, and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, 2002, found in<u><strong> “The Case against Assisted Suicide For the Right to End-of-Life Care” by Kathleen Foley and Herbert Hendin, 2002, Johns Hopkins Press, e-book, http://site.ebrary.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/lib/northwestern/docDetail.action?docID=10021569&ppg=1</p><p><mark>We come</u></strong></mark> here <u><strong><mark>to a striking pitfall of the</u></strong></mark> common <u><strong><mark>arguments for p</mark>hysician-<mark>a</mark>ssisted <mark>s</mark>uicide</u></strong>. Once the key premises of that argument are accepted, <u><strong><mark>there will remain no</mark> logical <mark>way</u></strong></mark> in the future <u><strong><mark>to</u></strong></mark> (1) for long <u><strong><mark>hold the line against euthanasia</u></strong></mark>, to <u><strong><mark>take care of those</u></strong></mark> physically or psycho- logically <u><strong><mark>unable to take their own lives</u></strong></mark>; (2) <u><strong><mark>deny euthanasia to any</u></strong></mark> competent <u><strong><mark>person who requests it</u></strong></mark> for whatever reason, terminal illness or not; <u><strong><mark>and</u></strong></mark> (3) <u><strong><mark>deny</mark> euthanasia</u></strong> and <u><strong><mark>p</mark>hysician-<mark>a</mark>ssisted <mark>s</mark>uicide</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>to those who suffer but are incompetent</u></strong>, <u><strong>even if they do not request it</u></strong></mark>. I am not saying that such a scenario will in fact take place, but only that the <u><strong>arguments given in favor of euthanasia logically entail the possibility</u></strong>. <u><strong>We can erect legal <mark>safeguards and</mark> specify <mark>required procedures</mark> to keep that scenario from coming to pass, but over time they <mark>will provide poor protection</mark> if the logic of the moral premises on which they are based is fatally flawed. The <mark>safeguards will appear arbitrary and flimsy and will invite covert evasion or outright rejection.</mark> </p></u></strong> </s>

Banking industry impact is small—new clarifications limit the impact

UIGEA represents another set of requirements with which to struggle. But for many banks and processors, the burden may not be as heavy as anticipated The rule clarifies that banks' and processors' primary responsibility will be to ensure the legality of the commercial sites only, rather than tracking the transactions of individual gamblers. s. However, the rule shifts the burden of proving legality to the site operator, rather than the financial institution. The operator is required to provide to banks a license or a "reasoned legal opinion" that the site is legal. the resolution of that issue is one that shouldn't impose a huge burden on the banks

the burden may not be as heavy as anticipated The rule clarifies banks' primary responsibility will be to ensure the legality of the commercial sites only, rather than tracking the transactions of individual gamblers the rule shifts the burden of proving legality to the site operator, rather than the financial institution. the resolution of that issue is one that shouldn't impose a huge burden on the banks

For a financial-services industry in the throes of economic upheaval, the final rule for implementing the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA)?issued on Nov. 12 by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve?represents another set of requirements with which to struggle. But for many banks and processors, the burden may not be as heavy as anticipated, says Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. Just how much of an additional burden the rule will impose depends on how extensive a bank's or processor's existing know-your-customer requirements are, Dayanim says. If a bank or processor already has done extensive due-diligence on its commercial customers, they may feel they comply with the rule. But for those that don't know their customers' businesses or whether the customers act on behalf of third parties, the rule could impose a "substantial additional burden," he says. "I suspect many banks don't know the answers to all those questions, at least as with respect to gambling." The rule clarifies that banks' and processors' primary responsibility will be to ensure the legality of the commercial sites only, rather than tracking the transactions of individual gamblers. But it doesn't define what constitutes an illegal gambling site, an issue that created "a tremendous amount of angst in the financial-services community," Dayanim says. However, the rule shifts the burden of proving legality to the site operator, rather than the financial institution. The operator is required to provide to banks a license or a "reasoned legal opinion" that the site is legal. "At the end of the day, the resolution of that issue is one that shouldn't impose a huge burden on the banks," Dayanim says.

<h4>Banking industry impact is small—new clarifications limit the impact </h4><p><strong>DT 8</strong> (Digital Transactions, Quotes Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. DT is published by Boland Hill Media, LLC, a publisher serving the informational and analytical needs of markets undergoing transformation, November 25, 2008 “Burden of Final UIGEA Rule May Not Be As Heavy As Some Expected” http://digitaltransactions.net/news/story/Burden-of-Final-UIGEA-Rule-May-Not-Be-As-Heavy-As-Some-Expected ac 9-2</p><p>For a financial-services industry in the throes of economic upheaval, the final rule for implementing the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (<u><strong>UIGEA</u></strong>)?issued on Nov. 12 by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve?<u><strong>represents another set of requirements with which to struggle. But for many banks and processors, <mark>the burden may not be as heavy as anticipated</u></strong></mark>, says Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. Just how much of an additional burden the rule will impose depends on how extensive a bank's or processor's existing know-your-customer requirements are, Dayanim says. If a bank or processor already has done extensive due-diligence on its commercial customers, they may feel they comply with the rule. But for those that don't know their customers' businesses or whether the customers act on behalf of third parties, the rule could impose a "substantial additional burden," he says. "I suspect many banks don't know the answers to all those questions, at least as with respect to gambling." <u><strong><mark>The rule clarifies</mark> that <mark>banks'</mark> and processors' <mark>primary responsibility will be to ensure the legality of the commercial sites only, rather than tracking the transactions of individual gamblers</mark>. </u></strong>But it doesn't define what constitutes an illegal gambling site, an issue that created "a tremendous amount of angst in the financial-services community," Dayanim say<u><strong>s. However,</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>the rule shifts the burden of proving legality to the site operator, rather than the financial institution. </mark>The operator is required to provide to banks a license or a "reasoned legal opinion" that the site is legal. </u></strong>"At the end of the day, <u><strong><mark>the resolution of that issue is one that shouldn't impose a huge burden on the banks</u></strong></mark>," Dayanim says.</p>

DT 8 (Digital Transactions, Quotes Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. DT is published by Boland Hill Media, LLC, a publisher serving the informational and analytical needs of markets undergoing transformation, November 25, 2008 “Burden of Final UIGEA Rule May Not Be As Heavy As Some Expected” http://digitaltransactions.net/news/story/Burden-of-Final-UIGEA-Rule-May-Not-Be-As-Heavy-As-Some-Expected ac 9-2

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: DT 8 (Digital Transactions, Quotes Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. DT is published by Boland Hill Media, LLC, a publisher serving the informational and analytical needs of markets undergoing transformation, November 25, 2008 “Burden of Final UIGEA Rule May Not Be As Heavy As Some Expected” http://digitaltransactions.net/news/story/Burden-of-Final-UIGEA-Rule-May-Not-Be-As-Heavy-As-Some-Expected ac 9-2 fulltext: For a financial-services industry in the throes of economic upheaval, the final rule for implementing the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA)?issued on Nov. 12 by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve?represents another set of requirements with which to struggle. But for many banks and processors, the burden may not be as heavy as anticipated, says Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. Just how much of an additional burden the rule will impose depends on how extensive a bank's or processor's existing know-your-customer requirements are, Dayanim says. If a bank or processor already has done extensive due-diligence on its commercial customers, they may feel they comply with the rule. But for those that don't know their customers' businesses or whether the customers act on behalf of third parties, the rule could impose a "substantial additional burden," he says. "I suspect many banks don't know the answers to all those questions, at least as with respect to gambling." The rule clarifies that banks' and processors' primary responsibility will be to ensure the legality of the commercial sites only, rather than tracking the transactions of individual gamblers. But it doesn't define what constitutes an illegal gambling site, an issue that created "a tremendous amount of angst in the financial-services community," Dayanim says. However, the rule shifts the burden of proving legality to the site operator, rather than the financial institution. The operator is required to provide to banks a license or a "reasoned legal opinion" that the site is legal. "At the end of the day, the resolution of that issue is one that shouldn't impose a huge burden on the banks," Dayanim says. [/INST] <h4>Banking industry impact is small—new clarifications limit the impact </h4><p><strong>DT 8</strong> (Digital Transactions, Quotes Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. DT is published by Boland Hill Media, LLC, a publisher serving the informational and analytical needs of markets undergoing transformation, November 25, 2008 “Burden of Final UIGEA Rule May Not Be As Heavy As Some Expected” http://digitaltransactions.net/news/story/Burden-of-Final-UIGEA-Rule-May-Not-Be-As-Heavy-As-Some-Expected ac 9-2</p><p>For a financial-services industry in the throes of economic upheaval, the final rule for implementing the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (<u><strong>UIGEA</u></strong>)?issued on Nov. 12 by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve?<u><strong>represents another set of requirements with which to struggle. But for many banks and processors, <mark>the burden may not be as heavy as anticipated</u></strong></mark>, says Behnam Dayanim, partner in the global banking and financial institutions practice of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. Just how much of an additional burden the rule will impose depends on how extensive a bank's or processor's existing know-your-customer requirements are, Dayanim says. If a bank or processor already has done extensive due-diligence on its commercial customers, they may feel they comply with the rule. But for those that don't know their customers' businesses or whether the customers act on behalf of third parties, the rule could impose a "substantial additional burden," he says. "I suspect many banks don't know the answers to all those questions, at least as with respect to gambling." <u><strong><mark>The rule clarifies</mark> that <mark>banks'</mark> and processors' <mark>primary responsibility will be to ensure the legality of the commercial sites only, rather than tracking the transactions of individual gamblers</mark>. </u></strong>But it doesn't define what constitutes an illegal gambling site, an issue that created "a tremendous amount of angst in the financial-services community," Dayanim say<u><strong>s. However,</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>the rule shifts the burden of proving legality to the site operator, rather than the financial institution. </mark>The operator is required to provide to banks a license or a "reasoned legal opinion" that the site is legal. </u></strong>"At the end of the day, <u><strong><mark>the resolution of that issue is one that shouldn't impose a huge burden on the banks</u></strong></mark>," Dayanim says.</p> </s>

Every reduction key

we are quickly running out of time Every bit of CO2 we reduce means avoided warming impacts anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic mass extinctions, But we're not stuck on that track just yet, we need to move as far off of it as possible by reducing emissions as soon and as much as possible the best summary of scientific evidence paints a bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome

we are quickly running out of time Every bit of CO2 we reduce means avoided warming impacts anything greater than 4°C can be catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected at this level. we are on track for the catastrophic But we're not stuck yet we need to move by reducing emissions as soon and as much as possible the best summary of scientific evidence paints a bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce emissions

[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, HM] We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.). But we're not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).

<h4><strong>Every reduction key</h4><p>Nuccitelli 12</p><p></strong>[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, HM]</p><p>We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted,<u><strong> <mark>we are quickly running out of time </u></strong></mark>to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. <u><strong><mark>Every bit of CO2</mark> </u></strong>emissions<u><strong> <mark>we </u></strong></mark>can<u><strong> <mark>reduce means</mark> </u></strong>that much<u><strong> <mark>avoided</mark> </u></strong>future<u><strong> <mark>warming</u></strong></mark>, which means that much avoided climate change<u><strong> <mark>impacts</u></strong></mark>. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and <u><strong><mark>anything greater than 4°C can</mark> probably accurately <mark>be</mark> described as <mark>catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected</mark> to be triggered <mark>at this level.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Right now, <mark>we are on track for</strong> the catastrophic</u></mark> consequences (widespread coral mortality, <u><strong>mass extinctions,</u></strong> hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.).<u><strong> <mark>But we're not stuck </mark>on that track just <mark>yet</mark>, </u></strong>and<u><strong> <mark>we need to move</mark> </u></strong>ourselves<u><strong> as far off of it as possible <mark>by reducing</mark> </u></strong>our greenhouse gas <u><strong><mark>emissions as soon and as much as possible</u></strong></mark>. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented<u><strong> </u></strong>here is <u><strong><mark>the best summary of scientific evidence</mark> </u></strong>available, and it<u><strong> <mark>paints a</mark> </u></strong>very<u><strong> <mark>bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce</mark> </u></strong>our greenhouse gas<u><strong> <mark>emissions</mark>. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome</u></strong>. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).</p>

Nuccitelli 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nuccitelli 12 fulltext: [Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, HM] We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.). But we're not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4). [/INST] <h4><strong>Every reduction key</h4><p>Nuccitelli 12</p><p></strong>[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, HM]</p><p>We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted,<u><strong> <mark>we are quickly running out of time </u></strong></mark>to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. <u><strong><mark>Every bit of CO2</mark> </u></strong>emissions<u><strong> <mark>we </u></strong></mark>can<u><strong> <mark>reduce means</mark> </u></strong>that much<u><strong> <mark>avoided</mark> </u></strong>future<u><strong> <mark>warming</u></strong></mark>, which means that much avoided climate change<u><strong> <mark>impacts</u></strong></mark>. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and <u><strong><mark>anything greater than 4°C can</mark> probably accurately <mark>be</mark> described as <mark>catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected</mark> to be triggered <mark>at this level.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Right now, <mark>we are on track for</strong> the catastrophic</u></mark> consequences (widespread coral mortality, <u><strong>mass extinctions,</u></strong> hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.).<u><strong> <mark>But we're not stuck </mark>on that track just <mark>yet</mark>, </u></strong>and<u><strong> <mark>we need to move</mark> </u></strong>ourselves<u><strong> as far off of it as possible <mark>by reducing</mark> </u></strong>our greenhouse gas <u><strong><mark>emissions as soon and as much as possible</u></strong></mark>. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented<u><strong> </u></strong>here is <u><strong><mark>the best summary of scientific evidence</mark> </u></strong>available, and it<u><strong> <mark>paints a</mark> </u></strong>very<u><strong> <mark>bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce</mark> </u></strong>our greenhouse gas<u><strong> <mark>emissions</mark>. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome</u></strong>. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).</p> </s>