Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,200 |
Nowadays few politicians (even in France or the Democratic Party) oppose free trade, per se. The excuse for failing to lower barriers is that, whereas opening up is desirable, it is simply not practical at the moment. Transatlantic tariffs are already low—less than 3% on average, though that average conceals some sharp peaks—and the easiest deals have already been struck. The lobbies are as powerful as ever: farmers will block anything. A battle over subsidies to two planemakers, Boeing and Airbus, could yet erupt into outright trade war. And in such tough times, how could an Ohio congressman give up the “Buy American” rules in government procurement, or a French MEP abandon protection for geographically unique brands, like champagne or Roquefort? Wait a few years…
|
Economist 13 (The Economist, “Come on, TTIP,” February 16, 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571890-good-idea-state-union-address-business-should-rush-support-come-ttip TSD)
|
The excuse for failing to lower barriers is that, it is simply not practical at the moment the easiest deals have already been struck. The lobbies are as powerful as ever: farmers will block anything. A battle over subsidies to two planemakers, Boeing and Airbus, could yet erupt into outright trade war. And in such tough times, how could an Ohio congressman give up the “Buy American” rules in government procurement, or a French MEP abandon protection for geographically unique brands, like champagne or Roquefort
|
TTIP unpopular—lobbies and politicians
| 775 | 38 | 516 | 125 | 4 | 85 | 0.032 | 0.68 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,201 |
Nevertheless, there is significant opposition to the proposed deal.¶ "The claims that this deal will somehow be an economic cure-all and generate significant growth are simply not supported by any reliable evidence," Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a public interest watchdog group based in Washington, said Tuesday.¶ "But we do know that the talks are based on the demands of U.S. and EU corporations that have been pushing for decades to eliminate the best consumer, environmental and financial standards on either side of the Atlantic."[pullquote]3[/pullquote]¶ Tariffs between the U.S. and E.U. are already low, and critics note that that what the deal really seeks to accomplish is the removal of "non tariff barriers" (also referred to as "trade irritants").¶ "Non-tariff barriers is a commonly-used euphemism which refers to the array of financial, environmental, health and other policies which the public has put in place to safeguard its own interests," Ben Beachy, a research director for Public Citizen, told IPS.¶ Under T-TIP, standards such as those mentioned by Beachy would be "converged", so that regulations from state to state would be more closely aligned. Supporters of the deal say this uniformity would facilitate trade, but Beachy contended that the greater effect would be to lower regulation levels to a point that "democratic electorates would never stand for."¶ "The resulting effect of 'convergence'", he said, "will be to limit the ability of democratic policymakers to establish their own preferred levels of regulation."¶ Chilling effect¶ Environment groups are likewise worried that such harmonisation will allow for an increase in certain energy technologies, particularly the sudden prevalence in the United States of natural gas hydraulic fracturing or "fracking".¶ Countries of the European Union currently restrict fracking within their own borders due to environmental concerns. But some analysts suggest these countries would be less averse to consuming imported gas fracked in the United States.¶ "There are concerns that the U.S. would become a major exporter of liquefied natural gas to the E.U.," Ilana Solomon, of the Sierra Club, an environmental protection group, told IPS.¶ The United States recently approved private licenses for companies seeking to liquefy gas, indicating that in the future it will export liquefied natural gas, something it does not currently do.¶ Under free trade agreements in the past, Solomon noted, important regulatory reviews normally undertaken when considering the advantages of exportation have often been replaced by automatic approvals.¶ There are also health concerns related to the agreement. Some worry that food safety standards in the United States, for example, could be compromised if European exporters – currently subject to lower standards – could deliver their, say, milk to U.S. stores.¶ Regardless of where U.S. standards stood, the less-well-regulated (and possibly less expensive) European milk would be available to U.S. consumers.¶ Another controversial aspect of the agreement would allow European privately owned corporations to challenge U.S. domestic laws that may negatively affect their profits or even expected profits.¶ In what are known as "investor-state" tribunals, foreign corporations would be eligible to receive compensation from taxpayers if the corporations could demonstrate that they lost money because of laws that inhibit trade.¶ Being subject to these tribunals could lead to what Public Citizen's Beachy refers to as a "chilling effect", meaning policymakers would be less likely to pass regulations because of perceived vulnerability.
|
Metzker 13 (Jared Metzker, North America Interpress Service, “Opponents Question proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade Deal,” June 19, 2013, http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=4741 TSD)
|
Nevertheless, there is significant opposition to the proposed deal.¶ critics note that that what the deal really seeks to accomplish is the removal of "non tariff barriers Non-tariff barriers is a commonly-used euphemism which refers to the array of policies which the public has put in place to safeguard its own interests Public Citizen, told IPS the greater effect would be to lower regulation levels to a point that "democratic electorates would never stand for." Some worry that food safety standards in the United States, for example, could be compromised Being subject to these tribunals could lead to what Public Citizen's Beachy refers to as a "chilling effect", meaning policymakers would be less likely to pass regulations because of perceived vulnerability.
|
TTIP unpopular—lobbies, safety concerns, and political problems
| 3,688 | 63 | 769 | 552 | 7 | 121 | 0.012681 | 0.219203 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,202 |
The trade agreement is one of President Obama's economic priorities; the president in his January State of the Union address said his administration plans to complete negotiations this year, as well as begin talks for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union. The TPP deal is being negotiated by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative with input from "stakeholders" from companies, trade associations and unions.¶ Efforts to influence the deal are funneling business to K Street. When Japan joined trade talks in April, the government of Japan was represented by Akin Gump lobbyist Scott Parven. In March, lobby firm Podesta Group announced a new unit, Global Solutions, led by former Mexico Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan. One of the unit's objectives is to work on TPP and TTIP.¶ AFL-CIO, the umbrella organization representing 57 unions, has not taken an official stance on TPP, but is concerned with how the agreement could affect workers' rights in all the participating countries. Previous U.S. free trade agreements have led to lower wages and safety standards and weakened collective bargaining power, said Celeste Drake, a trade policy specialist at AFL-CIO. In April, the union federation's representatives met with staffers from Congress, the Labor Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and flew in workers from Peru, Mexico and Canada to talk about how their working conditions worsened after trade agreements were reached between their country and the United States.¶ "It's not an inevitable outcome, but it has been our experience that the style of U.S. trade agreements has led to that," Drake said. "We're looking at the labor [portion of TPP] and making sure countries commit to enforce internationally recognized workers rights."
|
Ho 13 (Catherine Ho, Washington Post, “Trade Deal Brings out Lobbyists,” May 27, 2013, Lexis Nexis, TSD)
|
The trade agreement is one of President Obama's priorities Efforts to influence the deal are funneling business to K Street AFL-CIO has not taken an official stance on TPP, but is concerned with how the agreement could affect workers' rights in all the participating countries. Previous U.S. free trade agreements have led to lower wages and safety standards "We're looking at the labor [portion and making sure countries commit to enforce internationally recognized workers rights."
|
Opposition to trade agreement—labor lobbies
| 1,803 | 43 | 483 | 282 | 5 | 75 | 0.01773 | 0.265957 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,203 |
Venezuela’s Formal Rejection of Ambassador-Designate Larry Palmer The long-running debate over how to deal with the irrational and impulsive strongman, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, has reached feverish pitch this winter. The latest casualty in this war of words has become U.S. Ambassador Larry Palmer, the Obama administration's nomination as ambassador to Venezuela. Worse yet, Chávez ultimately got what he wanted out of this latest battle: his choice of who will not be our next Ambassador in Venezuela. On Monday, Venezuela formally told the U.S. to not bother sending Larry Palmer as the next ambassador since he would be asked to return the moment he landed in Caracas. How did this all go down? Like Cuba, any U.S. move regarding Venezuela involves egos, politics and fortunately, some policy. Naturally, when Palmer went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over the summer, the career diplomat—characterized by some at the U.S. Department of State as "not a Washington man"—he already faced an uphill slog. Our domestic debate over Venezuela generally falls into two camps: engagement and confrontation. There are, of course, shades of gray and nuances between the two sides—though such voices are so often overpowered by the more extreme views. On one side, you have those espousing "strategic engagement," keeping in line with the Obama administration's stated foreign policy and national security objectives. In short and broadly speaking, these proponents might argue, with an irrational state, you shouldn't turn your back. Look where that got us with North Korea, Iran and Syria. Instead you want a seat at the table to start a dialogue based on mutual respect and to build on areas of mutual interest. You raise concerns discretely and express disapproval quietly or through third parties. As one person said, engagement should be “subversive," because you seek to assert positive influence by being present and through cooperation on areas such as business development, financial opportunities, or culture and sports. Indeed, Palmer was the right guy to carry out this mission. But, the engagement policy, as it is practiced with Venezuela, seems more like "appeasement," say people clamoring for a tougher approach. After all, for years now, we have witnessed a democracy's death by a thousand cuts. This past week, Hugo Chávez got one of his Christmas wishes with the approval of new decree powers, thereby further eroding the country's once well-established institutional checks and balances. Chávez threatens more than human rights and democratic norms; the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism and narcotrafficking. Yet, as Chávez runs roughshod over international norms, is the U.S. working to halt the downward spiral? Those are the broad brush strokes of the debate into which Palmer was tossed.
|
Harper, 10 – americasquarterly.org contributing blogger based in Washington DC (Liz, 12/21. “Venezuela’s Formal Rejection of Ambassador-Designate Larry Palmer.” http://americasquarterly.org/node/2058)
|
long-running debate over how to deal with Venezuela has reached feverish pitch Like Cuba, any U.S. move regarding Venezuela involves egos, politics and some policy domestic debate over Venezuela falls into two camps: engagement and confrontation. There are shades of gray and nuances though such voices are so often overpowered by the more extreme views. On one side, you have those espousing engagement," keeping in line with Obama you seek to assert positive influence through business development, financial opportunities But, the engagement policy with Venezuela, seems more like "appeasement," say people clamoring for a tougher approach. After all for years we have witnessed a democracy's death by a thousand cuts the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns nuclear proliferation, terrorism and narcotrafficking Those are the broad strokes of the debate
|
The plan is divisive – causes fights over appeasement
| 2,887 | 54 | 867 | 449 | 9 | 130 | 0.020045 | 0.289532 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,204 |
Tensions that characterized U.S. relations with the Chávez government turned especially sour in¶ the aftermath of President Chávez’s brief ouster from power in April 2002. Venezuela alleged¶ U.S. involvement in the ouster, while U.S. officials repeatedly rejected charges that the United¶ States was involved. After Chávez’s ouster, while most Latin American nations were condemning¶ his overthrow, the United States maintained that undemocratic actions committed or encouraged¶ by the Chávez administration had provoked the political crisis. This set the stage for continued¶ deterioration in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. Despite this deterioration, Venezuela has remained an¶ important supplier of foreign oil to the United States. Currently, it is the fourth largest foreign¶ supplier, providing about 10% of U.S. crude oil imports.¶ Over the years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military¶ arms purchases, its relations with Iran, and its efforts to export its brand of populism to other¶ Latin American countries. Declining cooperation on anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts has been¶ a major concern. The United States has imposed sanctions: on several Venezuelan government¶ and military officials for helping the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with drug¶ and weapons trafficking; on three Venezuelan companies for providing support to Iran; and on¶ several Venezuelan individuals for providing support to Hezbollah. In late 2010, the Chávez¶ government revoked an agreement for U.S. Ambassador-designate Larry Palmer to be posted to Venezuela. The Obama Administration responded by revoking the diplomatic visa of the¶ Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States.¶ Despite tensions in relations, the Obama Administration maintains that it remains committed to¶ seeking constructive engagement with Venezuela, focusing on such areas as anti-drug and¶ counterterrorism efforts. In the aftermath of President Chávez’s reelection in October 2012, the¶ White House, while acknowledging differences with President Chávez, congratulated the¶ Venezuelan people on the high level of participation and the relatively peaceful election process.¶ Subsequently, in November 2012, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for Western¶ Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, engaged in a conversation with Vice President Maduro¶ about improving bilateral relations, including greater cooperation on counternarcotics issues.¶ In early January 2013, the State Department reiterated that the United States remained open to¶ dialogue with Venezuela on a range of issues of mutual interest. In light of the setback in¶ President Chávez’s health, a State Department spokesman maintained on January 9, 2013, that¶ “regardless of what happens politically in Venezuela, if the Venezuelan government and if the¶ Venezuelan people want to move forward with us, we think there is a path that’s possible.”11In response to President Chávez’s death, President Obama issued the following statement:While some observers contend that Chávez’s passing and the beginning of a new political era in¶ Venezuela could ultimately lessen tensions in U.S.-Venezuelan relations, there is no expectation¶ that this will happen quickly. In fact, State Department officials have cautioned that the upcoming¶ electoral campaign could delay any forward movement in improving bilateral relations.14 Just¶ hours before Chávez’s death on March 5, Vice President Maduro announced that two U.S.¶ military attachés were being expelled from Venezuela for reportedly attempting to provoke¶ dissent in the Venezuelan military and even appeared to blame Chávez’s sickness on the United¶ States. State Department officials strongly denied the Venezuelan charges regarding the attachés,¶ At this challenging time of President Hugo Chávez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its¶ support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship¶ with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the¶ United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of¶ law, and respect for human rights.12¶ While the President’s statement did not offer traditional condolences, the State Department¶ maintains that it expressed U.S. sympathy to Chávez’s family and to the Venezuelan people.13¶ Many Latin American and other foreign leaders have expressed their condolences to Venezuela on¶ Chávez’s passing. The White House statement focuseU.S. interest in getting cooperative¶ bilateral relations back on track while at the same time reiterating that the United States is¶ committed to promoting democratic practices and respecd on the ¶ t for human rights. A number of other¶ statements by Members of Congress also expressed hope for a new era in U.S.-Venezuelan¶ relations.While some observers contend that Chávez’s passing and the beginning of a new political era in¶ Venezuela could ultimately lessen tensions in U.S.-Venezuelan relations, there is no expectation¶ that this will happen quickly. In fact, State Department officials have cautioned that the upcoming¶ electoral campaign could delay any forward movement in improving bilateral relations.14 Just¶ hours before Chávez’s death on March 5, Vice President Maduro announced that two U.S.¶ military attachés were being expelled from Venezuela for reportedly attempting to provoke¶ dissent in the Venezuelan military and even appeared to blame Chávez’s sickness on the United¶ States. State Department officials strongly denied the Venezuelan charges regarding the attachés, and ultimately responded on March 11 by expelling two Venezuelan diplomats (a consular official¶ in New York and a second secretary at the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington).15¶ Hostility toward the United States was often used by the Chávez government as a way to shore up¶ support during elections, and it appears that this is being employed by the PSUV once again in¶ the current presidential campaign. On March 20, 2013, Foreign Minister Elias Jaua said that¶ Venezuelan officials would no longer be talking about improving U.S.-Venezuelan relations with¶ Assistant Secretary of State Jacobson because of comments that Jacobson had made in a Spanish¶ newspaper; Jacobson had said that “Venezuelans deserve open, fair and transparent elections.” A¶ senior U.S. official reportedly said that such bizarre accusations and behavior raises doubts over¶ whether bilateral relations will be able to be improved with a Maduro government.16 Another¶ strange accusation by Maduro is that two former U.S. State Department officials were plotting to¶ kill Capriles and to blame it on the Maduro government; the State Department strongly rejected¶ the “allegations of U.S. government involvement to harm anyone in Venezuela.”17 Looking¶ ahead, some observers contend that anti-Americanism could also be a means for PSUV leaders to¶ mask internal problems within Chavismo, and even could be utilized as a potential new PSUV¶ government led by Maduro deals with a deteriorating economy. In terms of Venezuela’s foreign policy, observers who believe that Maduro will win the election¶ maintain that there would be continuity with the policy under President Chávez, especially since¶ Maduro served as his Foreign Minister for more than six years. Many see Venezuela’s strong¶ support for Cuba continuing under a Maduro presidency, although some analysts contend that a¶ difficult economic situation in Venezuela could result in a diminishment of that support. Some¶ observers also contend that without Chávez at the helm, Venezuela’s role as a regional power¶ could begin to wane as well as its relations with Iran.18 Venezuela’s strengthening of relations¶ with Iran in recent years is viewed by many analysts as being driven by the personal relationship¶ between Chávez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.¶ Some observers have criticized the Obama Administration for making overtures to engage with¶ Maduro, contending that U.S. policy should focus on attempting to ensure that the upcoming¶ election is free and fair. A Washington Post editorial from early March 2013 contended that¶ “further wooing of Mr. Maduro should wait until he survives the scrum in his own party, wins a¶ free vote and demonstrates that he is more than a Castro puppet.”19
|
Sulivan 1/10 (Mark P., Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress”, Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf, 01/10/13)
|
Tensions with the Chávez government turned sour in¶ the aftermath of President Chávez’s brief ouster from power Venezuela alleged¶ U.S. involvement in the ouster, while U.S. officials repeatedly rejected charges After Chávez’s ouster, while most Latin American nations were condemning¶ his overthrow, the United States maintained that undemocratic actions committed or encouraged¶ by the Chávez administration had provoked the political crisis set the stage for continued¶ deterioration in U.S.-Venezuelan relations Over the years Declining cooperation on anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts has been¶ a major concern. United States has imposed sanctions: on Venezuelan for helping ( drug¶ and weapons trafficking; for providing support to Iran; providing support to Hezbollah. In 2010 Chávez¶ government revoked an agreement for U.S. Ambassador-designate Larry Palmer to be posted to Venezuela. The Obama Administration responded by revoking the diplomatic visa of the¶ Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States.¶ Despite tensions in relations, the Obama Administration maintains that it remains committed to¶ seeking constructive engagement with Venezuela While some observers contend that Chávez’s passing and the beginning of a new political era in¶ Venezuela could ultimately lessen tensions in U.S.-Venezuelan relations, there is no expectation¶ that this will happen quickly. Maduro blame Chávez’s sickness on the United¶ States. White House statement focuseU.S. interest in getting cooperative¶ bilateral relations back on track Members of Congress also expressed hope for a new era in U.S.-Venezuelan¶ relations. Maduro announced that two U.S.¶ military attachés were being expelled from Venezuela for reportedly attempting to provoke¶ dissent in the Venezuelan military Hostility toward the United States was often used by the Chávez government as a way to shore up¶ support during elections, a Another¶ strange accusation by Maduro is that two former U.S. State Department officials were plotting to¶ kill Capriles and to blame it on the Maduro government observers have criticized the Obama Administration for making overtures to engage with¶ Maduro, contending that U.S. policy should focus on attempting to ensure that the upcoming¶ election is free and fair.
|
Plan controversial—continuous tensions between US and Maduro cause public backlash
| 8,377 | 82 | 2,275 | 1,224 | 10 | 328 | 0.00817 | 0.267974 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,205 |
Last year, it was reported that the Obama administration was seeking to exchange ambassadors in an attempt to normalize relations between the countries. The U.S. State Department’s approach was extremely premature, and it, unfortunately, legitimized Mr. Maduro without even questioning whether the Venezuelan Constitution was being upheld. The Obama administration continued to send mixed messages and to undermine the opposition by sending a delegation to attend Chavez’s funeral services last week, alongside enemies of the United States, such as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Words matter, but actions matter more, and this decision not only sends mixed signals to the people of Venezuela, but reiterates the failed policy of attempting to re-establish diplomatic relations.¶ It is in our best interest if political and economic reforms come to Venezuela, but all signs currently point to the contrary. As the leader of the Chavista movement, Mr. Maduro could potentially be worse for the Venezuelan people and for U.S. national security interests. Mr. Maduro still controls all branches of government, stifles free speech and was indoctrinated with socialist ideology. He has traveled to Tehran and has strong ties with Iran, supports the Assad regime in Syria and has become a lap dog for Cuba’s Castro brothers.
|
Ros-Lehitinen 3/14 (Ileana, US Representative for Florida, “ROS-LEHTINEN: Venezuela after Chavez: What comes next? “, The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/venezuela-after-chavez-what-comes-next/, 03/14/13)
|
Last year Obama administration seeking to exchange ambassadors in an attempt to normalize relations between the countries. The U.S. State Department’s approach was extremely premature Obama administration continued to send mixed messages and to undermine the opposition by sending a delegation to attend Chavez’s funeral this decision not only sends mixed signals to the people of Venezuela, but reiterates the failed policy of attempting to re-establish diplomatic relations.¶ It is in our best interest if political and economic reforms come to Venezuela, but all signs currently point to the contrary. Mr. Maduro could potentially be worse for the Venezuelan people and for U.S. national security interests He has become a lap dog for Cuba’s Castro brothers.
|
Plan would result in public disapproval—lack of support for Maduro and tense US-Venezuelan relationship
| 1,323 | 103 | 761 | 202 | 14 | 116 | 0.069307 | 0.574257 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,206 |
¶ Snowden, charged with espionage and property theft by the United States government, is currently on Russian territory, where he is attempting to avoid extradition to American soil. Maduro's offer comes at a complicated diplomatic moment: UNASUR (Union of South American Nations[3]) demanded an apology from Europe due to the incident[4] suffered by Evo Morales, during which various countries closed their airspace to the Bolivian leader based on suspicions that he was transporting Snowden. In events leading up to the military parade that celebrated 202 years since the signing of the Venezuelan declaration of independence on Friday, July 5, President Maduro stated[5] [es] that, 'As leader of the State and Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, I have decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the American young man, Snowden.' Maduro explained that Venezuela is offering the measure to Snowden to 'protect him from the persecution that has been unleashed from the most powerful empire in the world against a young man who has told the truth'. A day later, the Venezuelan president confirmed his intention via Twitter (@NicolasMaduro[6]) [es]: @NicolasMaduro[7]: Ratifico el espíritu humanitario de conceder el asilo al joven estadounidense Snowden para protegerlo de la persecución mundial del imperio. @NicolasMaduro[8]: I confirm the humanitarian spirit of granting asylum to Snowden, the young American, to protect him from the empire's global persecution. President Maduro had mentioned the possibility of welcoming Snowden on various occasions, but this is the first time he has done it openly and directly. Despite the controversy, the United States government declined to make comments regarding the Venezuelan president's offer. According to Reuters[9] [es], the White house has not released an opinion on the issue and referred questions to the country's Department of Justice. Nevertheless, on Sunday, July 7, a group of U.S. Congress members established their position on Snowden's possible political asylum, stating that: 'Whatever country offers asylum to Edward Snowden, wholeaked data from the National Security Agency's (NSA) surveillance program, will set itself against the United States.' The announcement[10] [es] appears to be a direct response to statements made by Venezuela and Bolivia to grant the humanitarian measure to the former U.S. contractor.
|
Aglaia Berlutti – Contributor to Global Voices, 7/9/13, Global Voices, Venezuela's President Offers Asylum to Edward Snowden, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/07/09/venezuelas-president-offers-asylum-to-edward-snowden-and-controversy-erupts/
|
President Maduro had mentioned the possibility of welcoming Snowden on various occasions .S. Congress members established their position on Snowden's possible political asylum, stating that: 'Whatever country offers asylum to Edward Snowden, will set itself against the United States announcement[ appears to be a direct response to statements made by Venezuela
|
Congress will hate the plan – Snowden asylum offer wrecked relations
| 2,393 | 68 | 361 | 359 | 11 | 51 | 0.030641 | 0.142061 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,207 |
This week Republican congressman and Head of the House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Western Hemisphere, Connie Mack, called on the Obama administration to impose an economic embargo against Venezuela, citing alleged links to terrorist groups as justification. Mack, a neoconservative representing Southern Florida, also requested the US include Venezuela on this year's "state sponsors of terrorism" list, a petition the congressman has made unsuccessfully during the last three years. During a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Mack referred to the democratically-elected Venezuelan President as a "thugocrat" who uses "weapons" such as "oppression, aggression, terrorism and drugs" to "destroy liberty and democracy in Latin America". Mack did not present any evidence to back his outrageous claims. The Floridian Republican went so far as to allege that President Hugo Chavez "has become the Osama bin Laden and the Ahmadineyad of the Western Hemisphere". During the past several years, right-wing sectors in Washington have escalated calls for direct aggression and intervention against Venezuela. Their cries have been accompanied by an increased funding for anti-Chavez groups with the hopes of fomenting destabilization and unrest in Venezuela, while working internationally to "isolate" the Venezuelan government and demonize President Chavez himself. Nonetheless, the Venezuelan head of state retains a near 60% popularity at home and is one of the most admired leaders worldwide.
|
Eva Golinger 2011 (Correo del Orinoco International, February 18th Obama Requests Funding for Venezuelan Opposition in 2012 Budget Venezuelanalysis.com is a project of Venezuela Analysis, Inc., which is registered as a non-profit organization in New York State and of the Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, which is a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela. http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6006)
|
Republican congress called on the Obama administration to impose an economic embargo against Venezuela, citing alleged links to terrorist groups as justification. During the past several years, right-wing sectors in Washington have escalated calls for direct aggression and intervention against Venezuela. while working internationally to "isolate" the Venezuelan government
|
Republicans oppose the plan
| 1,549 | 27 | 374 | 224 | 4 | 49 | 0.017857 | 0.21875 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,208 |
It's not clear whether some sought to use the QFR to strong arm the State Department to articulate or take tougher positions, and thereby bolster Palmer's confirmation prospects and support on the heels of his "weak" hearing performance. Alternatively, perhaps the QFR was publicized to thwart his prospects entirely. Who knows; at this stage, it's irrelevant. What's very relevant are the unfolding consequences of the QFR mishandling. First and foremost, Palmer got rolled. A dedicated Foreign Service officer was not treated with due professionalism and respect. We will not know how great he would have been in Venezuela. Second, the State Department on this matter appears naive, indecisive and disorganized. Third, critics who never wanted ANY ambassador—and certainly NOT Palmer—in Caracas, succeeded. As did Chávez, for the short term. To take up the second point, the State Department appears to have different and confused messages on Venezuela. The ostensible example of this is the two messages of Larry Palmer's Senate testimony versus his answers to the QFR. What can be said publicly and on the record regarding Venezuela? Beyond talking with a low voice on the safest matters, it is not clear. Is such timidity to Chávez' bluster necessary? The next step will be to see whether the State Department will go bold and call Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Alvarez a persona non grata, or take a softer approach and cancel his visa. Alvarez had been back home, and over the weekend, it was said he was not planning to return to Washington DC—already one move ahead of the anticipated reciprocation to Palmer's rejection. It was in Chávez’s best interests to welcome Palmer, as he wanted to work with Venezuelans, and help ease the growing tensions between the two countries. But now, the State Department will have to rethink this, and find another person...most likely with a stronger track record on human rights and democracy. Perhaps we should accept that playing nice and fair with an irrational actor like Chávez is not likely to yield positive results. At the end of the day, we've been backed into a corner to put forward a tougher ambassador, and not Palmer, who was our first pick. Does this mean likewise that our policy of engagement must be altered? Are we acting in response to Venezuela's moves? In this context, Chávez, and some conservative critics here, are setting the terms of U.S. policy. This debacle also illustrates the express need for the State Department to complete its review of Venezuela policy and clarify its positions. The QFR mishandling is a symptom of the bigger issue: uniting our various agencies to craft a coherent message and policy on Venezuela. What are the "red lines" of what we'll tolerate from Venezuela? When one of our career diplomats goes on record saying that Venezuela's National Guard is involved in narcotrafficking, provides safe haven to terrorists like the FARC, imprisons judges for ruling against Chávez, why is the State Department not publicizing those concerns? Until now, the State Department had been keeping its profile too low for anyone's good. Ostensibly that of Ambassador Palmer. At this point, why is it a mistake to outline on record ways in which the Venezuelan government is breaking very basic standards of human rights and hemispheric security? Just some open and disquieting questions. At the least, the State Department needs to figure out what its basic message is, and then put it out there with a unified voice, loud and clear. This could go far to improve its public outreach and image. But while silence continues, it seems that the Venezuelans have settled the U.S. debate: this kind of "engagement" will not get us where we want to be. Chávez is antithetical to our democratic values and security concerns. He is moving full steam down the field, while we sit on the sidelines. Time to play.
|
Harper, 10 – americasquarterly.org contributing blogger based in Washington DC (Liz, 12/21. “Venezuela’s Formal Rejection of Ambassador-Designate Larry Palmer.” http://americasquarterly.org/node/2058)
|
some sought to strong arm tougher positions, and thereby bolster support on the heels of weak" hearing performance. critics who never wanted ANY ambassador in Caracas, succeeded the State Department appears to have different and confused messages on Venezuela What can be said publicly and on the record regarding Venezuela? Beyond talking with a low voice on the safest matters, it is not clear we've been backed into a corner to put forward a tougher ambassador Does this mean likewise that policy of engagement must be altered In this context, Chávez, and conservative critics here, are setting the terms of U.S. policy. The QFR mishandling is a symptom of the bigger issue: uniting our various agencies to craft a coherent message and policy on Venezuela it seems that the Venezuelans have settled the U.S. debate: this kind of "engagement" will not get us where we want to be
|
No way the plan can be a win – extreme conservatives control spin over Venezuela policy
| 3,900 | 87 | 880 | 646 | 16 | 148 | 0.024768 | 0.229102 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,209 |
The last request for congressional approval of IMF funding ¶ came during the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98. Beginning in ¶ July 1997 in Thailand, this crisis engulfed the region in autumn ¶ of that year and had spread globally by mid-1998. It caused ¶ output declines in affected countries substantially exceeding any previous postwar recession. The Asian crisis closely ¶ followed the Mexican peso crisis of 1994–95, the rescue for ¶ which prompted congressional objections, investigations, and ¶ temporary constraints on the use of the Exchange Stabilization ¶ Fund (Henning 1999). The international financial community ¶ responded by creating the New Arrangements to Borrow, which ¶ had yet to receive congressional approval when the crisis in ¶ Thailand struck. ¶ Aware that the IMF had committed or was about to ¶ commit $53.5 billion in a span of three months as part of a set ¶ of rescue packages totaling more than $100 billion, the Clinton ¶ administration requested approval of the NAB in November ¶ 1997. In late December President Clinton requested congressional approval of the US contribution to the $87.5 billion ¶ quota increase as well and called for full funding in his State of ¶ the Union Address in late January 1998. The total US commitment would be about $17.9 billion, $14.5 billion for the quota ¶ increase and $3.4 billion for the NAB, to be authorized and ¶ appropriated but involving no net outlay and with no consequences for the budget deficit. ¶ Congressional consideration of these measures was lengthy ¶ and tortured, notwithstanding the proliferation of the crisis ¶ and the drain of IMF resources. The Senate Foreign Relations ¶ Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, ¶ among others, held hearings at which administration officials ¶ and private-sector representatives testified in favor of IMF ¶ funding. These witnesses included Treasury Secretary Robert E. ¶ Rubin, UN Ambassador Bill Richardson, Secretary of Defense ¶ William Cohen, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, ¶ and US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. Interest-group representatives included officials from the National ¶ Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, and ¶ individual companies, such as Boeing. The US Chamber of ¶ Commerce organized a coalition of 300 members in support. ¶ Eighty-eight business leaders signed an open letter to Congress ¶ with former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford (Scott ¶ and Carter 2005).¶ But other interest groups and experts raised obstacles to ¶ the legislation. Labor-union representatives proposed tying ¶ Reliance on the IMF distributes the ¶ burden of fighting crises and stabilizing ¶ economies across the membership of the ¶ institution, rather than concentrating ¶ it on the shoulders of the United ¶ S tates and other large countries.N u m b e r P b 0 9 - 1 2 J u N e 2 0 0 9¶ 10¶ IMF funds to institutional reforms and the improvement of ¶ labor conditions in program countries. Former Secretary of ¶ State, Treasury, and Labor, and former Director of the Office of ¶ Management and Budget (OMB) George Shultz advocated the ¶ abolition of the IMF, as did presidential candidate Steve Forbes. ¶ The Wall Street Journal opposed the funding request, and Jeffrey ¶ Sachs and George Soros, among others, criticized the conditionality applied to IMF loans (Scott and Carter 2005).
|
Henning 9 (C Randall Henning, Peterson Institute for International Economics, “US Interests and the International Monetary Fund, June 2009, http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb09-12.pdf TSD)
|
The last request for congressional approval of IMF funding ¶ came during the Asian financial crisis of 1997 ¶ Congressional consideration of these measures was lengthy ¶ and tortured, notwithstanding the proliferation of the crisis ¶ and the drain of IMF resources other interest groups and experts raised obstacles to ¶ the legislation.
|
IMF bills are controversial—’97 Asia relief proves
| 3,377 | 50 | 337 | 551 | 7 | 53 | 0.012704 | 0.096189 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,210 |
Most members of Congress did not oppose the IMF or its ¶ funding outright; instead they sought to use the administration’s ¶ request as a vehicle for their own agendas. Senator Jesse Helms ¶ (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ¶ attached his plan to reorganize US foreign assistance organizations to the IMF funding bill. In the House, Representative ¶ Christopher Smith (R-NJ) instead attached his plan to block ¶ international aid agencies that received US funds from advocating abortion in family planning, the so-called Mexico City ¶ provision. The two provisions competed with one another and ¶ President Clinton threatened to veto legislation with the Mexico ¶ City provision. After passing their respective bills, the House ¶ and Senate were at an impasse (Lavelle forthcoming, Sanford ¶ forthcoming, and Scott and Carter 2005).
|
Henning 9 (C Randall Henning, Peterson Institute for International Economics, “US Interests and the International Monetary Fund, June 2009, http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb09-12.pdf TSD)
|
Most members of Congress did not oppose the IMF or its ¶ funding outright; instead they sought to use the administration’s ¶ request as a vehicle for their own agendas two provisions competed with one another and ¶ President Clinton threatened to veto legislation with the Mexico ¶ City provision. After passing their respective bills, the House ¶ and Senate were at an impasse
|
Bill will inevitably be delayed—IMF proposals are empirically susceptible to riders
| 859 | 83 | 377 | 136 | 11 | 64 | 0.080882 | 0.470588 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,211 |
Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill on Tuesday, saying those opposed to it are insincere about fixing a badly broken system. The president has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and are determined to kill it. But ahead of the crucial test votes, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures. "If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly," he said at a White House event. Obama also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. "If you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system is the best America can do, then I guess it makes sense to try to block it," he said. "But if you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it, and now is the time to get it done." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Obama critic, said "the president's tone and engagement has been very helpful" to the process. But he stressed that fellow Republicans in the Senate and House needed to look closely at whether they want to scupper the effort and jeopardize the party's political future by alienating millions of voters.
|
AFP 6-12 (Agence France Presse. “US immigration bill advances in Senate, clears first hurdle” http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-12/news/39925853_1_border-security-landmark-immigration-bill-democratic-senator-chuck-schumer)
|
Obama made an outspoken pitch for the bill The president has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans Obama also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. Graham said "the president's tone and engagement has been very helpful" to the process
|
Obama’s PC is key to overcome GOP opposition
| 1,711 | 44 | 461 | 293 | 8 | 77 | 0.027304 | 0.262799 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,212 |
If you want to observe one of Washington's most delicate balancing acts, look no further than President Obama's effort to assert leadership on immigration legislation without its coming to be identified as a new Obamalaw.¶ Because they're keenly aware of how nearly any legislative effort that becomes known as the president's baby almost immediately makes his political foes hellbent on stopping it and denying him a victory, Obama and other White House officials have been committed to letting Congress take the lead on major legislation like immigration reform.¶ His challenge is to show just enough presidential leadership on an issue he campaigned on but not so much that he fires up those opposed to him on general principle, the Senate immigration legislation or both.¶ That's why, at a Tuesday event at the White House, he seemed to be using a style used to describe his approach to Libya — leading from behind. The president emphasized that the legislation the Senate is considering isn't his but the Senate's. True, he supports much that's in it. But he was speaking not as an author of the legislation, but as a fan.¶ With a bipartisan array of allies of an immigration overhaul behind him in the White House East Room, representing business, organized labor and immigrant-rights activists, the president said:
|
James, 6/11/13 – lead political analyst for NPR (Frank, “Obama's Immigration Dilemma: Leading While Following.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/11/190698436/obamas-immigration-dilemma-leading-while-following)
|
observe one of Washington's most delicate balancing acts President Obama's effort to assert leadership on immigration legislation without its coming to be identified as a new Obamalaw. Obama and other White House officials have been committed to letting Congress take the lead on major legislation like immigration reform.¶ His challenge is to show just enough presidential leadership on an issue he campaigned That's why, at a Tuesday event at the White House, he seemed to be using a style used to describe his approach to Libya — leading from behind The president emphasized that the legislation the Senate is considering isn't his he was speaking not as an author of the legislation, but as a fan
|
Obama’s conducting a balancing act – using PC behind the scenes
| 1,321 | 63 | 700 | 217 | 11 | 116 | 0.050691 | 0.534562 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,213 |
The concept of political capital captures many of the aspects of a president's political authority. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the president's conduct of his job, the president's electoral margin, and patronage appointments (Light 1999, 15). Light derived this list from the observations of 126 White House staff members he interviewed (1999, 14). His indicators have two central uses. First, Light's research reveals that they are central to the “players' perspective” in Washington. That is, those “in the game” view these items as crucial for presidential effectiveness. Second, they relate to many central aspects of political authority as defined by Skowronek. So on both theoretical and practical levels, the components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. The data here will reveal that presidents over the last 70 years have suffered from a trend of declining levels of political capital, a trend that is at the heart of their political authority problem.
|
Schier, 11 – Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College (Steven E, December. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Presidential Authority Problem and the Political Power Trap.” Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol. 41 Issue 4, pp 793-808.)
|
The concept of political capital captures many of the aspects of a president's political authority Light defines several components of political capital party support public approval electoral margin, and patronage appointments His indicators have two central uses. First, Light's research reveals that they are central to the “players' perspective” in Washington. That is, those “in the game” view these items as crucial for presidential effectiveness Second on both theoretical and practical levels, the components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies data will reveal that presidents over the last 70 years have suffered from a trend of declining levels of political capital
|
Even if PC theory isn’t true, key legislative players believe it is
| 1,084 | 67 | 701 | 168 | 12 | 105 | 0.071429 | 0.625 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,214 |
Presidents’ popularity with the public is a resource that may influence members of Congress (Neustadt 1960). Some recent studies have noticed the “political capital” the president possesses (Light 1999; Johnson and Roberts 2005). Several scholars demonstrate that popular presidents are able to win more often in Congress (Brace and Hinckley 1992; Edwards and Wood 1999;Ostrom and Simon 1985; Rivers and Rose 1985). Krutz, Fleisher, and Bond (1998) argue that, “Washingtonians widely accept the view that Congress is more inclined to give presidents what they want when public support is high rather than low” (873). For Light, presidents’ strength includes their public approval ratings and their margin of victory in the most recent election (Light 1999: 32). When these factors increase, presidents gain political capital and are therefore more likely to garner Congressional support for their domestic agenda in Congress. Although some studies identify methodological and theoretical reasons to question the importance of presidential capital (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Collier and Sullivan 1995), it is worthwhile to test this in models of agency design. This paper predicts that when Congress is strong and united, “weak” presidents enjoy less discretion creating agencies by executive orders; in contrast, popular presidents are not constrained by Congress in agency design1
|
Wang 10 ( Yuhua Wang Department of Political Science University of Michigan, he is also a member of the Wo Wang Clan, a group of poli sci profs who are also ill rappers. “Congressional Weakness, Political Capital, and the Politics of Presidential Agency Design” http://sitemaker.umich.edu/wangyh/files/presidential_agency_design_yuhua_wang.pdf)
|
Presidents’ popularity is a resource that may influence members of Congress recent studies have noticed the “political capital” Several scholars demonstrate Washingtonians widely accept the view that Congress is more inclined to give presidents what they want when public support is high rather than low” ( When these factors increase, presidents gain political capital and are therefore more likely to garner Congressional support for their domestic agenda in Congress
|
Empirical studies and expert consensus proves political capital is key to the agenda
| 1,379 | 85 | 469 | 205 | 13 | 69 | 0.063415 | 0.336585 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,215 |
The candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee predicted at a Monday debate that the Obama administration would outspend its political capital and spark a ballot box backlash. “I think they’re going to give us the gift of an overreaching, overpowering government that will limit our freedom,” South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson said, arguing that Obama’s agenda would amount to “overpromising and building up bigger government.” Saul Anuzis, who chairs the Michigan GOP, agreed that Obama’s agenda would open up political opportunities for Republicans.
|
Politico 12 [“RNC hopefuls predict Obama backlash”, 1/5]
|
The candidates vying to lead the R N C predicted that the Obama administration would outspend its political capital and spark a ballot box backlash. “I think they’re going to give us the gift of an overreaching, overpowering government that will limit our freedom, Obama’s agenda would amount to “overpromising and building up bigger government. Obama’s agenda would open up political opportunities for Republicans.
|
Overreaching creates backlash- guts winners win
| 584 | 47 | 415 | 87 | 6 | 64 | 0.068966 | 0.735632 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,216 |
Unfortunately, these factors are not in place in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is hesitant to expend the political capital needed to overcome domestic opposition to cutting a deal with the Taliban given the press of other issues, including paralysis over the budget, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Iran and Snowden’s assaults on the intelligence system. More importantly, the United States has little leverage over Karzai's government, the Taliban and its associates or Pakistan. Both Karzai and the Pakistani government believe that America's focus on al-Qaida means that the United States needs them more than they need the United States. Hence they are largely immune to pressure, threats, suggestions or entreaties from Washington. And neither is particularly interested in an outright end to the extremist threat within their borders since the threat holds America's interest, keeps outside assistance flowing in, mutes internal dissent to some degree and justifies heavy-handed security measures to protect the regimes.
|
Steven Metz is a research professor of national security affairs and director of research at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. 17 Jul 2013, World Politics Review, Strategic Horizons: America’s Limited Leverage in Afghanistan, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13095/strategic-horizons-america-s-limited-leverage-in-afghanistan
|
The Obama administration is hesitant to expend the political capital needed to overcome domestic opposition to cutting a deal with the Taliban given the press of other issues, including paralysis over the budget, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Iran and Snowden’s assaults on the intelligence system. they are largely immune to pressure
|
Obama not expending pol cap on other stuff now
| 1,029 | 46 | 331 | 153 | 9 | 51 | 0.058824 | 0.333333 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,217 |
Besides the most important issue of illegal immigration, another key provision of the bill is the expansion in the number of H1B temporary work visas for workers with college degrees or in skilled occupations from the current cap of 65,000 a year to 110,000.¶ ¶ As is true of illegal immigration, the issue of legal work immigration is contentious, with many voices supporting the plan to expand the number of H1B visas granted each year, and many others opposing it.¶ ¶ Those who argue in favor of expansion typically say the US has a shortage of American graduates with Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) degrees. Foreign workers on H1B visas are thus required to fill a shortfall in STEM job positions. ¶
|
Sterling Wong, studied economics and politics at Sarah Lawrence College and the University of Oxford, Jun 12, 2013, Expanding the H1B Foreign Work Visa Quota Would Help Small Businesses Most, http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/politics-and-regulation/articles/Expanding-the-H1B-Foreign-Work-Visa/6/12/2013/id/50294
|
key provision of the bill is the expansion in the number of H1B temporary work visas for workers with college degrees or in skilled occupations from the current cap of 65,000 a year to 110,000 the US has a shortage of American graduates with STEM) degrees. Foreign workers on H1B visas are thus required to fill a shortfall in STEM job positions. ¶
|
Immigration reform increases H1B visas substantially
| 721 | 52 | 348 | 123 | 6 | 63 | 0.04878 | 0.512195 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,218 |
In particular, the U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers. Their contributions are critical to improving human welfare as well as our economy. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also become informal goodwill ambassadors for America globally -- an important benefit in the developing world, where senior scientists and engineers often enter national politics.¶ More broadly, we urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S. and foreign scientific communities to advance solutions to common challenges. Climate change, sustainable development, pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and wildlife, national security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw on science and technology.
|
Thomas R. Pickering and Peter Agre, writers for the Baltimore sun, February 09, 2010, More opportunities needed for U.S. researchers to work with foreign counterparts, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-09/news/bal-op.northkorea0209_1_science-and-technology-north-korea-scientists-and-engineers
|
U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also become informal goodwill ambassadors for America globally -- an important benefit in the developing world we urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S. and foreign scientific communities to advance solutions to common challenges Climate change, sustainable development, pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and wildlife, national security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw on science and technology.
|
H1B visas key to science diplomacy
| 890 | 34 | 692 | 123 | 6 | 95 | 0.04878 | 0.772358 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,219 |
“We have to remember that science is the foundation for the development of all ¶ weapons of mass destruction, and scientists also create the basis for monitoring and ¶ verification technologies for reducing arsenals. International science cooperation can ¶ create a basis for trust and confidence, and the climate of confidence is the key element ¶ needed to eliminate nuclear weapons. So we have to deal with nuclear proliferation ¶ and nuclear disarmament.”¶ —Evgeniy Avrorin¶ A sense of responsibility motivates many of the scientists engaged in science diplomacy ¶ who are working to increase security by building greater mutual confidence. Diplomats, ¶ military leaders, politicians, religious leaders, NGO experts, and others all have valuable ¶ capabilities they can bring to bear on these challenges. At their best, scientists acknowledge ¶ other points of view and evaluate ideas based on the ideas’ merits, not on who proposes ¶ them. This is fundamental to science. Avrorin said that in experiments “we understand that ¶ the results are unpredictable, there are various opinions, and the results must be tested.” ¶ Scientists and science diplomacy have this to offer, an important and valuable perspective ¶ that can temper the mix of competing positions on such important issues. ¶ The key ingredients for success in science diplomacy include the following: ¶ Being Open to New Possibilities ¶ “I was not convinced that the Cold War really was over. But just one year later, one year ¶ after Reykjavik, I did become convinced that the Cold War was over. I was attending a ¶ meeting of American and Russian scientists . . . the fifth in a series of meetings we’ve ¶ held since 1981. Some of you, in fact, were at that meeting.” ¶ —William Perry¶ Secretary Perry described his early 1980s belief that nuclear weapons were a necessary ¶ danger, required to maintain an uneasy peace in the Cold War. He noted that in years of ¶ meetings between U.S. and Soviet experts, the Soviets had followed a tight script dictated ¶ by the Kremlin, and the Kremlin’s position was bellicose and uncompromising. The first ¶ indication that Secretary Perry got that the Cold War might be coming to an end and that 4¶ nuclear weapons might not be necessary in the future occurred during a U.S.-Soviet science ¶ diplomacy meeting around 1987. For the first time, he witnessed disagreements among ¶ the Soviet participants, more in fact than between the U.S. and Russian delegations. He ¶ could see that glasnost was real, meaningful dialogue was possible, and the Cold War was ¶ winding down. ¶ Having a Vision and Exercising Leadership¶ “If you’re constantly mired in what is and you never look at what ought to be, you’re ¶ never going to really get anywhere.”¶ —former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz3¶ A few years after Secretary Perry’s observation of new openness in Russia, that same openness was exhibited in dramatic fashion in an exercise that would have been hard to reconcile ¶ with the common understanding of the Cold War rivalry, which was beginning to fall apart. ¶ The Soviet Union arranged for the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources ¶ Defense Council (NRDC), an NGO in the United States, to carry out a set of measurements ¶ of the radiation from a real warhead on a Soviet Navy ship in 1989. (The experiments are ¶ described in the next section.) Roald Sagdeev said that the importance of this experiment ¶ was “displaying that the Gorbachev government was ready to provide such a transparency, ¶ plus Glasnost extended to gamma rays and neutrons even” from nuclear weapons.¶ Thomas Cochran of the United States and Evgeny Velikhov, a Soviet Academy member ¶ and scientific adviser to General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, conceived this experiment, ¶ known as the Black Sea Experiment as a next step after the U.S.-USSR Test Ban Verification ¶ Project—a joint Soviet Academy-NRDC effort using seismic monitors to measure chemical ¶ explosions adjacent to U.S. and Soviet test sites. Dr. Cochran credits Dr. Velikhov, a bold ¶ scientist and a risk taker who had Gorbachev’s ear, and Gorbachev, himself, for having the vision and exercising the leadership to make the Black Sea Experiment a reality. Dr. Velikhov ¶ and Dr. Cochran knew the value of conducting the experiment as a demonstration of what ¶ Dr. Sagdeev, Frank von Hippel, and others had calculated in studies. The demonstration provided a publicly known technical reference point for political debate over nuclear reductions ¶ and verification. The fact that this was a joint effort, too, helped illustrate that cooperation ¶ and joint understanding were possible.
|
Micah D. Lowenthal is the director of the Nuclear Security and Nuclear Facility Safety Program in¶ the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Research Council of the National Academies., January 19, 2011, NIteD StAteS INStItUte of PeACe SPeCIAL RePoRt, Science Diplomacy for ¶ Nuclear Security, http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf
|
science is the foundation for monitoring and ¶ verification technologies for reducing arsenals International science cooperation can ¶ create a basis for trust and confidence the key element ¶ needed to eliminate nuclear weapons scientists engaged in science diplomacy are increase security by building greater mutual confidence scientists acknowledge ¶ other points of view and evaluate ideas based on the ideas’ merits This is fundamental science diplomacy have an important perspective nuclear weapons were a necessary ¶ danger, required to maintain an uneasy peace in the Cold War The first ¶ indication that the Cold War might be coming to an end occurred during a U.S.-Soviet science ¶ diplomacy meeting openness was exhibited in the Black Sea Experiment as a next step after the U.S.-USSR Test Ban Verification ¶ Project
|
Science diplomacy key to communication nessacery to check prolif.
| 4,659 | 65 | 827 | 773 | 9 | 130 | 0.011643 | 0.168176 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,220 |
immigrants have been a critical part of the American economy since the founding of our nation, but they are even more important today as we look to the future of our economic recovery and our economy. While Congress debates the economic strategy to restore our nation’s fiscal health, an opportunity is on the horizon that would maximize the human capital and talent of the nearly 40 million immigrants who call America home.¶ In order to reap the rewards of this talented and diverse labor pool, we must develop a legislative solution to fix our nation’s broken immigration system. Immigration reform that creates a pathway to earned legal status—and eventually to citizenship—for the undocumented immigrants living in our country while at the same time updating our legal immigration system will unleash the potential of immigrant workers and students to work, innovate, and add hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.¶ Let’s review how progressive immigration policies can help make this happen.¶ Legalizing our nation’s undocumented immigrants¶ Legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product—the largest measure of economic growth—over 10 years. That’s because immigration reform that puts all workers on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing power, which would benefit the U.S. economy as a whole.¶ The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized.¶ The national advantage of legalizing the undocumented immigrants is obvious in the previous figures, but gains are also evident at the state level. The state of Texas, for example, would see a $4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs if its approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants were legalized.¶ States that have passed stringent immigration measures in an effort to curb the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to inadequate access to qualified workers. A farmer in Alabama, where the state legislature passed the anti-immigration law H.B. 56 in 2011, for example, estimated that he lost up to $300,000 in produce in 2011 because the undocumented farmworkers who had skillfully picked tomatoes from his vines in years prior had been forced to flee the state.¶ With nearly half of agricultural workers, 17 percent of construction workers, and 12 percent of food preparation workers nationwide lacking legal immigration status, it isn’t hard to see why a legalization program would benefit a wide range of industries. Business owners—from farmers to hotel chain owners—benefit from reliable and skilled laborers. A legalization program would ensure that they have them.¶ Passing the DREAM Act¶ Passing the DREAM Act—legislation that proposes to create a roadmap to citizenship for immigrants who came to the United States as children—would put 2.1 million young people on a pathway to legal status, adding $329 billion to the American economy over the next two decades.¶ Legal status and the pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19 percent increase in earnings for DREAMers—young people who would benefit from passage of the DREAM Act—by 2030. The ripple effects of these increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal revenue.¶ Reforming the high-skilled immigration system¶ Creating a 21st century high-skilled immigration system—a system that accepts highly qualified immigrant workers when there is a demand that cannot be filled by American workers—would stimulate innovation, enhance competitiveness, and help cultivate a flexible, highly skilled U.S. workforce, while protecting American workers from globalization’s destabilizing effects.¶ The United States has always been and continues to be the nation where creative and talented individuals from around the world can come to realize their dreams, and our economy has significantly benefited from their innovation. In 2011 immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses, and immigrant businesses employ 1 in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded forty percent of Fortune 500 companies. These Fortune 500 companies collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010—more than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Reforms that enhance legal immigration channels for high-skilled immigrants and entrepreneurs while protecting American workers and placing all high-skilled workers on a level playing field will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States.¶ Our economy has benefited enormously from the talented immigrants who come here to study. Upon graduation, however, immigrant students face the tough choice between returning home and finding an employer to sponsor their entry into a visa lottery that may allow them to stay and work. Reforming the high-skilled immigration system would allow us to reap the benefits of having subsidized the education and training of these future job creators as immigrant students graduate and go on to work at our nation’s companies, contributing directly and immediately to our nation’s competitiveness in the global market.¶ Significant reform of the high-skilled immigration system would benefit certain industries that require high-skilled workers, such as the high-tech manufacturing and information technology industries. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in both of these industries and are more highly educated, on average, than the native-born Americans working in these industries. Still, immigrants working in science, technology, engineering, and math fields in the United States complement, rather than compete with, American workers. For every immigrant who earns an advanced degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created. By focusing on drawing human capital to our country and retaining it, Congress can help ensure that key sectors of our economy have an adequate labor pool to draw from and can boost our collective economic potential.¶ Our economy has much to gain from reforming our broken immigration system. But the biggest rewards will only be realized if Congress approaches immigration reform as an economic opportunity to be seized rather than an enforcement problem to be solved. Legislation that deals comprehensively with the issue by putting the nation’s undocumented immigrants, including DREAMers, on a path to citizenship while also reforming the high-skilled immigration system will strengthen the nation’s economy while increasing prosperity for all Americans. ¶
|
Garcia and Fitz 12/10 (Ann Garcia is a Research and Policy Associate for the Center for American Progress. Marshall Fitz is the Director of Immigration Policy at the Center, “Progressive Immigration Policies Will Strengthen the American Economy”, 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/12/10/47406/progressive-immigration-policies-will-strengthen-the-american-economy/, ¶
|
immigrants have been a critical part of the American economy since the founding of our nation, but they are even more important today as we look to the future of our economic recovery and our economy. we must develop a legislative solution to fix our nation’s broken immigration system. Immigration reform will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy the biggest rewards will only be realized if Congress approaches immigration reform as an economic opportunity Legislation that deals comprehensively with the issue will strengthen the nation’s economy
|
Comprehensive reform key to US economic recovery ¶
| 7,148 | 51 | 570 | 1,090 | 8 | 90 | 0.007339 | 0.082569 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,221 |
Lieberthal and O'Hanlon, Director of the China center and Director of research at Brookings, 12 ¶ (7/10, The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt, www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon) ¶ Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now a much more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished. ¶
|
\
|
American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight The Persian Gulf and Pacific regions will become less stable. Major war will become more likely. Obama articulated big foreign policy visions However, for Obama or his successor a more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.
|
US economic collapse emboldens adversaries – ensures global warfare ¶
| 1,512 | 70 | 763 | 212 | 10 | 110 | 0.04717 | 0.518868 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,222 |
Washington tends to have a narrow view of what counts as “economic policy.” Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any stimulus we pass, or any deficit reduction we try. Most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy.¶ The truth is, the most important piece of economic policy we pass -- or don’t pass -- in 2013 may be something we don’t think of as economic policy at all: immigration reform.¶ Congress certainly doesn’t consider it economic policy, at least not officially. Immigration laws go through the House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy: About a tenth of the U.S. population is foreign-born. More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a foreign-born founder.¶ Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts, and while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, there’s little dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them.¶ The economic case for immigration is best made by way of analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly conventional view of Japan. It’s even conventional wisdom about the U.S. The retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall from 5-to-1 today to 3-to-1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy.¶ Importing Workers¶ There’s nothing controversial about that analysis. But if that’s not controversial, then immigration shouldn’t be, either. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks -- at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here.¶ From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might not.¶ Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more immigration. If you’re worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution you’ll find.
|
Klein 1/29 Ezra is a columnist for The Washington Post. “To Fix the U.S. Economy, Fix Immigration,” 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/to-fix-the-u-s-economy-fix-immigration.html
|
the most important piece of economic policy we pass in 2013 may be immigration reform. More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a foreign-born founder.¶ Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts , there’s little dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them.¶ aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble It’s conventional wisdom about the U.S. The retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth rate, only easier And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks -- at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here. Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more immigration. If you’re worried about deficits healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution you’ll find.
|
Immigration Reform is key to the economy.
| 2,998 | 41 | 1,704 | 492 | 7 | 278 | 0.014228 | 0.565041 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,223 |
Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration enforcement legislation known as the ‘Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or ‘SAVE Act’ (H.R.4088 and S.2368). While these bills seek to address the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they fail to take a comprehensive approach to solving the immigration problem. History shows that a one dimensional approach to the nation’s immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without providing a viable means to obtain a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster. Agriculture best illustrates this point. Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor shortages have resulted in actual crop loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are making decisions to scale back production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled. Continued labor shortages could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed food and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of affected industries. This problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest worker program does not work. Based on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is foreign born, and a significant majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills’ imposition of mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification will screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal workers. Careful study of farm labor force demographics and trends indicates that there is not a replacement domestic workforce available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued failure by Congress to act to address this situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security and global competitiveness. Furthermore, congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose jobs exist because laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced to move, most of the upstream and downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support well-managed borders and a rational legal system. We have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the existing experienced farm workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides a fair balance of employer and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other bills that would impose employment-based immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would provide for a stable and legal farm labor force.
|
ACIR ‘7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
|
they fail to take a comprehensive approach History shows that a one dimensional approach to the nation’s immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without providing a viable means to obtain a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster Agriculture best illustrates this point. Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors Localized labor shortages have resulted in actual crop loss in various parts of the country producers are making decisions to scale back production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled. Continued labor shortages could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed food and import safety systems Continued failure by Congress to act to address this situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security and global competitiveness. congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose jobs exist because laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America
|
Comprehensive reform is key to food security
| 3,194 | 44 | 1,174 | 469 | 7 | 171 | 0.014925 | 0.364606 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,224 |
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
|
Calvin ’98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 47-64)
|
. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War --
|
Food insecurity sparks World War 3
| 1,021 | 34 | 464 | 164 | 6 | 77 | 0.036585 | 0.469512 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,225 |
Michael Bloomberg, the independent mayor of New York City, is no one’s idea of a hardline Republican conservative. Media titan Rupert Murdoch, whose empire includes Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, is no one’s idea of a squishy Republican moderate. And Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, a lifelong Democrat, is no one’s idea of a Republican at all.¶ It isn’t every day that three men with such disparate ideological profiles find common cause, let alone on a high-profile issue that has been roiling American politics for years. But there they were at Boston’s Seaport Hotel one evening last week, jointly making a nonpartisan case that reforming the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system is essential for economic revival. Without the growth fueled by immigrants — especially foreign-born entrepreneurs — the United States is unlikely to retain its preeminent position in the world. In Bloomberg’s vivid phrase, America is “committing economic suicide” by making it too hard for ambitious foreigners to enter the United States and unleash their drive and ingenuity.¶ Opening the Boston forum, Menino was effusive in his praise for Bloomberg, whose social liberalism, especially on gun control, complements his. “I am proud to call him my friend,” Menino said.¶ But the mayor was at loss for something nice to say about Murdoch, the former owner of the conservative Boston Herald. The best he could manage was to thank him “for being here and sharing his views.”¶ What was striking about the discussion that followed, however, was its unity of opinion, above all on the subject of immigrants and their economic impact.¶ Menino ran through some local numbers. There are 8,800 immigrant-owned small businesses in Boston, he said, producing nearly $3.7 billion in annual sales and employing more than 18,000 people. New Americans have swelled Boston’s population to 625,000, its healthiest level since 1970 — healthy because “more people mean more talent, more ideas, and more innovation.” They also mean more revenue: Boston’s immigrants spend $4 billion per year, generating $1.3 billion in state and federal taxes. For generations immigrants have rejuvenated Boston, said the mayor. “They make this old city new again and again.”¶ He got no argument on that score from Murdoch, an Australian native who became a US citizen in 1985. “An immigrant is more likely to start a small business than a non-immigrant,” said Murdoch, whose career exemplifies the phenomenon. “You go to Silicon Valley, and you realize it’s misnamed: It’s not the silicon” that makes it such a high-tech dynamo. “It’s the immigrants.” Ambitious foreigners “want to dream the American dream,” and it’s in America’s national interest to help them do so.¶ There is an abundance of empirical evidence that immigration is a tremendous economic driver. A study by the Partnership for a New American Economy, a coalition of mayors and business leaders advocating for more rational immigration laws, is awash with eye-opening data on immigrant entrepreneurship. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and immigrants are now more than twice as likely as US natives to start a business. Though the foreign-born account for less than 13 percent of the US population, they created 28 percent of all new American businesses in 2011.¶ Murdoch and Bloomberg, two of the partnership’s co-chairmen, argue that if only more Americans understood what remarkable job-creators immigrants tend to be, fewer politicians would feel the need to play to anti-immigrant xenophobia. Fewer voters would believe the popular canard that foreigners enter America to live off welfare — or the equally popular, if contradictory, canard that immigrants steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans.¶ “People don’t come here to put their feet up and collect welfare,” Bloomberg said. “They come here to work. If there are no jobs, they don’t come.” You’d never know it from the clamor over illegal immigration — “Put a damn fence on the border . . . and start shooting,” one GOP congressional candidate recently advised — but illegal border crossings have sharply declined.¶ What hasn’t declined is the hunger of strivers and dreamers the world over — talented entrepreneurs eager to bring their gifts here and make a success of themselves. Those would-be immigrants are an extraordinary growth hormone we can’t afford to spurn. A broken immigration system threatens America’s future economic vitality. Fixing that system must become a priority — for left, right, and center alike.
|
Jacoby 12 (Jeff, Columnist for The Globe and JB from Boston University, Immigration reform key to economic revival. Aug 19, The Boston Globe. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/08/18/immigration-reform-key-economic-revival/IfLnvJvmjZ6lbb1Mpxis5O/story.html, lj)
|
Michael Bloomberg mayor of New York City Rupert Murdoch, whose empire includes Fox News and The Wall Street Journal Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, a lifelong Democrat there they were at Boston’s Seaport Hotel one evening last week, jointly making a nonpartisan case that reforming the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system is essential for economic revival. Without the growth fueled by immigrants — especially foreign-born entrepreneurs — the United States is unlikely to retain its preeminent position in the world. America is “committing economic suicide” by making it too hard for ambitious foreigners to enter the United States and unleash their drive and ingenuity There are 8,800 immigrant-owned small businesses in Boston, he said, producing nearly $3.7 billion in annual sales and employing more than 18,000 people. New Americans have swelled Boston’s population to 625,000, its healthiest level since 1970 — healthy because “more people mean more talent, more ideas, and more innovation.” They also mean more revenue: Boston’s immigrants spend $4 billion per year, generating $1.3 billion in state and federal taxes. “An immigrant is more likely to start a small business than a non-immigrant,” said Murdoch, whose career exemplifies the phenomenon It’s the immigrants.” Ambitious foreigners “want to dream the American dream,” and it’s in America’s national interest to help them do so. There is an abundance of empirical evidence that immigration is a tremendous economic driver. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and immigrants are now more than twice as likely as US natives to start a business. Though the foreign-born account for less than 13 percent of the US population, they created 28 percent of all new American businesses in 2011. if only more Americans understood what remarkable job-creators immigrants tend to be, fewer politicians would feel the need to play to anti-immigrant xenophobia. “People don’t come here to put their feet up and collect welfare,” Bloomberg said. “They come here to work. If there are no jobs, they don’t come.” You’d never know it from the clamor over illegal immigration but illegal border crossings have sharply declined. What hasn’t declined is the hunger of strivers and dreamers the world over — talented entrepreneurs eager to bring their gifts here and make a success of themselves Fixing that system must become a priority — for left, right, and center alike.
|
Immigration reform is key to the economy
| 4,576 | 40 | 2,478 | 731 | 7 | 391 | 0.009576 | 0.534884 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,226 |
The 2008-2009 economic recession has deeply affected the stability and well-being of families ¶ and businesses across the United States. In the search for solutions, a growing body of evidence ¶ indicates that comprehensive immigration reform would promote economic recovery. Creating ¶ an earned pathway to legal status and eventual citizenship for undocumented immigrants would ¶ strengthen the U.S. economy and help put us back on track toward stability and growth.¶ Immigration reform is part of the solution. Undocumented ¶ immigrants are currently barred from fully integrating into the ¶ economy. These immigrants would pay more state and federal ¶ taxes, earn higher wages, and create more jobsif they were ¶ legalized. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimatesthat¶ 2006 legislation on legalization, if passed, would have generated¶ $66 billion in new tax revenues over 10 years.¶ Immigrant workers in both high- and low-skilled jobs are ¶ essential to a healthy economy. Immigrants are important ¶ contributors to the U.S. economy as taxpayers, workers, consumers, and employers. Latino ¶ buying power totaled $951 billion in 2008 and is expected to increase to $1.4 trillion by 2013. ¶ Hispanic- and Asian-owned firms – many owned by people who came to the United States as ¶ immigrants – provide jobs to millions of employeesin the United States.¶ Legalization is critical to fully integrating immigrants into local communities. Many ¶ immigrants who gained legal status in the 1980s through the Immigration Reform and Control ¶ Act (IRCA) earned higher wages, pursued educational opportunities, opted for home ownership, ¶ and lifted themselves out of poverty. Legalization enables immigrants to invest in their careers¶ and their families, thereby supporting the U.S. economy and strengthening U.S. communities.¶ Legalization levels the playing field for all U.S. workers and employers. Major labor unions ¶ have identified that immigration enforcement impedes their efforts to protect workers’ rights.¶ Immigrant workers, fearing retribution, are unable to speak out about wage theft or unsafe ¶ working conditions. Legalization, combined with strict enforcement of labor and employment ¶ laws, would promote fair competition and remove economic incentivesfor worker exploitation.¶ Deporting immigrants would not fix unemployment rates. Immigrant workers cannot simply ¶ be “traded out” for native-born workers. Even immigrant and native-born workers with the same ¶ level of education tend not to search for work in the same job market due to differences in ¶ location, occupation, and work experience. Removing 8.3 million undocumented immigrant ¶ workersfrom the fragile U.S. economy would only aggravate today’s problems. As in Postville, ¶ IA, following the May 2008 raid, deportations cause businesses to shut down and local tax ¶ revenues to decrease, leading to further job loss and economic hardship for entire communities.
|
FCNL 2009 (Friends Committee on National Legislation, “Immigration Reform is Key to Economic Recovery,” Dec.http://fcnl.org/issues/immigration/immigration_reform_is_key_to_economic_recovery/, lj)
|
a growing body of evidence indicates that comprehensive immigration reform would promote economic recovery. Creating an earned pathway to legal status and eventual citizenship for undocumented immigrants would strengthen the U.S. economy and help put us back on track toward stability and growth. Immigration reform is part of the solution. Immigrant workers in both high- and low-skilled jobs are essential to a healthy economy. Immigrants are important contributors to the U.S. economy as taxpayers, workers, consumers, and employers. Latino buying power totaled $951 billion in 2008 and is expected to increase to $1.4 trillion by 2013. Hispanic- and Asian-owned firms – many owned by people who came to the United States as immigrants – provide jobs to millions of employeesin the United States Many immigrants who gained legal status in the 1980s through the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) earned higher wages, pursued educational opportunities, opted for home ownership, and lifted themselves out of poverty. Legalization, combined with strict enforcement of labor and employment laws, would promote fair competition and remove economic incentivesfor worker exploitation. Deporting immigrants would not fix unemployment rates. Immigrant workers cannot simply be “traded out” for native-born workers Removing 8.3 million undocumented immigrant workersfrom the fragile U.S. economy would only aggravate today’s problems deportations cause businesses to shut down and local tax revenues to decrease, leading to further job loss and economic hardship for entire communities
|
Immigration reform revitalizes our economy
| 2,970 | 42 | 1,613 | 446 | 5 | 231 | 0.011211 | 0.517937 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,227 |
With the August 2 deadline now only eight days away, the addresses help demonstrate the heightened stakes. Earlier in the day, the president let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues, confessing that he’d like to “bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” He told the National Council of La Raza, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you.” But he told the group meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel that he has to work with Congress and will continue to fight for what he called a “balanced” plan that does not focus solely on spending cuts but that spreads the sacrifice to the wealthiest Americans as well. La Raza—and activist Latinos elsewhere—are disappointed in the president for not keeping his promise to champion comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office. They are particularly angry that his administration has been aggressive in deporting undocumented immigrants, but the president defended the record number of deportations, contending he has had no choice. “Those are the laws on the books,” said Obama. “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause.”
|
Condon (Staff writer for National Journal) May 29th, 2013 (George “Obama, Boehner Dueled in Address Tonight” The National Journal http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-boehner-dueled-in-address-tonight-20110725)
|
the addresses help demonstrate the heightened stakes the president let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues he’d like to “bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” , “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you.” he told the group meeting that he has to work with Congress and will continue to fight for what he called a “balanced” plan activist Latinos elsewhere are disappointed in the president for not keeping his promise to champion comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office Those are the laws on the books,” I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. That doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause.”
|
Obama won’t act unilaterally on IR
| 1,276 | 34 | 763 | 216 | 6 | 135 | 0.027778 | 0.625 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,228 |
People are just now beginning to realize that the president’s first term in office was not the roaring success they’d expected. The way things are shaping up, his second term won’t be much better, especially the area of immigration reform. When the DREAM Act, an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, didn’t make it through the legislative process, President Obama simply drafted and signed an executive order to do essentially the same thing and had Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano implement it. That started a lawsuit initiated by 10 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who claimed that the order prevented them from following the law. Although the court deferred a final ruling until May 6, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Conner said in a 38-page decision, “The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings” when the requirements for deportation are met, according to Bloomberg Business Week.
|
Dorstewitz (correspondent for BizPac) April 25th, 2013 (Michael “Judge says no to DHS ruling over immigration by executive order” BizPac Review http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/25/judge-says-no-to-dhs-ruling-over-immigration-by-executive-order-64445) MLW
|
When the DREAM Act didn’t make it through the legislative process Obama simply drafted and signed an executive order to do essentially the same thing and had Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano implement it. That started a lawsuit the order prevented them from following the law.
|
Obama can’t pass IR unilaterally without breaking law
| 981 | 54 | 288 | 155 | 8 | 46 | 0.051613 | 0.296774 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,229 |
President Obama said in an interview with Univision airing Tuesday that he “probably” cannot legalize illegal immigrants by executive order — a decision he might be faced with if Congress fails to pass comprehensive immigration reform. “Probably not,” Obama said, according to a transcript. “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus.” Some on the left have argued that Obama could simply legalize illegal immigrants himself — pointing to his previous executive order on the matter. Obama noted his deportations have focused on criminals and that he has signed an executive order exempting young illegal immigrants from deportation. “But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively,” he said. “So I’m not going to speculate on the House bill failing. I’m going to make sure that I do everything I can to help it succeed.” Obama said he remains “cautiously optimistic” that Congress will come to an agreement, and he said any agreement should include a path to citizenship, not mere legalization. “You know, here in Washington you always have to recognize that things move more slowly than you’d like. It’s always more difficult than you’d like,” he said. “But you know, what I’ve found over the last five years if you are persistent and you stay with it, that eventually the right thing gets done.”
|
Blake (WSP correspondent) July 17th, 2013 (Aaron, “Obama: I ’probably’ can’t legalize immigrants myself” Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/17/obama-i-probably-cant-legalize-immigrants-myself/) MLW
|
Obama said he “probably” cannot legalize illegal immigrants by executive order Probably not, I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively, So I’m not going to speculate on the House bill failing. I’m going to make sure that I do everything I can to help it succeed. Obama said he remains “cautiously optimistic You know, here in Washington you always have to recognize that things move more slowly than you’d like. It’s always more difficult than you’d like,” But you know, what I’ve found over the last five years if you are persistent and you stay with it, that eventually the right thing gets done.”
|
Obama says he cannot pass IR without congress
| 1,520 | 45 | 869 | 258 | 8 | 156 | 0.031008 | 0.604651 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,230 |
President Barack Obama showed some frustration Wednesday as he responded to questions about stalled immigration reform, chiding a Hispanic roundtable that “we live in a democracy.”
|
Mason September 28th, 2011 (Julie, “Obama tells Hispanic round table he can’t fix immigration alone” Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64635.html#ixzz2ZV7x10vK) MLW
|
Obama responded to questions about stalled immigration reform “we live in a democracy.”
|
Obama will not break rules with XO for CIR
| 180 | 42 | 87 | 26 | 9 | 13 | 0.346154 | 0.5 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,231 |
President Barack Obama on Thursday appeared to rule out acting on his own to implement some provisions of an immigration reform bill that failed to win congressional approval last year. A White House statement issued after Obama met with "influential Hispanics" from across the country said the president noted that Congress must pass legislation to "fix what's broken about our immigration system, and that he cannot unilaterally change the law." Some immigration reform advocates have argued that Obama could issue an executive order or take other unilateral steps to bring changes intended to help children of illegal immigrants eventually gain U.S. citizenship.
|
Cohen April 28th , 2011 (Tom, “Obama appears to rule out acting on his own on immigration” CNN Politics http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/obama.immigration/index.html) MLW
|
Obama appeared to rule out acting on his own to implement immigration reform Congress must pass legislation to "fix what's broken about our immigration system, and that he cannot unilaterally change the law."
|
Even since 2011, Obama still won’t pass IR executively
| 665 | 54 | 208 | 102 | 9 | 33 | 0.088235 | 0.323529 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,232 |
Havana Cuban and U.S. officials will hold the first migration talks between the two nations since 2011 in Washington on Wednesday. Analysts believe both countries have a strong interest in getting them off the ground again. "I think there is a lot of clarity in both capitals that geographic proximity and family connectivity require the two governments to establish a regular channel for problem solving and information sharing in this space," says Julia Sweig, Director of Latin American Studies, Council on Foreign Relations. "Much has changed regarding the flow of people back and forth," she added. Panama: N. Korean ship from Cuba carried missile system U.S., Cuba to discuss re-opening direct mail servic Cuba denounces continued inclusion on U.S. terror list Periodic discussion of the issue has taken place since 1980, but an accord was not reached until 1994, when the two countries sat down to find a solution to the rafters' crisis in which 30,000 people fleeing economic troubles at home set out on flimsy crafts hoping to reach U.S. shores. The following year, the U.S. and Cuba signed a second migration accord. Both were agreements to work toward "safe, legal and orderly migration." And they called for regular reviews of their implementation. The Bush Administration broke off these twice-yearly talks, along with taking other measures such as severely restricting the rights of Cuban Americans to travel back to the island -- limiting them to only one visit every three years. President Obama reestablished the rights of Cuban Americans to visit their homeland as much as they want and resumed the talks, only to break them off over the detention and jailing of U.S. contractor Alan Gross, which the State Department has repeatedly said remains a major obstacle to any improvement in relations between the two neighboring countries. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence in a Havana military hospital for bringing sophisticated communication equipment illegally into Cuba as part of a USAID program to promote democracy on the island. In Havana's eyes, the program aims for regime change. Arturo Lopez Levy, lecturer and PhD Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, and a Cuban-American says, "Opening the talks again is a sign of both sides' will to explore ways to advance their positions through negotiations. It opens the possibility of a new virtuous cycle in which a positive action by Cuba or the United States can be reciprocated by the other side. Issues such as Alan Gross' situation and the presence of Cuba on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism are on the table because both sides know that their interlocutor would react positively to a goodwill gesture." Nevertheless, when the talks were announced last month, State Department spokesman William Ostick said they do not signify a change in U.S. policy toward the island. Instead, he insisted that, "Continuing to ensure secure migration between the U.S. and Cuba is consistent with our interests in promoting greater freedoms and increased respect for human rights in Cuba." But critics of warming relations eye with unease the fact that Wednesday's talks follow recent bilateral meetings in Washington on direct mail service, suspended since the 1960s. The migration accords commit the United States to issue visas to a minimum of 20,000 Cuban migrants each year, while Cuba promised to discourage irregular and unsafe departures. The U.S. also agreed to return illegal migrants picked up at sea to Cuba and Havana promised not to take reprisals against them and to allow U.S. diplomats posted at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to visit the returnees to make sure they are not being treated unjustly. This is important, as it represents a relaxation of Cuba's previous restrictions on the movement of American diplomats on the island. Similar softening in these movement limitations is taking place in the U.S., with Washington giving Cuban diplomats posted there or at the U.N. in New York permission to travel to different states, even to Miami. The U.S. Interests Section also recently took steps to speed up visa interview appointment scheduling and is processing many thousands more Cubans than before. But ordinary Cubans, particularly young ones asking for temporary tourist visas, still complain that they are more often than not turned down as possible immigrants. The interviews take place in a waiting room, with the visa applicants called up to a window. Anyone there, including others waiting to be interviewed, can hear what's being said in the interviews being conducted. The "interviews" often last less than a minute. In January 2012, the Cuban government relaxed its travel restrictions, allowing a much greater number of people, including dissidents, to leave the island and for a much longer period of time without losing their property or rights as citizens, to two years instead of 11 months. That, says Lopez Levy, is a game changer in reaction to which both countries "probably need to update their cooperation in this area in which there are new challenges and opportunities." He sees the new situation as one in which both sides have something to bring to the table. "Presidents Obama and Raul Castro can bring new positive dynamics to the people to people relations," he points out. "(Mr.) Obama can implicitly support economic reform in Cuba by easing the trips to Cuba and Cuban-Americans permanence on the island for long periods. Raul Castro can provide a better environment around the U.S. interests' Section work in Havana, cooperating with more educational and cultural long term trips and contacts."
|
Portia Siegelbaum’13 CBS News/ July 17, 2013, 2:32 AM http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57594083/u.s-cuba-resuming-migration-talks/
|
Havana Cuban and U.S. officials will hold the first migration talks between the two nations since 2011 Director of Latin American Studies, Council on Foreign Relations. "Much has changed regarding the flow of people back and forth," she added The following year, the U.S. and Cuba signed a second migration accord. Both were agreements to work toward "safe, legal and orderly migration." And they called for regular reviews of their implementation. The Bush Administration broke off these twice-yearly talks, along with taking other measures such as severely restricting the rights of Cuban Americans to travel back to the island -- limiting them to only one visit every three years. President Obama reestablished the rights of Cuban Americans to visit their homeland as much as they want and resumed the talks, only to break them off over the detention and jailing of U.S. contractor Alan Gross, which the State Department has repeatedly said remains a major obstacle to any improvement in relations between the two neighboring countries. It opens the possibility of a new virtuous cycle in which a positive action by Cuba or the United States can be reciprocated by the other side , "Continuing to ensure secure migration between the U.S. and Cuba is consistent with our interests in promoting greater freedoms and increased respect for human rights in Cuba." The migration accords commit the United States to issue visas to a minimum of 20,000 Cuban migrants each year, while Cuba promised to discourage irregular and unsafe departures. The U.S. also agreed to return illegal migrants picked up at sea to Cuba and Havana promised not to take reprisals against them and to allow U.S. diplomats posted at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to visit the returnees to make sure they are not being treated unjustly. This is important, as it represents a relaxation of Cuba's previous restrictions on the movement of American diplomats on the island. Obama can implicitly support economic reform in Cuba by easing the trips to Cuba and Cuban-Americans permanence on the island for long periods. Raul Castro can provide a better environment around the U.S. interests' Section work in Havana, cooperating with more educational and cultural long term trips and contacts."
|
Revamped immigration policy solves relations and Cuban economic reform
| 5,677 | 70 | 2,267 | 920 | 9 | 368 | 0.009783 | 0.4 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,233 |
Besides having a significant part of the population not participating fully in the American society, the Hispanic makeup of the United States increasingly represents a sizeable electoral constituency and immigration reform tends to be a key issue in influencing the Hispanic (and particularly the Mexican-American) vote. Because the overwhelming majority of Hispanics in the United States (a full 63 percent, according to the last Census) are of Mexican descent, Mexican American voters’ support is often pivotal for electoral success. With Mexican-Americans’ (and, more broadly, Hispanics’) growing importance in U.S. electoral outcomes, both parties have sought the group’s support in elections. For better or worse, the prospect of wooing the broad range of Hispanic voters is a key factor in legislators’ support of comprehensive immigration reform. On the other hand, immigration reform is largely seen as beneficial for the U.S. economy. Though the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States do so under the radar, they nonetheless are active participants in American society and in many cases would be willing contributors to the country’s economic and political life, as well. With legalization, immigrants would be able to contribute to the consumption of goods and services, to pay more taxes (they now pay payroll tax and sales tax), to bolster U.S. businesses, and to raise domestic income. And by allowing high-skilled immigrants to enter the legal workforce, the bill would boost U.S. productivity.
|
Meacham’13 (Carl Meacham is director of the CSIS Americas Program. He joined CSIS from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), where he served on the professional staff for Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) for over a decade. He served as the senior adviser for Latin America and the Caribbean on the committee, the most senior Republican Senate staff position for this region. In that capacity, he travelled extensively to the region to work with foreign governments, private-sector organizations, and civil society groups. He was also responsible for managing the committee’s relationship with the State Department regarding the Western Hemisphere and overseeing its $2 billion budget.) By Carl Meacham Jun 13, 2013. http://csis.org/publication/us-immigration-reform-good-americas. (J.R)
|
. With Mexican-Americans’ growing importance in U.S. electoral outcomes, both parties have sought the group’s support in elections. For better or worse, the prospect of wooing the broad range of Hispanic voters is a key factor in legislators’ support of comprehensive immigration reform. On the other hand, immigration reform is largely seen as beneficial for the U.S. economy . With legalization, immigrants would be able to contribute to the consumption of goods and services, to pay more taxes (they now pay payroll tax and sales tax), to bolster U.S. businesses, and to raise domestic income. And by allowing high-skilled immigrants to enter the legal workforce, the bill would boost U.S. productivity.
|
Passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill important for the U.S/Mexico relations and economy
| 1,533 | 98 | 706 | 233 | 13 | 111 | 0.055794 | 0.476395 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,234 |
WASHINGTON, D.C. – White House Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Muñoz says President Obama “expects this process to wrap up this year” when asked about the prospects of immigration reform legislation. Speaking to reporters in the White House today, the Administration’s top Latina and former immigration advocate said she was confident the Senate immigration bill would be able to pass, and was not too concerned about the Republican-led House. ” There are multiple paths to move forward in House,” Muñoz said. Muñoz was joined by Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs Ricardo Zuniga, who spoke about President Obama’s upcoming trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. While much of the immigration talk in the U.S. focuses on border security, the administration hopes to focus on the region’s growing economic clout, and the prospects of more cooperation on issues of trade, energy, the environment and security. “Our meetings will have a strong economic focus,” said Zuniga. Zuniga and Muñoz stressed that the region has seen a 50 percent increase in its middle class, a development which many credit as one of the factors that has contributed to less immigration to the U.S. in recent years. The Obama Administration will be highlighting the region’s economic progress at a time when Congress debates the biggest overhaul in immigration laws in generations. In recent years, a large number of U.S. immigrants have come from Mexico and other countries in Latin America. So the immigration reform debate in the U.S. will clearly be a backdrop in the talks, said Muñoz. “We know the leadership in Mexico and Central America are very interested in what is happening here in the U.S. — it’s obviously an issue important to the president and to the presidents of the nations he visits,” Muñoz added. Another topic expected to come up in President Obama’s meetings is Venezuela — and Zuniga had strong words for the new government. “We’re very concerned with what we’re seeing in respect to violence — especially harassment of members of the opposition, who want a deeper investigation of irregularities,” said Zuniga. “For us the most important thing is there be a de-escalation of the tensions, and a halt to threats of imprisonment against legitimate political actors and those who might disagree with the government’s position in a given manner,” Zuniga added.
|
Lilley’13, Sandra started out in Telemundo-NY as a general assignment reporter and later News Director. She was also a Dayside Managing Editor at MSNBC and a Planning Editor for the NBC Domestic Desk. Born and raised in Puerto Rico, Sandra studied history at Brown University, and currently lives in New Jersey with her family. Sandra hopes our site inspires and informs Latinos as they work toward their family’s “American Dream.” by Sandra @sandralilley 8:44 pm on 05/01/2013 http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/01/white-house-latino-officials-talk-immigration-latin-america-venezuela/
|
While much of the immigration talk in the U.S. focuses on border security, the administration hopes to focus on the region’s growing economic clout, and the prospects of more cooperation on issues of trade, energy, the environment and security. “Our meetings will have a strong economic focus,” . Another topic expected to come up in President Obama’s meetings is Venezuela — and Zuniga had strong words for the new government. “We’re very concerned with what we’re seeing in respect to violence — especially harassment of members of the opposition, who want a deeper investigation of irregularities,” said Zuniga. “For us the most important thing is there be a de-escalation of the tensions, and a halt to threats of imprisonment against legitimate political actors and those who might disagree with the government’s position in a given manner
|
CIR solves Venezuelan relations
| 2,405 | 31 | 844 | 390 | 4 | 136 | 0.010256 | 0.348718 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,235 |
President Barack Obama is suggesting he would not sign an immigration bill without a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally.¶ Obama tells the Spanish-language television network Telemundo that "it does not make sense to me."¶ Obama says the effort to finally fix the system must resolve the status of these immigrants or the United States will end up with two classes of people: full citizens and those permanently resigned to a lower status.¶ A comprehensive bill passed by the Senate would allow these immigrants to eventually become citizens. Many House Republicans are against that.¶ Obama also says the House will probably pass a bill in the fall. He had pressed to have a bill to sign into law before the August recess.¶ In television interviews taped with four Spanish-language newscasts, Obama said he thinks many Republicans need more time to grapple with concerns about border security and the changing demographics of America.¶ "I don't think we're going to see it before the August recess," Obama said in an interview with Telemundo's Dallas affiliate.¶ ¶ After the Senate passed a comprehensive bill that includes a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States, Obama argued the House had "more than enough time" to review and pass it before the August break, when lawmakers head home to their districts.¶ ¶ But House Republicans have since made it clear they will come up with their own reforms, and plan to tackle the immigration issue in smaller bills.¶
|
Reuters 7/16 (worldwide news provider, “Obama Hints He Won’t Sign Immigration Bill Without ‘Path to Citizenship’”, NewsMax, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-immigration-citizeship-bill/2013/07/16/id/515423, 07/16/13, accessed 07/17/13)
|
President Barack Obama is suggesting he would not sign an immigration bill without a pathway to citizenship Many House Republicans are against Obama thinks many Republicans need more time to grapple with concerns about border security and the changing demographics of America.¶ "I don't think we're going to see it before the August recess," Obama said House Republicans have since made it clear they will come up with their own reforms, and plan to tackle the immigration issue in smaller bills.¶
|
Reform won’t pass before August recess – Obama proves
| 1,557 | 53 | 497 | 256 | 9 | 81 | 0.035156 | 0.316406 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,236 |
One thing that’s certain after the House GOP meeting last Wednesday is that immigration reform isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Republican representatives convened to discuss how to proceed after the Senate passed its comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes provisions for what Senator McCain described as “the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall,” stringent law enforcement measures, and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.¶ ¶ House Republicans are well aware that their party mandarins want them to act in short order and produce immigration legislation, but they are not to be rushed. The priorities of national Republicans and representatives are simply different. Party leaders fear losing the Latino vote in 2016 and beyond, while House members fear losing the conservative White vote in upcoming primaries. (Very few House members have sizeable numbers of Latino voters to worry about. On average, only 10 percent of voters in Republican districts are Latino.)¶ ¶ Any steps taken will be after the August recess, and they will be small. The inclination is toward tackling immigration reform piecemeal, starting with border security, interior enforcement, visas for high-skilled workers, and an agricultural guest worker program. But a path to citizenship, a crucial component of any comprehensive immigration reform bill, is a non-starter for most House members, being tantamount to amnesty.¶ ¶ Some Republicans have suggested an alternative path that leads to “legalization,” not citizenship. But isn’t this just semantics? The Senate bill would legalize the status of undocumented immigrants and, after 13 years or so, allow them to naturalize. The House could pass a bill that “only” provides legal status, but under the current system, immigrants could eventually get green cards and in time, citizenship. The process might be tougher and longer, but it nonetheless ends the same…unless formerly undocumented immigrants are banned from ever becoming citizens.¶
|
Leon 7/15 (Erwin De, policy researcher and writer, “Immigration Reform Stalls in the House”, NPQ Newswire, http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/22601-immigration-reform-stalls-in-the-house.html, 07/15/13, accessed 07/17/13)
|
immigration reform isn’t going to happen anytime soon. House members fear losing the conservative White vote in upcoming primaries path to citizenship, a crucial component of any comprehensive immigration reform bill, is a non-starter for most House members, being tantamount to amnesty.¶ Republicans have suggested an alternative path that leads to “legalization,” not citizenship
|
Passage stalling—GOP against amnesty
| 2,025 | 36 | 381 | 307 | 4 | 54 | 0.013029 | 0.175896 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,237 |
It gets worse. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. The compromise bill earned rare bipartisan support, its provisions made much harsher to meet conservative objections. There’s likely a majority that would vote to pass that reform in the House. But the Republican caucus demands that no legislation reach the floor without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. And, at this point, a majority of House Republicans rail against reform. They are considering passing piecemeal laws to arm the border, spend billions on more walls, and provide for more guest workers for agribusiness to exploit, while simply ignoring the 11 million people living in the shadows.
|
Heuvel 7/16 (Katrina vanden, opinion writer for Washington Post, “The appalling GOP”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-congresss-appalling-republicans/2013/07/16/07f0c5d4-ed69-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html, 07/16/13, accessed 07/17/13)
|
Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform But the Republican caucus demands that no legislation reach the floor without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus majority of House Republicans rail against reform They are considering passing piecemeal laws to arm the border, spend billions on more walls, and provide for more guest workers for agribusiness to exploit,
|
GOP prevents passage—majority of Republicans oppose the reform
| 687 | 62 | 382 | 108 | 8 | 58 | 0.074074 | 0.537037 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,238 |
After a meeting of Republican Congressmen and women on Wednesday 10th July 2013, the prospects for the comprehensive immigration reform bill initially passed by the Senate last month look poor. To become law, the bill must also be passed by the Republican controlled House of Representatives (The House). At a meeting on Wednesday 10th July, many House Republicans spoke out against it.¶ ¶ The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Bill 2013 (the bill) was passed by the upper house of Congress, the Senate, with 68 votes in favour on 28th June. To become law, it must obtain 60% support in both the Senate and the House.¶ While the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans. A sizeable number of Republican Representatives are vehemently opposed to the bill mainly because of its central provision; the creation of 'a pathway to citizenship' for many of the 11.5m immigrants currently living in the US illegally.¶ Few House Republicans support reform¶ While some House Republicans, such as the former Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, support the bill, the meeting of Representatives on 10th July seems to show that they are not the majority.¶ Former Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman told journalists on Tuesday that she was opposed to the bill. She said 'Until they can certify that the border is secure, I don't think we should take up any bill whatsoever.¶ She told journalists on Thursday 11th July that Republicans were very split on the issue and that all shades of opinion were to be found among representatives.¶ This seems to make it even less likely that the bill will be passed. The leader of the Republicans in the House, John Boehner, has said that he will not allow a vote on the issue in the House unless a majority of Republicans support it.¶ This makes the mathematical chances of the bill passing even smaller. To gain 60% support in the House, the bill requires 261 votes out of the 435 available. The Democrats hold 201 seats. If all Democrats voted for the bill, 60 Republicans would need to support it to see it become law.¶ Bill must get support from 117 Republicans to proceed to vote¶ But Representative Boehner's promise to block a vote unless half of Republicans support it means that it will need support from 117 Republicans at least. Washington commentators say that this won't be forthcoming any time soon.¶ The House was expected to vote for the bill before the summer recess but Representatives are now saying that there is unlikely to be a vote until after they return to Washington in September. One, John Fleming from Louisiana said there was no chance of a vote in July. 'We are going to go back to our districts and talk to our constituents' he said, 'that is what August is for'.¶ Another Representative, Darrell Issa of California sought to blame the President for the failure of Republican representatives to support reform. He said that Mr Obama should spend 'more time working with Congress instead of trying to undermine it'.¶ Congress increasingly split along party lines¶ Washington commentators have noted that, over recent years, there has been increasingly little cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. The Republican Party has moved to the right under the influence of the grass roots Tea Party movement and finds it almost impossible to agree with Democrats on any issue. Republicans claim that Mr Obama's Democrats have moved further to the left.¶ On the issue of immigration, Republicans say that to grant a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants would be to reward criminality and would be unfair on genuine, lawful immigrants who apply in the normal way.¶ They are also concerned that most illegal immigrants in the US are believed to come from Latin America and most Latin Americans currently vote Democrat. So Republicans fear that granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would harm their party's electoral prospects.
|
Workpermit.com 7/15 (U.S. immigration news site, “Republicans intend to block US immigration reform”, workpermit.com, http://www.workpermit.com/news/2013-07-15/republicans-intend-to-block-us-immigration-reform, 07/15/13, accessed 07/17/13)
|
After a meeting on Wednesday 10th July prospects for the comprehensive immigration reform bill look poor Republican Representatives are vehemently opposed to creation of 'a pathway to citizenship' for many of the 11.5m immigrants currently living in the US illegally.¶ Former Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman told journalists said 'Until they can certify that the border is secure, I don't think we should take up any bill whatsoever.¶ Republicans say that to grant a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants would be to reward criminality and would be unfair on genuine, lawful immigrants who apply in the normal way.¶ Republicans fear that granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would harm their party's electoral prospects.
|
Won’t pass—Republicans against amnesty and fear harming their electoral prospects
| 4,027 | 81 | 763 | 663 | 10 | 115 | 0.015083 | 0.173454 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,239 |
As the prospects for passing comprehensive immigration reform dwindle in the House, Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva won’t hesitate to tell you exactly who he thinks deserves the blame.¶ ¶ “The House and its leadership is showing a tremendous lack of leadership,” said Grijalva on NewsNation Monday, taking a swipe at House Speaker John Boehner. “Boehner is not talking about a bipartisan bill that’s comprehensive, Boehner is not talking about bringing something to the floor so that the House can work its will,” he said. “We have a tough path ahead of us in the House.”¶ ¶ Following a closed-door meeting last week, participants told reporters that Republican leaders hoped to move forward with a variety of small bills dealing with certain aspects of immigration, but not a comprehensive package like the one the Senate passed last month. The House GOP has yet to figure out its position on the legal status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.
|
Margolin 7/15 (Emma, writer for msnbc, “House shows ‘tremendous lack of leadership’ on immigration, says lawmaker”, msnbc, http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/15/house-shows-tremendous-lack-of-leadership-on-immigration-says-lawmaker/, 07/15/13, accessed 07/17/13)
|
prospects for passing comprehensive immigration reform dwindle in the House House and its leadership is showing a tremendous lack of leadership,” said Grijalva Boehner is not talking about a bipartisan bill that’s comprehensive, Boehner is not talking about bringing something to the floor so that the House can work its will,” Republican leaders hoped to move forward with a variety of small bills dealing with certain aspects of immigration, but not a comprehensive package like the one the Senate passed GOP has yet to figure out its position on the legal status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.
|
Lack of leadership in the House stalls passage
| 976 | 46 | 636 | 162 | 8 | 103 | 0.049383 | 0.635802 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,240 |
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the Senate bill is a nonstarter, and House conservatives are pressing for a bill that does more on border security before beginning to legalize the status of illegal immigrants.¶ ¶ "What I would like the House to do is a discrete, piece-by-piece approach to immigration that builds confidence of the American people that we actually and finally will secure our border and enforce our immigration laws," Cotton said.¶ ¶ A report in National Review said that Cotton had become a leading conservative voice on immigration reform, urging a piecemeal approach that prioritizes border security. ¶
|
Strauss 7/15 (Daniel, staff writer for the Hill, “Rep. Cotton: Mandate delay shows Obama can’t be trusted on border”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310931-rep-cotton-employer-mandate-delay-shows-obama-wont-enforce-border-security-enhancements, accessed 07/17/13)
|
Speaker John Boehner said House conservatives are pressing for a bill that does more on border security before beginning to legalize the status of illegal immigrants.¶ What I would like the House to do is a discrete, piece-by-piece approach to immigration that builds confidence of the American people that we actually and finally will secure our border and enforce our immigration laws," Cotton said.¶ A report in National Review said Cotton had become a leading conservative voice on immigration reform, urging a piecemeal approach that prioritizes border security. ¶
|
Won’t pass—House conservatives want to secure border first
| 629 | 58 | 569 | 101 | 8 | 89 | 0.079208 | 0.881188 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,241 |
WASHINGTON — Despite weeks of lobbying by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and other high-profile Republicans, the prospects of Congress overhauling immigration policies just got a whole lot dimmer.¶ House Republicans met Wednesday to try and reach consensus on a way forward, but all they appeared to agree on was that they won’t take up the comprehensive legislation that passed the Senate.¶ Instead, they will break the issue into pieces and try to pass a slew of smaller bills — one covering border security, another covering an employer-verification system, for example.¶ But that approach could mean almost certain defeat for any move to offer a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. That provision is a must-have for President Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate.¶ The sharp division within the House Republican conference mirrors almost exactly the split within Wisconsin’s GOP House delegation.¶ Ryan has been pushing for a comprehensive approach that would include a provision offering undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. Rep. Sean Duffy doesn’t back a citizenship option but supports giving those immigrants an opportunity to legally work and live in the United States.¶ Reps. Tom Petri, Reid Ribble, and James Sensenbrenner oppose either option. They first want to prevent more immigrants from entering the country illegally, through beefed-up border security or other methods.¶
|
Slack 7/14 (Donovan, Gannett Washington Bureau, “Wis. GOP split over immigration legislation”, stevens point journal: a gannett company, http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/article/20130715/SPJ0101/307150163/Wis-GOP-split-over-immigration-legislation, 07/14/13, accessed 07/16/13)
|
prospects of Congress overhauling immigration policies just got a whole lot dimmer.¶ House Republicans agree they won’t take up the comprehensive legislation Ryan has been pushing for a comprehensive approach that would include a provision offering undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship Rep. Sean Duffy doesn’t back a citizenship option but supports giving those immigrants an opportunity to legally work and live in the United States.¶ eps. Tom Petri, Reid Ribble, and James Sensenbrenner oppose either option. first want to prevent more immigrants from entering the country illegally,
|
Republican disagreement over immigration delay its passage
| 1,463 | 58 | 594 | 223 | 7 | 88 | 0.03139 | 0.394619 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,242 |
But by July 10, everything had changed. Emerging from a conference-wide immigration meeting, King and his newly vocal band of conservative comrades were floating. After convening for more than two hours to plot the path forward on immigration reform, members were still not entirely sure what the House approach would be. But this much they knew: The Senate bill was, as Speaker John Boehner said without equivocation, "dead on arrival." The House would act, the speaker vowed. But it would not follow the Senate. ¶ There would be no comprehensive package. There would be no rush to approve legislation this year. And, in all likelihood, there would be no path to citizenship.¶ How did the dynamic shift so quickly?¶ It began with an exasperated, wits-end King on June 6. One day removed from the RSC summit, King began visiting his colleagues—the same ones who were silent during that meeting—and asking for their signatures to force another gathering. This one would be longer and more thorough, he told them, involving the entire conference. Soon he had collected the 50 signatures needed to trigger what he and other lawmakers would later describe as a "family meeting."¶ On June 12, a week after King launched his petition drive, Boehner's leadership team scheduled a July 10 special conference meeting to discuss immigration. (Leadership aides insist Boehner had long been planning such a session.) ¶ With less than one month to organize the opposition, King went to work. He checked back with the conservative members who had signed his petition, asking them to attend an "anti-amnesty" rally the following Wednesday on the East Lawn of the Capitol. King wanted to bring his coalition out of the shadows, and perhaps even more, he wanted the grassroots opposition that was simmering beneath the political surface to be seen from the windows of the Capitol Building.¶ As King strategized behind the scenes, Boehner began feeling the heat in public. On June 17, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told a radio show that Boehner "should be removed as speaker" if he brought an immigration bill to the floor without the support of a majority of House Republicans, a violation of the so-called "Hastert Rule." At a conference meeting the next day, Boehner promised his members that he would do no such thing. He also emphasized that immigration proceedings would go through regular order, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., working through a series of single-issue bills.¶ Speaking to reporters later that day, Boehner publicly repeated his promise, saying, "I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans."¶
|
Alberta 7/14 (Tim, leadership reporter for the National Journal, former senior editor of National Journal Hotline, “How Momentum for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Collapsed in the House”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/how-momentum-for-comprehensive-immigration-reform-collapsed-in-the-house-20130714, National Journal, 07/14/13, accessed 07/16/13)
|
Senate bill was, as Speaker John Boehner said without equivocation, "dead on arrival House would not follow the Senate. ¶ There would be no comprehensive package King checked back with the conservative members who had signed his petition, asking them to attend an "anti-amnesty" rally Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told a radio show that Boehner "should be removed as speaker" if he brought an immigration bill to the floor without the support of a majority of House Republicans, a violation of the so-called "Hastert Rule. Boehner promised his members that he would do no such thing. Boehner saying, "I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans."¶
|
Won’t pass—Boehner reluctant to bring the bill
| 2,705 | 46 | 724 | 441 | 7 | 119 | 0.015873 | 0.269841 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,243 |
Perhaps the most interesting revelations come in Chapter 10, "Missing the Schmooze Gene," in which Alter succeeds better than any other writer to date in making sense of the paradox that has come to define Obama: a political figure who loves the real work but becomes impatient with the trivial duties of modern-day political office, where schmoozing, fundraising, "donor maintenance" and false friendships are the grist that keep the machine churning. Alter describes the president complaining to staffers during the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis as he dutifully calls Democratic senators whom Majority Leader Harry Reid has placed on a list for special attention. Obama gripes: "Why do these guys need this? Are they so insecure that they can function only if they get to tell people, 'Hey, the president called me!?' "¶ Yet Obama daily pens handwritten letters to average citizens who write to him, believing this to be a valuable use of his time. In assessing this missing "schmooze gene," Alter concludes that Obama's strong desire to be a normal person is "a fine quality in an individual but problematic for a president." He concludes that Obama has squandered a valuable piece of political capital: "His failure to use the trappings of the presidency more often left him with one less tool in his toolbox, one less way to leverage his authority."
|
Ken Gormley, the dean and a professor at Duquesne University School of Law and the author of "The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr," 7/12, 2013, Journalist captures Obama's political persona, Houston Chronicle, http://www.chron.com/life/books/article/Journalist-captures-Obama-s-political-persona-4662116.php#photo-4908019
|
the paradox that has come to define Obama: a political figure who loves the real work but becomes impatient with the trivial duties of modern-day political office In assessing this missing "schmooze gene," Alter concludes that Obama's strong desire to be a normal person is "a fine quality in an individual but problematic for a president." He concludes that Obama has squandered a valuable piece of political capital: "His failure to use the trappings of the presidency more often left him with one less tool in his toolbox, one less way to leverage his authority."
|
Obama PC low- no kissassing
| 1,349 | 27 | 566 | 222 | 5 | 95 | 0.022523 | 0.427928 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,244 |
hese beliefs color the bilateral interaction. On Syria, for example, the United States has approached negotiations with Moscow by pushing Russia to abandon its approach even when Russians express the justified concern that the U.S. side has not offered a sound alternative strategy.¶ Above all, Russia fears being marginalized in the international environment of the 21st century, and so while engagement is essential, each side must come to the table with genuine openness to the other's concerns.¶ Beyond politics, the foundations of the relationship remain disturbingly anemic. Despite some progress since 2009, persistent roadblocks to free travel and investment make it difficult for interested private parties to build enduring bilateral ties. In both countries, these constraints have led to mounting fatigue among those in the business community and civil society who should be the strongest advocates of close relations. Some well-meaning Americans now caution Obama against squandering more political capital to salvage a ''reset'' the Russian side never fully understood or embraced.¶ For either side to give up now would be tragic. The major problems of our era demand full engagement not only from Moscow and Washington, but from Brussels, Delhi, Beijing and the rest of the Group of 20 major economies, a grouping Russia will host in St. Petersburg in September.¶ Positive U.S.-Russia relations may not guarantee wider consensus, but it is surely essential. A deteriorating U.S.-Russia relationship only deepens the current division in the G-20 between the Euro-Atlantic nations of the north and west and the rising and resurgent powers of the south and east.
|
MATTHEW ROJANSKY and NIKOLAS GVOSDEV, writers and international relations experts for the international herald tribune, 7/6, 2013, The reset that wasn't, International Herald Tribune
|
United States has approached negotiations with Russia the foundations of the relationship remain disturbingly anemic roadblocks to free travel and investment make it difficult for interested private parties to build enduring bilateral ties Americans now caution Obama against squandering more political capital to salvage a ''reset'' the Russian side never fully embraced For either side to give up now would be tragic
|
PC low- Russian relations dominate
| 1,673 | 34 | 418 | 257 | 5 | 62 | 0.019455 | 0.241245 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,245 |
The latest wave of polls shows President Obama's job approval rating drifting steadily downward, into the mid-40s, and that's hardly surprising.¶ Controversies around US government surveillance of telephones and the Internet, the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of tea party groups, Justice Department snooping into journalists' phone records, and the US response to last September's terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, have put the Obama administration on the defensive.¶ Public views of Mr. Obama's personal qualities have also taken a hit: The latest CNN/ORC International survey, released Monday, shows that, for the first time in his presidency, half the public does not believe Obama is honest and trustworthy. All of the above cuts into Obama's "political capital," that elusive commodity that fuels a president's second-term mojo.¶ But perhaps most concerning for the president are the numbers among young adults.¶ "The drop in Obama's support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of th e Obama coalition," CNN polling director Keating Holland said in the cable network's report.¶ That's just one poll, and the margin of error for any one age group is high - plus or minus 7.5 percent. Among Americans age 18 to 34, Obama's now at 48 percent, not too far from 50. But it's a cohort Obama can ill afford to lose. And there have been other recent worrying signs for the president among the young.¶ An April survey of 3,100 voters under age 30, the so-called "millennials," by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University shows that only 39 percent trust the president to do the right thing, compared with 44 percent in 2010.¶ The news, in fact, is bad for Washington and politicians in general, as young voters show increasing negativity and cynicism with the political process. Almost three-fifths of young Americans (59 percent) said they agree that elected officials seem motivated by "selfish reasons" - an increase of 5 points since 2010. Some 56 percent agree that "elected officials don't have the same priorities I have," also up 5 points from 2010. And 28 percent agree that "political involvement rarely has any tangible results," an increase of 5 points since 2010.¶ "If you are 24 years old, all you know is petty partisan politics while big issues aren't getting addressed, while the economy is still struggling," IOP director Trey Grayson told The New York Times.
|
Linda Feldmann Staff writer for Christian Science Monitor, June 17, 2013, Obama job approval drops 17 points among young Americans; ¶ The latest poll from CNN is bad news for the president, who rode to reelection on the backs of young and minority voters. But Republicans are doing even worse., http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T17823747431&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T17823747435&cisb=22_T17823747434&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7945&docNo=7
|
polls shows Obama's approval rating drifting steadily downward, into the mid-40s, Controversies around surveillance the I R S 's targeting of tea party groups , and the US response to last September's terror attack have put Obama on the defensive half the public does not believe Obama is honest and trustworthy All cuts into Obama's "political capital," The drop in Obama's support is fueled by 17-point decline among people under 30,
|
Obama’s PC low – public proves
| 2,498 | 30 | 435 | 408 | 6 | 71 | 0.014706 | 0.17402 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,246 |
Obama's efforts are hamstrung by congressional opposition to a nationwide emissions trading scheme - a push killed in the US Senate in his first term - so he has decided to sidestep the blockers and regulate carbon emissions directly via the Environment Protection Agency.¶ The EPA will write new rules for emissions from coal-fired power plants, the bulk of emissions from the US electricity sector.¶ Obama also called for an end to public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas unless they used carbon capture and storage technology.¶ It remains to be seen how the regulation of power-plant emissions will fare against the legal and legislative challenges it is likely to face, but the Obama administration has now invested significant political capital in reducing the climate change impacts of coal.¶ In addition, there will be a massive energy efficiency push in the US, with Obama calling for a 20 per cent improvement in efficiency in buildings and $8.7 billion in extra funding for innovative new technology.¶ The US targets fall well short of Europe's collective commitment to emissions cuts, which in turn fall shy of the warnings from the world's scientific community about the need for swift and deep carbon cuts.¶ The Obama plan would still leave the world on course for perhaps 4 or 5 degrees of warming this century, which translates into potentially catastrophic change.¶ The pledge of US leadership on climate action is likely to energise the international community.¶ To date, probably the single greatest factor in the glacial progress towards cutting greenhouse emissions has been US reluctance to act. That excuse has now been removed.
|
Ben Cubby, Environment Editor for Sydney Morning Herald, June 27, 2013, US commits, that's a good start; http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T17823252638&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T17823252642&cisb=22_T17823252641&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=314237&docNo=10
|
Obama's efforts are hamstrung by congressional opposition to a nationwide emissions trading scheme Obama also called for an end to public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas unless they used carbon capture and storage the Obama administration has now invested significant political capital in reducing the climate change impacts of coal massive energy efficiency push with Obama calling for 20 per cent improvement in efficiency
|
Obama’s PC low- spent on climate control
| 1,667 | 40 | 442 | 269 | 7 | 66 | 0.026022 | 0.245353 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,247 |
The poll showed continuing division, and perhaps some confusion, in the views of Americans about the surveillance programs Mr. Snowden revealed. In the same poll, for instance, 54 percent of the voters questioned said the security agency's collection of data on Americans' phone calls ''is necessary to keep Americans safe.'' But in a separate question, 53 percent said the same program ''is too much intrusion into Americans' personal privacy.''¶ ''Americans' views on anti-terrorism efforts are complicated,'' said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. ''They see the threat from terrorism as real and worth defending against, but they have a sense that their privacy is being invaded and they are not happy about it at all.''¶ Peter D. Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who studies public opinion and foreign policy, said that ''it would be a mistake to say that the public has a settled and coherent view'' on the surveillance programs a month after they were disclosed. But he said that sympathy for Mr. Snowden appeared to be growing.¶ ''You could say that Obama has gotten the debate he said he wanted,'' Mr. Feaver said, referring to a remark President Barack Obama made when the news of Mr. Snowden's disclosures first broke.¶ Mr. Obama ''doesn't want to spend his political capital on this,'' said Mr. Feaver. ''He wants to spend it on immigration.''¶ While intelligence officials have tried to explain and defend the N.S.A. programs, their efforts have been seriously handicapped by accusations of inaccuracy.¶ James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was forced to admit publicly that his previous assurance in Senate testimony that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans was false. A fact sheet was withdrawn after two senators charged that it contained errors. And officials who testified about terrorist plots uncovered with the help of the N.S.A. programs got the details of some cases wrong.
|
Scott Shane is an American journalist, currently employed by The New York Times, reporting principally about the United States intelligence community, 7/12, 2013, Poll shows complexity of debate on surveillance, The International Herald Tribune
|
poll showed continuing division, and perhaps some confusion, in the views of Americans about the surveillance programs . Snowden revealed ''Americans' views on anti-terrorism efforts are complicated Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who studies public opinion and foreign policy, said that ''it would be a mistake to say that the public has a settled and coherent view'' bama has gotten the debate he said he wanted, . Obama ''doesn't want to spend his political capital on this,'' said Mr. Feaver. ''He wants to spend it on immigration.''¶ While intelligence officials have tried to explain and defend the N.S.A. programs, their efforts have been seriously handicapped by accusations of inaccuracy
|
PC low- Obama has to spend it on Snowden issue
| 2,013 | 46 | 721 | 321 | 10 | 112 | 0.031153 | 0.34891 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,248 |
President Obama last week eased restrictions on the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to family in Cuba—the first significant change in U.S. policy toward Cuba in decades. The decision reverses the particularly hard-line stance of the Bush administration, a move by Obama that apparently has the full backing of the American public.¶ ¶ Consider these results from a WorldPublicOpinion.org early April survey on Cuba policy and U.S. public opinion. The survey asked respondents which position was closest to theirs given recent leadership changes in Cuba: that it was “time to try a new approach to Cuba, because Cuba may be ready for a change” or that since the Communist Party is still in control, the United States “should continue to isolate Cuba.” By a 59-to-39 percent margin the public backed the time-for-a-change approach.¶ ¶ The American people are even more supportive of the specific moves made by President Obama last week. They back his easing of travel restrictions for Cuban Americans by an overwhelming 79-to-19 percent margin.¶ ¶ And the public is clearly comfortable with going farther than this in developing a more open relationship with Cuba. Seventy-five percent think it is a good idea for U.S. government leaders to be ready to meet with Cuban leaders. Seventy percent think Americans in general should be free to visit Cuba. And 69 percent favor re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba.¶ ¶ Critically, the public also believes overwhelmingly that if we go down this road and increase travel and trade between Cuba and the United States, the end result will be a more open and democratic Cuba. This position is supported by 71 percent of the American public.
|
Teixeira 9 (Ruy, Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and American Progress, “Public Opinion Snapshot: Public Backs U.S.-Cuba Relations”, 04/20/09, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/public-opinion/news/2009/04/20/5866/public-opinion-snapshot-public-backs-u-s-cuba-relations/, accessed 07/19/13)
|
President Obama ased restrictions on the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to family in Cuba first significant change in U.S. policy toward Cuba in decades. Consider these results from a WorldPublicOpinion.org .” By a 59-to-39 percent margin the public backed the time-for-a-change approach.¶ American people are even more supportive of easing of travel restrictions for Cuban Americans by an overwhelming 79-to-19 percent margin.¶ And the public is clearly comfortable with going farther than this in developing a more open relationship with Cuba. Seventy-five percent think it is a good idea for U.S. government leaders to be ready to meet with Cuban leaders. Seventy percent think Americans in general should be free to visit Cuba. And 69 percent favor re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba.¶ public also believes d result will be a more open and democratic Cuba. This position is supported by 71 percent of the American public.
|
Americans enthusiastic about reestablishing a relationship with Cuba—survey proves
| 1,706 | 82 | 957 | 279 | 9 | 151 | 0.032258 | 0.541219 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,249 |
The rule about political capital is, when you've got it, spend it, because you can't hold on to it. "I earned capital in this campaign, political capital," President Bush said two days after winning re-election, "and now I intend to spend it." And spend it is exactly what he is doing—with a bold agenda focused on Social Security, the Middle East, energy, judicial nominations, and the "culture of life." But the president has a problem. His political capital is just about depleted. Bush had a huge supply of capital after 9/11. And he spent it—all of it—on Iraq. The 2004 presidential election, which he won with 51 percent of the vote, replenished only a little of his capital.
|
Schneider (CNN political analyst) May 10, 05 (William, “What Political Capital?” The Atlantic.) MLW
|
The rule about political capital is, when you've got it, spend it, because you can't hold on to it His political capital is just about depleted 2004 presidential election, which he won with 51 percent of the vote, replenished only a little of his capital
|
Political Capital is a dead end, the numbers are conclusively on our side and past presidents prove.
| 681 | 101 | 254 | 118 | 17 | 45 | 0.144068 | 0.381356 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,250 |
The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger.
|
Hirsch (chief correspondent for the National Journal) May 30th, 13 (Michael, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital” The National Report.) MLW
|
just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. that the idea of political capital —is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong The best kind of political capital almost never happens political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything any president has practical and electoral limits And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done
|
Political Capital is flawed- multiple warrants: over exaggerated, rarely exists, and gives us incorrect assumptions about political power
| 2,298 | 137 | 921 | 379 | 18 | 160 | 0.047493 | 0.422164 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,251 |
As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress adjourns for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the start of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying.
|
Dickinson 9 – professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt (5/26/09, Matthew, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,” http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/)
|
Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? These measures are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. how members of Congress vote on a legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying.
|
PC not key – other factors determine the agenda
| 2,379 | 48 | 1,494 | 371 | 9 | 224 | 0.024259 | 0.603774 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,252 |
Deciding how best to promote the president’s policy initiatives on Capitol Hill is a frequent concern inside the modern White House. ‘Legislative strategy’ sessions attract senior officials and fervent debate; they implicate the president’s policy positions and (potentially) his public standing. What is more, White House staffers say the decisions they make in these meetings are vitally important for determining the president’s fate in Congress. For Beltway insiders, then, it comes as no surprise that the president’s advisors expend considerable amounts of their time, expertise, and energy devising a legislative strategy and translating it into a lobbying enterprize. For political scientists, however, the resources allocated to formulating and implementing the White House’s lobbying offensive appear puzzling, if not altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each president’s capacity to marshal legislative proposals through Congress, the prevailing wisdom now stresses contextual factors as predetermining his agenda’s fate on Capitol Hill. From the particular ‘political time’ in which they happen to take office (Skowronek, 1993) to the state of the budget (Brady and Volden, 1998; Peterson, 1990), the partisan composition of Congress (Bond and Fleisher, 1990; Edwards, 1989) (see also Gilmour (1995), Groseclose and McCarty (2001), and Sinclair (2006)) to the preferences of specific ‘pivotal’ voters (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbie, l998), current research suggests a president’s congressional fortunes are basically beyond his control. The implication is straightforward, as Bond and Fleisher indicate: …presidential success is determined in large measure by the results of the last election. If the last election brings individuals to Congress whose local interests and preferences coincide with the president’s, then he will enjoy greater success. If, on the other hand, most members of Congress have preferences different from the president’s, then he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of bargaining and persuasion can do much to improve his success. (Bond and Fleisher, 1990: 13) Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some researchers paint a more optimistic picture regarding presidents’ potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. (1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha (2007), Edwards III and Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light (1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002) all observe that presidents secure greater support for their ‘priority’ items, and when they exert ‘effort’ pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that White House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, while Canes-Wrone (2001, 2005) shows that presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically ‘going public’ when advocating popular proposals (see also Kernell (1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) finds that presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members’ positions as a bill moves through the legislative process. However, even among these relative optimists, the prescription for presidents appears to be an ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy. In discussing the challenge for a president looking to push legislation on Capitol Hill, Samuel Kernell offers a comparable assessment. He writes, The number and variety of choices place great demands upon [presidents’] strategic calculation, so much so that pluralist leadership must be understood as an art…an ability to sense ‘right choices’. (Kernell, 1993: 36) Furthermore, the seemingly paradoxical findings noted above, that is, a general (if modest) pattern of president-supported legislative success on passage and policy content, but not on ‘key’ roll-call votes, remain unexplained. This paper aims to demystify the White House’s legislative strategies, both their logic and their effects. Developing a non-cooperative game in which the president allocates scarce ‘political capital’ to induce changes in legislators’ behavior, we deduce two lobbying strategies White House officials may execute and, in turn, investigate their impact on the laws that result. Interestingly, we theorize that presidents’ foremost influence comes from bargaining with congressional leaders over policy alternatives before bills reach the floor, not bargaining with pivotal voters for their support once they do. Precisely because so much of the presidents’ influence comes in the legislative earlygame (rather than the endgame), we theorize t
|
Beckman and Kumar 11 [Mathew N and Vival, Department of Political Science, University of California. Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol 23, no 1, January 2011 “How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking”.http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/3.abstract]
|
the resources allocated to formulating and implementing the White House’s lobbying offensive appear puzzling if not altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each president’s capacity to marshal legislative proposals the prevailing wisdom stresses contextual factors predetermining his agenda’s fate From the particular ‘political time’ to the state of the budget the partisan composition of Congress the preferences of specific ‘pivotal’ voters current research suggests a president’s congressional fortunes are basically beyond his control If members of Congress have preferences different from the president’s he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of bargaining and persuasion can do much even among optimists, the prescription for presidents appears to be an ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy
|
No PC - Consensus of political scientists goes aff
| 4,581 | 51 | 836 | 658 | 9 | 118 | 0.013678 | 0.179331 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,253 |
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said congressional Republicans will have to pass immigration reform if they ever want the GOP to retake the White House. “I believe that the members of Congress, many more than are directly affected themselves by the number of Hispanics in their district, will do what is right for our country,” Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And it’s certainly right — for the Republicans, if they ever want to win a presidential race.”
|
Morgenstern (degree in political science from George Washington University) June 30th, 2013 (Madeleine, “Nancy Pelosi: House Republicans Will Pass Immigration Reform ‘If They Ever Want to Win a Presidential Race’” The Blaze. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/30/nancy-pelosi-house-republicans-will-pass-immigration-reform-if-they-ever-want-to-win-a-presidential-race/#) MLW
|
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said congressional Republicans will have to pass immigration reform if they ever want the GOP to retake the White House I believe that the members of Congress, will do what is right for our country,” “And it’s certainly right — for the Republicans, if they ever want to win a presidential race.”
|
Winners win. Political capital from passing the reform can gain enough momentum to gain positions in Washington.
| 505 | 113 | 326 | 85 | 17 | 56 | 0.2 | 0.658824 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,254 |
Some people will deny that killing Bin Laden gives Obama renewed credibility and popularity, asserting that the birther madness will continue even after the certificate release and bad-guy obliteration. There’s no question that Obama continues to face challenges that no white president ever has or ever will. But he has as much credibility now as he is ever going to have among sane people, and he can gain more by simply claiming the results he has generated. It’s time for those of us who have been waiting for fulfillment of campaign promises to push hard for their completion, while the feeling of unity is relatively fresh and the danger of losing low.
|
Sen (president of Applied Research Committee) May 5th, 2011 (Rinku, “The Purpose of Political Capital: Three Agenda Items for Obama” Color Lines News for Action http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/the_purpose_of_political_capital_three_agenda_items_for_a_resurgent_obama.html) MLW
|
no question that Obama continues to face challenges that no president ever has or ever will he has as much credibility now as he is ever going to have among sane people and he can gain more by simply claiming the results he has generated
|
Winners win – momentum breeds more
| 658 | 34 | 237 | 112 | 6 | 45 | 0.053571 | 0.401786 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,255 |
The idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and [they]he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.” ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because [they’re]he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.)
|
Hirsh 13 – National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek senior correspondent, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2-9-13, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207]
|
The idea is so poorly defined that pundits often get it wrong pundits talk about how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through. this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens political tectonics shift dramatically in very little time Republican members are pushing hard for immigration reform this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence It has almost entirely to do with the breakdown of the Hispanic vote It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. political capital is so poorly defined that pundits often get it wrong political capital misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary It conveys the idea we know more than we really do about the -elusive concept of political power, and discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth Winning wins.” political scientists who study how to pass legislation say political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it there’s no mechanism That makes it useless,” says a government professor at Cornell Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and [they] get it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of other actors If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.” Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because [they’re] aggressive one of the main reasons for that mandate was Johnson’s masterful use of power and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand the way to maximize momentum Momentum It is a controllable fact of political life
|
PC theory is false and winners win
| 10,740 | 34 | 2,090 | 1,779 | 7 | 345 | 0.003935 | 0.193929 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,256 |
This notion of science as a diplomatic tool – its use as an entry point to a recalcitrant society that simultaneously breaks down politically steeped preconceptions and offers tangible benefits – is a promising mode of development and a constructive brand of international relations. The Obama Administration understands the value of science diplomacy; last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the expansion of the Science Envoy program, appointing Barbara Schaal of Washington University in St. Louis, Bernard Amadei of the University of Colorado, and Susan Hockfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the position. These prominent scientists represent the third class of envoys – the program began in 2009 and has sponsored visits to nearly 20 countries. The philosophy behind the envoy program is noble, but its current directive is a bit vague. As noted in the State Department’s official release, “the science envoys travel in their capacity as private citizens and advise the White House, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. scientific community about the insights they gain from their travels and interactions.” A recent assessment of the program by envoy Elias Zerhouni noted the challenge of following through on initiatives predicated on the personal credibility and contacts of the individual envoys. Leveraging the networks of world-renowned scientists within the framework of a coherent policy of international relations is difficult, particularly when funding for longer-term projects is uncertain. The trust of international partners requires a predictable political and financial environment.
|
Marlow 12 (Jeffrey, Graduate Student in Geological and Planetary Sciences – California Institute of Technology, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Science Diplomacy,” Wired, 12-11, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/12/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-science-diplomacy/)
|
This notion of science as a diplomatic tool is a constructive brand of international relations The philosophy is noble, but its a bit vague A recent assessment noted the challenge of following through on initiatives predicated on the personal credibility and contacts of the individual envoys Leveraging the networks of world-renowned scientists within the framework of a coherent policy of international relations is difficult particularly when funding is uncertain The trust of international partners requires a predictable political and financial environment
|
No impact to science diplomacy
| 1,644 | 30 | 561 | 245 | 5 | 81 | 0.020408 | 0.330612 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,257 |
Using science as a vehicle for international diplomacy has many clear attractions. Such is the case, for example, when it can be used to forge common approaches to international problems (such as climate change), or appears to offer a way around divisive political disagreements. But, as rapidly become clear in the opening session of the three-day meeting on science diplomacy being held at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, putting the principle of such diplomacy into action presents many practical problems, some of which SciDev.Net aired last week (see Science diplomacy must be more ambitious). As several participants pointed out, this is particularly the case at a time when science budgets are under pressure, and scientists are being asked to justify their support from the public purse in terms of the practical contributions they make to national – rather than international – well-being. The dilemma was highlighted by the very first speaker at the meeting, Peter Fletcher, chair of panel that seeks to co-ordinate the international activities of Britain’s research councils. Fletcher outlined the many ways in which science can be effectively used as a diplomatic tool. He pointed out, for example, that scientific cooperation offered countries such as Britain an opportunity to establish good relations with the Muslim world in just the same way that it had helped them build bridges with China in the 1990s. “Science is a way of building relationships, sometimes even before politicians have agreed to talk.” Fletcher said. “Researchers are used to working across national boundaries. They understand people who are thinking about the same things as they are, and are used to working together in ways in which other people are not.” But he also pointed out that, with the UK having just announced a 25% reduction in its science budget, governments were increasingly requiring scientists to demonstrate the value of their work for those who paid for it. “How much are we prepared to commit to solving global challenges for mutual benefit [in this context]?” he asked. Other challenges were highlighted by Vaughan Turekian, director of the Center for Science Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington DC Turekian pointed out that part of the attraction of using science for diplomatic purposes was its apolitical nature. In addition, the United States, for example, was well placed to exploit the fact that its science was held in much higher regard around the world that many of its other activities. He quoted a recent visit to Syria by a US scientific delegation that had met with President Assad – an ophthalmologist – as an example of how science diplomacy could help promote political engagement in situations where official relations were limited. “Science cooperation has provided a wonderful way to have a dialogue on issues of mutual interest,” Turekian said. But he also pointed to some of the barriers that prevent science diplomacy from operating effectively, such as asymmetries in scientific capabilities, economic or security concerns over providing access to certain types of key technologies, and a general lack of funding.
|
Dickson 10 (David, Director – SciDev.Net, “Science Diplomacy: Easier Said than Done,” SciDev.Net Blog, 6-24, http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/science-diplomacy-easier-said-than-done/)
|
as rapidly become clear in the opening session of science diplomacy putting the principle of such diplomacy into action presents many practical problems this is particularly the case at a time when science budgets are under pressure and scientists are being asked to justify their support from the public purse in terms of the practical contributions they make to national – rather than international – well-being Other challenges were highlighted by Vaughan Turekian, director of the Center for Science Diplomacy he pointed to some of the barriers that prevent science diplomacy from operating effectively such as asymmetries in scientific capabilities, economic or security concerns over providing access to certain types of key technologies, and a general lack of funding
|
Too many alt causes to science diplomacy
| 3,188 | 40 | 774 | 508 | 7 | 119 | 0.01378 | 0.234252 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,258 |
Current calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” are nothing short of a push for a massive amnesty that would give permanent status to millions of illegal aliens who are not needed in the workforce, and it would reward unscrupulous employers who profited from hiring illegal workers, providing them with a legal low-wage workforce that would continue to have a negative impact on native workers. The border is not secured and there is much opposition to the mandatory use of E-Verify and interior enforcement. Those who argue against enforcement are not going to decide overnight to support these measures, and politicians have long ago proven that their promise to enforce immigration laws after granting amnesty are not to be believed. This report contains the following findings: • In 2009, less than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy. • Studies that find minimal or no negative effects on native workers from low-skill immigration are based upon lawed assumptions and skewed economic models, not upon observations of actual labor market conditions. • There is no such thing as an “immigrant job.” The reality is that immigrants and natives compete for the same jobs and native workers are increasingly at a disadvantage because employers have access to a steady supply of low-wage foreign workers. • Low-skilled immigrants are more likely than their native-born counterparts to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and to utilize welfare programs. Immigrants and their children made up 32 percent of those in the United States without health insurance in 2009. • Research done by the Center for American Progress has found that reducing the illegal alien population in the United States by one-third would raise the income of unskilled workers by $400 a year. • Defenders of illegal immigration often tout the findings of the so-called Perryman Report to argue that illegal aliens are responsible for job creation in the United States; yet, if one accepts the Perryman findings as true, that would mean that only one job is created in the United States for every three illegal workers in the workforce. • It is true that if the illegal alien population decreased the overall number of jobs in the U.S. would be reduced, but there would be many more jobs available to native workers –jobs that paid higher wages and offered better working conditions
|
Ruark and Graham 11 [Eric Ruark and Matthew Graham – Directors of Research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners the Harmful effect of Unskilled immigrants on American Workers”, May 2011, http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf]
|
calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” are nothing short of a push for massive amnesty that would give permanent status to millions of illegal aliens who are not needed in the workforce less than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy. There is no such thing as an “immigrant job.” immigrants and natives compete for the same jobs and native workers are increasingly at a disadvantage because employers have access to a steady supply of low-wage foreign workers. Low-skilled immigrants are more likely to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and to utilize welfare programs Defenders argue that illegal aliens are responsible for job creation yet that would mean that only one job is created in the United States for every three illegal workers in the workforce.
|
CIR doesn’t solve the economy – trades off with native jobs and drains welfare
| 2,434 | 78 | 843 | 396 | 14 | 136 | 0.035354 | 0.343434 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,259 |
The good news is that global economic volatility has been significantly lower in recent years than at almost any time in the last century. By widening and deepening international markets for goods, labor and capital, globalization appears to have made the world economy less prone to crisis. At the same time, financial innovations have improved the pricing and the distribution of risk, and policy innovations such as inflation targeting have helped governments to limit rises in consumer prices (if not asset price) inflation International organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund have helped to avert trade disputes and other sources of economic instability.
|
Ferguson 2006 [Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, September/ October 2006 “The next war of the world”, Foreign Affairs. V 85. No 5, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61916/niall-ferguson/the-next-war-of-the-world
|
global economic volatility has been significantly lower in recent years than at almost any time in the last century globalization appears to have made the world economy less prone to crisis financial innovations have improved the pricing and the distribution of risk innovations such as inflation targeting have helped governments to limit rises in consumer prices inflation International organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund have helped to avert trade disputes and other sources of economic instability
|
The global economy is resilient—globalization and financial innovations
| 707 | 71 | 553 | 108 | 8 | 82 | 0.074074 | 0.759259 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,260 |
In addition to these progress-slowing conditions, the number of under-nourished people is actually growing in most developing regions. A few large countries have made significant gains, making the global picture appear more promising than it really is. China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Nigeria, Ghana, and Peru have all made important gains in reducing food insecurity and hunger. However, in nearly fifty other countries, the number of undernourished people increased by almost 100 million between 1993 and 2003. The absolute numbers continue to rise as a result of rapid population growth, even though the proportion of undernourished people in most developing countries is actually decreasing. Worldwide commitment to improve global food insecurity was demonstrated at the 1996 World Food Summit, where 186 countries pledged to reduce the number of hungry, food-insecure people in the world by 50 percent (to 400 million) by the year 2015. Progress toward this goal has been slow, with a decrease of only 2.5 million people a year since 1992. At the current pace, the goal will be reached more than one hundred years late. Despite slow progress, some innovative programs have been implemented around the globe to combat food insecurity and undernutrition. Examples of innovative program include: community gardens, farmers markets, community-supported sustainable agricultural programs, food for work exchange programs, farm to school initiatives, credit to poor households, income transfer schemes, and agricultural diversification programs.
|
FAQS.org 2008 (Internet FAQ Archive, "Food Insecurity," http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Erg-Foo/Food-Insecurity.html, AD: 6/30/09)
|
In addition to these progress-slowing conditions, the number of under-nourished people is actually growing in most developing regions. A few large countries have made significant gains, making the global picture appear more promising than it really is. China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Nigeria, Ghana, and Peru have all made important gains in reducing food insecurity and hunger Worldwide commitment to improve global food insecurity was demonstrated at the 1996 World Food Summit, where 186 countries pledged to reduce the number of hungry, food-insecure people in the world by 50 percent (to 400 million) by the year 2015 Despite slow progress, some innovative programs have been implemented around the globe to combat food insecurity and undernutrition. Examples of innovative program include: community gardens, farmers markets, community-supported sustainable agricultural programs, food for work exchange programs, farm to school initiatives, credit to poor households, income transfer schemes, and agricultural diversification programs.
|
No impact – Despite deteriorating conditions, progress is being made to solve food scarcity
| 1,549 | 91 | 1,048 | 228 | 14 | 147 | 0.061404 | 0.644737 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,261 |
The most recent increase in hunger recorded by FAO is not the consequence of poor global harvests but is caused by the world economic crisis that has resulted in lower incomes and increased unemployment leading to reduced access to food by the poor. If the new journal Food Security needed an early example to justify its breadth of coverage, the FAO report certainly provides it: originating from the International Society for Plant Pathology in a joint venture with Springer, Food Security is subtitled The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food.
|
Science Daily 2009 ("One Billion Hungry People: Multiple Causes Of Food Insecurity Considered," June 25, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625113857.htm, AD: 6/30/09)
|
The most recent increase in hunger is not the consequence of poor global harvests but is caused by the world economic crisis that has resulted in lower incomes and increased unemployment leading to reduced access to food by the poor
|
2. The economy destroys access to food security more so than poor harvests
| 580 | 74 | 232 | 95 | 13 | 40 | 0.136842 | 0.421053 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,262 |
Lagos — The current high prices of oil will aggravate poverty and starvation in the world's undeveloped countries, <Continued>plenary session that high oil prices were denying growth opportunities to developing countries which need fuel to fire industrialisation. According to him, emerging countries will continue having high economic growth which would imply massive process to access to energy consumption, arguing that "the productivity increases and the extension to greater part of the population of the benefits of economic growth will continue being a positive shock to the global economy."He regretted, however, that "increase in prices of oil could delay access of important sections of the population to a better standard of living," adding that "we must avoid the short term harmful effects of high oil prices increasing the rate of poverty and extreme poverty." Brufau said that developing countries needed affordable fuel to pursue growth and economic development which, he explained, demand greater mobility, number of services and energy consumption. He said that demand for oil in developing countries would continue to grow in the next 25 years.
|
Onwuka 2008 (Sopuruchi, All Africa Staff Writer, "Nigeria: Food Scarcity Blamed On High Oil Price," July 2, http://allafrica.com/stories/200807020391.html, AD: 6/30/09)
|
The high prices of oil will aggravate poverty and starvation in the world's undeveloped countries, plenary session that high oil prices were denying growth opportunities to developing countries which need fuel to fire industrialisation emerging countries will continue having high economic growth which would imply massive process to access to energy consumption, arguing that "the productivity increases and the extension to greater part of the population of the benefits of economic growth will continue being a positive shock to the global economy." however, that "increase in prices of oil could delay access of important sections of the population to a better standard of living," adding that "we must avoid the short term harmful effects of high oil prices increasing the rate of poverty and extreme poverty said that demand for oil in developing countries would continue to grow in the next 25 years.
|
3. High oil prices prevent food security from actualizing – it’ll only get worse.
| 1,165 | 81 | 909 | 177 | 14 | 143 | 0.079096 | 0.80791 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,263 |
The president has acted to ignore Congress in two ways: One way employs power vested in him by the Constitution, the other power given to him by Congress. The first is by exercising discretion in how the laws are executed. After the DREAM Act failed in Congress, Obama directed immigration officials in the executive branch to exempt from enforcement undocumented persons who came to the United States as children. While the specifics of the order are questionable, the executive certainly has the authority to prioritize how limited enforcement resources are employed. Choosing to pursue violent illegal immigrants first, for example, is within any president's power. In doing so he is not creating new law over Congress's objections, but merely exercising discretion about how to best execute existing laws. The second way a president can act unilaterally, however, does create new law, and that is through regulation. Regulating is lawmaking, and regulations are as binding as any law that Congress passes, yet this lawmaking takes place wholly within the executive branch. The president's power to direct the Department of Homeland Security or the Energy Department to issue new cybersecurity rules exists because Congress has delegated—or abdicated—to the executive a massive amount of rule-making power.
|
Brito (USA Today author) August 20th , 2012 (Jerry, “Obama has right to bypass congress on cybersecurity, immigration” USA Today http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/20/obama-has-right-to-bypass-congress-on-cybersecurity-immigration) MLW
|
One way employs power vested in him . The first is by exercising discretion in how the laws are executed Obama directed immigration officials in the executive branch to exempt from enforcement undocumented persons who came to the United States as children the executive certainly has the authority to prioritize how limited enforcement resources are employed second way a president can act unilaterally is through regulation The president's power to direct the Department of Homeland Security or the Energy Department to issue new cybersecurity rules exists because Congress has delegated
|
Don’t buy their claims—Obama can still act unilaterally
| 1,309 | 56 | 588 | 203 | 8 | 90 | 0.039409 | 0.44335 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,264 |
"Probably not" is obviously not the same as "no" or "never." So Obama seems to be keeping the option available to himself even as he puts the onus on Congress to achieve an immigration overhaul that includes a path to citizenship, known to its detractors as "amnesty." And it is a very real, if highly unlikely, option for the president. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president broad pardon powers, even to the extent of granting amnesties to those who've violated federal law. Amnesty dates to the earliest days of the republic. Like many presidential traditions, it began with President George Washington, who offered an amnesty to participants in 1794's Whiskey Rebellion, a violent tax revolt in Western Pennsylvania. More recently, Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter gave amnesties to Vietnam War-era draft evaders. "The constitutional backdrop is [that there is] absolutely no doubt the president could [declare an amnesty for those in the country illegally]," P.S. Ruckman Jr., a professor of Rock Valley College in Illinois, told me in an interview. Ruckman, an expert on presidential pardons who runs the Pardon Power blog, said: "I don't think there's anyone who would argue the president doesn't have that power. I can't imagine who that would be or what their argument would be ..."
|
James (bachelor in English from Dickinson College, reporter for Wall Street Journal for 10 years, reports for NPR) July 17th, 2013 (Frank “Obama could declare an Immigration Amnesty but…” NPR Politics talk http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/07/17/203030968/obama-could-declare-an-immigration-amnesty-but) MLW
|
"Probably not" is obviously not the same as "no" or "never." seems to be keeping the option available to himself rticle 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president broad pardon powers, Amnesty dates to the earliest days of the republic "The constitutional backdrop is [that there is] absolutely no doubt the president could [declare an amnesty for those in the country illegally]," P.S. Ruckman Jr "I don't think there's anyone who would argue the president doesn't have that power. I can't imagine who that would be or what their argument would be ..."
|
“Probably not” doesn’t mean NO—still possibility of unilateral action on IR
| 1,325 | 75 | 567 | 217 | 11 | 96 | 0.050691 | 0.442396 |
Politics Generic - DDI 2013.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,265 |
The year 2012 may have been the United Nation's International Year of Cooperatives, but 2013 may turn out to be the more historic year for worker-ownership if the Cubans have anything to say about it.
|
Keith Harrington, 1/17/2013. Former Maryland and Washington D.C. Field Director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, currently pursuing a master’s degree in economics and leading NEI's Campus Network affiliate group at the New School for Social Research in Manhattan, and is a contributing writer on climate, energy and the new-economy at several publications including Truthout, Grist.org, Alternet, and the Huffington Post. “New Cuba: Beachhead for Economic Democracy Beyond Capitalism,” Truthout, http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13918-the-new-cuba-a-beachhead-for-economic-democracy-we-should-support.
|
2013 may turn out to be the more historic year for worker-ownership if the Cubans have anything to say about it
|
The Cuban opposition movement is creating a model for economic democracy --- success will spread it globally.
| 200 | 109 | 111 | 35 | 17 | 21 | 0.485714 | 0.6 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,266 |
It is too early to say how Hugo Chavez's passing will effect developments elsewhere in the region. One wonders first and foremost about the consequences on and in Cuba. It is a reminder to the Castro brothers that power is ephemeral. Cuba is ready for change. In spite of the efforts by the regime to paint a rosy picture, eye witnesses tell a sad story. Living conditions are bad, the economy survives only at the mercy of Venezuela. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission, in its 2012 a report on Cuba, speaks of "permanent and systematical violations of the fundamental rights of Cuban citizens." Ironically, however while the Cuban people suffer, the regime is internationally stronger than ever. Progressive rock musicians, like Gorki in the band Porno Para Ricardo, are prevented from writing and performing freely. The international pressure for the respect for human rights is weak and inefficient. It seems like the ethic conscience of the west is comfortable with the situation. It shouldn't be. Solidarity with the people submitted to human rights violations by dictatorships is a moral imperative. However, the opposition movement is gaining voice, even in face of a forgetful international community. They are increasingly self-confident. Oswaldo Paya is now dead, but others, like Yoani Sanchez stepped into his place. Courageous people, who defy threats and speak more and more openly about the true state of the country. They deserve all the support they ask for. Cuba is ripe for change.
|
András Simonyi and Jaime Aparicio Otero, 3/12/2013. Ambassador András Simonyi (60) is the Managing Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR) at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Washington D.C.; and former Ambassador of Bolivia to the United States. “Cuba's Future Transition to Democracy Can Be a Success,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andras-simonyi/cubas-future-transition-t_b_2859520.html.
|
Chavez's passing will effect developments in Cuba It is a reminder to the Castro brothers that power is ephemeral. Cuba is ready for change the economy survives only at the mercy of Venezuela the opposition movement is gaining voice, even in face of a forgetful international community. They are increasingly self-confident Oswaldo Paya is now dead, but others, like Yoani Sanchez stepped into his place. Courageous people, who defy threats and speak more and more openly about the true state of the country Cuba is ripe for change
|
Cuban opposition movement is strong --- Chavez’s death creates an opening.
| 1,510 | 74 | 533 | 244 | 11 | 88 | 0.045082 | 0.360656 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,267 |
This is a fruitful period of experimentation and debate in Cuba. It is now almost seven years since Raúl Castro replaced his brother Fidel, first as interim president in 2006 and then as president in 2008. Under Raúl, the country is taking steps to transform the economy, and a critical discussion is erupting over the dismantling of the authoritarian Communist model. Julio Díaz Vázquez, an economist at the University of Havana, declares: “With the updating of the economic model, Cuba faces complex challenges . . . in its social and political institutions. . . . The heritage of the Soviet model makes it necessary to break with the barriers erected by inertia, intransigence, [and] a double standard.” He adds, “These imperfections have led to deficiencies in [Cuba’s] democracy, its creative liberties, and its citizens’ participation.”1
|
Roger Burbach, 5/25/2013. Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) based in Berkeley, CA and is the author with Michael Fox and Federico Fuentes of Latin Americas Turbulent Transitions: The Future of 21st Century Socialism. “Restructuring Cuba's Economy Creates Debate over Democracy and Socialism in the 21st Century,” CounterPunch, http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2013/05/25/a-cuban-spring-the-debates-are-engaged/.
|
This is a fruitful period of experimentation and debate in Cuba. It is now almost seven years since Raúl Castro replaced Fidel Under Raúl, the country is taking steps to transform the economy, and a critical discussion is erupting over the dismantling of the authoritarian Communist model Vázquez, an economist at the University of Havana, declares: “With the updating of the economic model, Cuba faces complex challenges . . . in its social and political institutions
|
Economic democracy is emerging now but the regime will fight for a statist model.
| 843 | 81 | 468 | 135 | 14 | 76 | 0.103704 | 0.562963 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,268 |
All sincere anti-imperialists should condemn the cruel U.S. economic blockade of Cuba; but we should have no illusions as to what the lifting of that embargo would mean. The proximity of Cuba to the U.S. and the latter’s size and power will lead to the more or less rapid reintegration of Cuba with the U.S. economy. With special rules that allow it to circumvent restrictive laws against trade and investment with Cuba, U.S. agribusiness has exported $1.6 billion in products to Cuba between 2001 and 2005, making Cuba the third largest U.S. food importer in Latin America.72 The Bush administration has also authorized a San Diego company to market three anti-cancer vaccines developed by the Center for Molecular Immunology in Havana.73 A lifting of the embargo would lead not to the flourishing of socialism, by whatever definition. Cuba’s social services—its free health care and educational system especially—would come under threat.
|
Paul D’Amato, Jan/Feb 2007. Managing editor of the ISR. “CUBA: Image and reality,” International Socialist Review, Issue 51, http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image&reality.shtml.
|
we should have no illusions as to what the lifting that embargo would mean. The proximity of Cuba to the U.S. and the latter’s size and power will lead to the more or less rapid reintegration of Cuba with the U.S. economy A lifting of the embargo would lead not to the flourishing of socialism, by whatever definition. Cuba’s social services—its free health care and educational system especially—would come under threat
|
Lifting the embargo enables U.S. corporations to crush Cuban socialism.
| 939 | 72 | 420 | 150 | 10 | 71 | 0.066667 | 0.473333 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,269 |
The answer depends on the conditions under which the embargo is lifted. I focus on the expected distribution of benefits (and costs) between the government and the Cuban population. A unilateral move by the US Government, without any quid pro quo by the Cuban government can be expected to yield significant benefits to the official establishment with benefits of an unknown magnitude to the population at large. I posit that the magnitude of the latter depends on the degree of internal liberalization of the Cuban economy. Until Raul Castro took over, the centralized command of the Cuban economy was subject to a set or constraints arguably more restrictive than the US embargo. What I have called the internal embargo consisted in the Cuban government outright prohibition for Cubans to own enterprises, freely employ workers or trade domestically and internationally. To many Cubans, probably a majority, such constraints were the main cause of the country ´s secular economic crisis.
|
Jorge A. Sanguinetty, April 2013. Former economic planner in Cuba with first-hand knowledge of centrally planned economies and how they can transition to more open, market-based systems. Born in Cuba in 1937, Sanguinetty worked as an economist in the tourist and sugar industries before emigrating to the United States in 1967 and obtaining a Ph.D. in economics at the City University of New York. One of the founding members of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE), Sanguinetty is the author of Cuba: Realidad y Destino. “Who benefits and loses if the US-Cuba embargo is lifted?” http://devresearchcenter.org/2013/04/08/who-benefits-and-loses-if-the-us-cuba-embargo-is-lifted-by-jorge-a-sanguinetty/.
|
I focus on the expected distribution of benefits (and costs) between the government and the Cuban population A unilateral move by the US Government, without any quid pro quo by the Cuban government can be expected to yield significant benefits to the official establishment with benefits of an unknown magnitude to the population at large What I have called the internal embargo consisted in the Cuban government outright prohibition for Cubans to own enterprises, freely employ workers or trade domestically and internationally
|
Unconditionally lifting the embargo will help the regime more than the people.
| 989 | 78 | 528 | 158 | 12 | 82 | 0.075949 | 0.518987 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,270 |
Washington’s goal in its dealings with Havana is clear: facilitate the introduction and growth of democracy while increasing personal freedoms. There are many who argue that the best way to spread democracy is by lifting the embargo and travel restrictions. U.S. Rep. Michael Honda argues that an influx of politically enlightened U.S. travelers to Cuba would put Havana in a difficult place, leading to their own people calling for change. However, this is erroneous. Due to the fractured and weakened state of the embargo, over 400,000 U.S. travelers visited Cuba in 2011, making the United States the second-largest source of foreign visitors after Canada, according to NPR’s Nick Miroff. Obviously, this influx of what has been theorized to be liberty-professing tourists has not resulted in an influx of such democratic ideals into this overwhelmingly federally controlled country.
|
Mitchell Bustillo, 5/9/2013. First-generation Cuban-American, a Hispanic Heritage Foundation Gold Medallion Winner, and a former United States Senate Page, appointed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. “Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo,” International Policy Digest, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/.
|
There are many who argue that the best way to spread democracy is by lifting the embargo and travel restrictions However, this is erroneous. Due to the fractured and weakened state of the embargo, over 400,000 U.S. travelers visited Cuba in 2011, making the United States the second-largest source of foreign visitors after Canada Obviously, this influx of what has been theorized to be liberty-professing tourists has not resulted in an influx of such democratic ideals into this overwhelmingly federally controlled country
|
Easing travel restrictions disprove the link turn --- lifting embargo would only empower the regime.
| 886 | 100 | 524 | 137 | 15 | 82 | 0.109489 | 0.59854 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,271 |
U.S. Money Won’t Cause Change in Cuba What would a Cuban transition look like? Why would it start? No one predicted the Arab Spring, and for Cuba the many possible permutations are well beyond the scope of this article. Cuban opposition blogger Yoani Sánchez writes that Cubans view transition as similar to a dilapidated building in Havana: “The hurricanes don’t bring it down and the rains don’t bring it down, but one day someone tries to change the lock on the front door and the whole edifice collapses.”15 In any event, given the hermetic nature of the regime and its successful resistance to U.S. influence, it is very unlikely that the United States will have much influence over its initiation.
|
Weeks & Fiorey 12 a. associate professor of political science and director of Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte & b. M.A. candidate [Gregory Weeks & Erin Fiorey, Policy Options for a Cuban Spring, May-June 2012, MILITARY REVIEW http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630_art014.pdf
|
What would a Cuban transition look like? Why would it start? No one predicted the Arab Spring and for Cuba the many possible permutations are well beyond the scope of this article Sánchez writes that Cubans view transition as similar to a dilapidated building given the hermetic nature of the regime and its successful resistance it is very unlikely that the United States will have much influence over its initiation.
|
US actions won’t spur pro-democracy changes --- blowback is more likely.
| 703 | 72 | 418 | 120 | 11 | 70 | 0.091667 | 0.583333 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,272 |
Cuba faces the challenging task of going beyond productivist developmentalism inherited both from the Soviet bloc and from the capitalist West [29]. The country now widely recognizes that the conventional agricultural model leads to an increased dependency on imports, a weak food security, an increased vulnerability against world market trends, growing indebtedness and severe environmental degradations [21,45]. In this context, the Cuban experience with agroecology is a promising and unique example of ‘‘degrowth’’ as no such transition could be observed anywhere else on a large scale. A relatively egalitarian society (froman economic viewpoint) combined with strong public policies and the absence of landlord and agribusiness interests undoubtedly represent a key advantage in achieving such a transition. However, the centralized Soviet-type heritage has promoted industrial farms to the detriment of smaller-sized self-managed farms (especially UBPCs) more inclined to adopt a degrowth-oriented path. Because state farms – the favorite model – were managed by administrators applying large-scale receipts of chemical use in export monoculture, the system has separated managers and producers, neglected traditional knowledge, and prevented agricultural production adapted to local natural conditions [20,29]. Smaller production units and more democratic management are clearly the keys to pursue sustainable degrowth in this context. Although the Cuban government ascribes to this option, there is yet a long way t overcome resistance to change after many years of centrally-planned productivism. This empirical example suggests that theoretical models of self-managed socialism have the kind of realistic economic democracy that is best suited for a large-scale degrowth transition. Indeed, a voluntary reduction in material and energy consumption is only possible in an economic democracy that makes people responsible, as a community, for the environmental consequences of their own production and consumption pattern. People are directly responsible because, in Schweickart’s model, investment is socialized, workers have to manage their own enterprise, and there is no privileged class manipulating votes according to vested interest. Outside the pressure of amass consumption society, people can get closer to some of their true needs, the most important of them being fundamentally immaterial. In such economic democracy, people would have no choice but stay connected to the state of their natural resources. Combined together, these different elements open the way for a very real degrowth-oriented path. In this sense, we argue that a non-capitalist system provides a greater potential for achieving sustainable degrowth than a capitalist system.
|
Se´bastien Boillat, Julien-Francois Gerber, and Fernando R. Funes-Monzote, 3/20/2012. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba; Department of Economics, Harvard University; Estacio´n Experimental ‘‘Indio Hatuey’’, Central Espan˜a Republicana, Perico, Matanzas, Cuba. “What economic democracy for degrowth? Some comments on the contribution of socialist models and Cuban agroecology,” Futures 44.6.
|
Cuba faces the challenging task of going beyond productivist developmentalism inherited both from the Soviet bloc and from the capitalist West In this context, the Cuban experience with agroecology is a promising and unique example of ‘‘degrowth’’ as no such transition could be observed anywhere else on a large scale This empirical example suggests that theoretical models of self-managed socialism have the kind of realistic economic democracy that is best suited for a large-scale degrowth transition , a voluntary reduction in material and energy consumption is only possible in an economic democracy that makes people responsible, as a community, for the environmental consequences of their own production and consumption pattern In such economic democracy, people would have no choice but stay connected to the state of their natural resources. Combined together, these different elements open the way for a very real degrowth-oriented path. In this sense, we argue that a non-capitalist system provides a greater potential for achieving sustainable degrowth than a capitalist system
|
Cuba provides a key platform and model to spread economic democracy.
| 2,767 | 68 | 1,090 | 394 | 11 | 164 | 0.027919 | 0.416244 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,273 |
Sustainable degrowth has been defined as ‘‘an equitable and democratic transition to a smaller economy with less production and consumption’’ [1]. It is about reducing the energy and material flows while still fulfilling basic and growing human needs such as food, health, education and housing [2,3]. However, it turns out that capitalist institutions foster exactly the opposite trend. How then is degrowth going to be implemented on a large scale? Is it reasonable to think that today’s liberal democracies, associated with changes in public opinion, will suffice?
|
Se´bastien Boillat, Julien-Francois Gerber, and Fernando R. Funes-Monzote, 3/20/2012. Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba; Department of Economics, Harvard University; Estacio´n Experimental ‘‘Indio Hatuey’’, Central Espan˜a Republicana, Perico, Matanzas, Cuba. “What economic democracy for degrowth? Some comments on the contribution of socialist models and Cuban agroecology,” Futures 44.6.
|
Sustainable degrowth has been defined as ‘‘an equitable and democratic transition to a smaller economy with less production and consumption’’ It is about reducing the energy and material flows while still fulfilling basic and growing human needs such as food, health, education and housing capitalist institutions foster exactly the opposite trend
|
Cuba’s worker-ownership model is critical to sustainable degrowth.
| 563 | 66 | 344 | 87 | 8 | 51 | 0.091954 | 0.586207 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,274 |
The Earth’s physical and biological systems (land, atmosphere, oceans) are extremely complex and inter- related to the point that a change in even one component of any of the systems affects the other components and even the entire planet. Despite their in-built resilience, these systems are now approaching the point where they may not be able to meet human demands for adequate food, clean water, energy supplies, medicines and a healthy environment. As a result, the world is experi- encing a number of global environmental changes: depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, climate change, loss of biological diversity, land degradation and desertification, pollution of fresh and marine waters and accumulation of persistent organic pollutants. These changes are intensifying and are beginning to have a serious impact on the development goals and needs of a growing human population.
|
Hamdallah Zedan, November 2005. Currently the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ph.D. in Microbiology Université de Montreal, held teaching positions and directed research programs in industrial microbiology at the Universities of Montreal, Cairo, Aleppo and Tripoli. “The role of the convention on biological diversity and its protocol on biosafety in fostering the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s biological wealth for socio-economic and sustainable development,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 32.11/12, Ebsco.
|
The Earth’s physical and biological systems are extremely complex and inter- related to the point that a change in even one component of any of the systems affects the other components and even the entire planet. Despite their in-built resilience, these systems are now approaching the point where they may not be able to meet human demands As a result, the world is experi- encing a number of global environmental changes: depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, climate change, loss of biological diversity, land degradation and desertification, pollution of fresh and marine waters and accumulation of persistent organic pollutants These changes are intensifying and are beginning to have a serious impact
|
Invisible threshold and complex inter-relationships means collapse could come at any point --- resilience is decreasing --- huge magnitude means you should err neg.
| 891 | 165 | 711 | 137 | 24 | 111 | 0.175182 | 0.810219 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,275 |
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”
|
Doug Bandow, 12/11/2012. Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” National Interest, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo.
|
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners
|
Embargo does not promote democracy --- decades of failure disprove.
| 650 | 67 | 356 | 109 | 10 | 55 | 0.091743 | 0.504587 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,276 |
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.
|
Doug Bandow, 12/11/2012. Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan. “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” National Interest, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo.
|
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans
|
Turn --- lifting embargo would empower democratic groups.
| 209 | 57 | 85 | 31 | 8 | 13 | 0.258065 | 0.419355 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,277 |
Degrowth proponents generally seem to think that we cannot expect too much from public policies aimed at controlling environmental problems, for two reasons: because policies are ineffective, and because their political acceptance is very low (Schneider et al., 2010). The first is not convincing: to illustrate, we know from empirical research that people are sensitive to prices which means that price regulation of energy or CO2 definitely would alter consumption (and production) patterns and in turn reduce pollutive emissions (e.g.,Espey et al., 1997, Espey, 1998 and Espey and Espey, 2004).
|
Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 3/15/2011. Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, and Department of Economics and Economic History, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, and Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands. “Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”,” Ecological Economics 70.5.
|
Degrowth proponents generally seem to think that we cannot expect too much from public policies aimed at controlling environmental problems because policies are ineffective, and because their political acceptance is very low The first is not convincing: to illustrate, we know from empirical research that people are sensitive to prices which means that price regulation of energy or CO2 definitely would alter consumption (and production) patterns
|
Degrowth will fail and environmental management is possible under the current system.
| 597 | 85 | 448 | 90 | 12 | 66 | 0.133333 | 0.733333 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,278 |
IN THE AFTERMATH OF EVENTS SUCH AS LOVE CANAL OR THE Exxon Valdez oil spill, every reference to the environment is prefaced with the adjective "fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a welded phrase of the modern lexicon, like "aging hippie" or "fugitive financier." But the notion of a fragile environment is profoundly wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressingly fragile. The environment that contains them is close to indestructible. The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages; bombardments of cosmic radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than the worst-case projection for ozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global air pollution far worse than that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles; the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seas into plains; fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of asteroids and comets bearing far more force than man's nuclear arsenals; and the years without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts beat on, and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile it would have expired many eons before the advent of the industrial affronts of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on the environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.
|
Gregg Easterbrook, 1995. Distinguished Fellow, Fullbright Foundation. A Moment on Earth pg 25.
|
IN THE AFTERMATH OF EVENTS SUCH AS LOVE CANAL OR THE Exxon Valdez oil spill, every reference to the environment is prefaced with the adjective "fragile The environment is close to indestructible. The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages; bombardments of cosmic radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than the worst-case projection for ozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global air pollution far worse than that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles; the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seas into plains; fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of asteroids and comets bearing far more force than man's nuclear arsenals; and the years without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts beat on, and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile it would have expired many eons before the advent of the dreaming ape Human assaults on the environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.
|
The environment is resilient --- has withstood massive destruction.
| 1,552 | 67 | 1,259 | 234 | 9 | 192 | 0.038462 | 0.820513 |
Cuba Democracy Disadvantage - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
1,279 |
At one level, the answer to this question is clear. Nietzsche abandoned his former enthusiasm for Schopenhauer's philosophy because he came to conceive of Schopenhauer's advocacy of quietism as symptomatic of decadence, of a descending order of life that is tired and impaired and unable to enjoy and relish life in the way that alone the most physiologically and psychologically robust can and should. Although this answer is fine as far as it goes, it hardly goes far enough. For it does not identify precisely enough what in Schopenhauer's philosophy Nietzsche came to find unacceptable. Was it Schopenhauer's thesis that denial of the will was a wholly fitting attitude towards existence, given how the world is according to Schopenhauer? Or, was it Schopenhauer's conception of how the world is? The answer is that it was both the reaction and conception. So far as concerns the conception of the world, what, according to Schopenhauer, evokes denial of the will where it occurs is the knowledge of the inordinate suffering that is inextricably bound up with all existence. In my view, Nietzsche did not share this conception of the world. This difference in estimate of the volume of suffering in the world was reflected in Nietzsche's notion that life was will-to-power not will-to-existence. Nietzsche wrote: The struggle for life ...does occur, but as exception; the general aspect of life is not hunger and distress, but rather wealth, luxury, even absurd prodigality — where there is a struggle it is a struggle for power. (3) Of course, to claim that Nietzsche did not regard inordinate suffering as so inextricably bound up with existence as did Schopenhauer is not to suggest that Nietzsche was oblivious to the existence of suffering in the world. Far from it. But, for Nietzsche, suffering was the lot of the vanquished in life's struggle, namely, the weak and unhealthy. It was not the lot of the strong and healthy to whom Nietzsche essentially addresses his philosophy.
|
Conway 99 – Middlesex University Moral Psychology (David, “Nietzsche’s Revaluation of Schopenhauer as Educator”, 6/5/99; < http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/MPsy/MPsyConw.htm>)//Beddow
|
Nietzsche abandoned his former enthusiasm for Schopenhauer's philosophy because he came to conceive of Schopenhauer's advocacy of quietism as symptomatic of decadence, of a descending order of life that is tired and impaired and unable to enjoy and relish life in the way that alone the most physiologically and psychologically robust can and should. So far as concerns the conception of the world, what, according to Schopenhauer, evokes denial of the will where it occurs is the knowledge of the inordinate suffering that is inextricably bound up with all existence The struggle for life ...does occur, but as exception; the general aspect of life is not hunger and distress, but rather wealth, luxury, even absurd prodigality — where there is a struggle it is a struggle for power. (3) Of course, to claim that Nietzsche did not regard inordinate suffering as so inextricably bound up with existence as did Schopenhauer is not to suggest that Nietzsche was oblivious to the existence of suffering in the world. Far from it. But, for Nietzsche, suffering was the lot of the vanquished in life's struggle, namely, the weak and unhealthy. It was not the lot of the strong and healthy to whom Nietzsche essentially addresses his philosophy.
|
Life can generate positive purpose for those willing to affirm it – Schopenhauer’s view is needlessly pessimistic.
| 1,988 | 114 | 1,240 | 327 | 17 | 204 | 0.051988 | 0.623853 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,280 |
Every one of us fears from pain and suffering and wish to avoid it at any cost. By avoiding pain and suffering, we fail to deal with it when it falls on us. It creates suffering and unhappiness. People who understands life and its grand purpose from the perspective of spirituality, do not shun pain but deal with it. They remain resilient and calm in dealing with pain. Pain and suffering cannot be completely separated from happiness. We cannot expect to be happy all the time without in some manner suffering pain. There are number of instances when a person experiences both pain and happiness simultaneously. As we strive for something, it gives us pain but the belief that it will lead to success provides us happiness. Happiness and pain are relative. If a person is happy with a particular event or possession, the same event or possession cannot continue to make him happy. It depends on his past experience. If a person always gets good experiences, these may not keep him happy as he does not feel anything different. However, a person after suffering from some bad situation feels happy if he gets better. A businessman who suffers a loss in previous years feel satisfied on his business turning around and showing even a nominal profit. Same amount of profit will not be of any much consequence for other businessman. We notice people who suffer from some ailment and once they show slight recovery in health make them feel cheerful and happy. A normal healthy person does not feel cheerful with a better condition than the person who has recovered. Similarly, two lovers after some misunderstanding when they patch up and live together feel more happiness. Every bad situation creates more scope to generate happiness with a slight upward improvement. With pain and suffering, we feel and enjoy happiness. All happy events lose its magnetic attraction after some time, and a person will not feel anything special with these events. This is the reason that wealth, fame, health and success after some time do not create any special impact on overall happiness unless the next event is more positive than the previous one. People often think that happiness and suffering are opposites, so if something is a real cause of happiness it cannot give rise to suffering. This is not always true. If food, money, and other comforts are causes of happiness, they can never be causes of suffering; yet we know from our own experience that they often do cause suffering. For example, one of our main interests is food, but the food we eat is also the principal cause of most of our ill health and sickness. How many of us are troubled by taking food we cherish but not suitable to health. Pain and suffering is good for understanding of inner self; helps to develop capacity to be sympathetic towards others and fosters many good virtues. We suffer with pain for variety of reasons; like not being treated properly by other people; feeling uncomfortable in a relation; stress from the job and other instability in life. We may not be able to fulfill demands of our life. All these externalities affect our calmness and provide us pain. We remain unhappy with the situation and helpless as it is not easy to change external environment. In difficulty and pain, we try to see within and try to find solace in seeking help from our creator. Pain makes us realize inner need to be in remembrance with our creator. In pain our attention from outside distractions gets reduced. We fill the need of our inner self to be in remembrance of God through prayer and be in love with all other human beings. This provides us strength to face pain and our expectation level comes down. Pain modifies ego level, brings soberness in our behavior, makes us humble while dealing with others and imbibes in us good virtues of life. A person who has all the comforts finds it difficult to understand and feel the pain and suffering of others. He may not be able to generate love when everything is going fine. This is the main reason why people who have risen and become wealthy and renowned personality from humble background have been found to devote enough in philanthropy. They have understood the real values of life out of pain and suffering during early childhood; it has made them strong and determined to face the odds with courage, and helped to create a feeling of love and care for others. Pain and suffering teaches us certain lessons and can serve as a purpose in life. One obvious way is that it helps us to recognize happiness. Without suffering, we cannot have happiness, because we would have nothing to measure our happiness against. Therefore, suffering provides us with the ability to be happy and experience the good of life. Another way is that it can inspire others. When people undergo suffering, no matter what they are, they like knowing that they are not alone and that others can relate to them. These people would not be able to relate if they had not undergone suffering themselves. Hopefully the suffering person will later be able to help someone else and make that person feel happy. Let us not always think of comforts in life. It makes us feel jittery with the slightest pain. Both pain and happiness lies in our mind. We observe people who face lot to troubles in life, but still remain calm whereas another person with the slightest pain breaks down. The true happiness comes not by striving for happiness but to stand calm during pain and suffering. Great saints were able to achieve long drawn happiness and peace not by aspiring for happiness, but treating all type of pain and suffering to be divine gift. At the highest level of spiritual attainment, both pain and comforts look alike. This is the stage of inner peace and calmness. Most of us, who lack such spiritual attainment, do get impacted by pain and suffering. However, people have to develop certain level of spiritual understanding to take pain and suffering as a step forward to eternal peace and happiness.
|
Gulla 10 Ashok, Masters and Pre Doctoral studies in Physics, During the past fifteen years, the author has developed an interest in spirituality. His spiritual practice has been useful to know about personal values, morals, attitudes and behavior; and how these impact all of us, "How Pain and Suffering Generate Happiness," 4/12/10, http://voices.yahoo.com/how-pain-suffering-generate-happiness-5821188.html?cat=34
|
Every one of us fears pain and suffering and wish to avoid it By avoiding pain and suffering, we fail to deal with it when it falls on us. It creates suffering and unhappiness Pain and suffering cannot be completely separated from happiness. We cannot expect to be happy all the time without some suffering As we strive for something, it gives us pain but the belief that it will lead to success provides us happiness. If a person is happy with a particular event , the same event continue to make him happy. It depends on his past experience. If a person always gets good experiences, these may not keep him happy as he does not feel anything different. a person after suffering feels happy if he gets better A normal healthy person does not feel cheerful with a better condition than the person who has recovered. two lovers after some misunderstanding when they patch up and live together feel more happiness. Every bad situation creates more scope to generate happiness with a slight upward improvement. People often think that happiness and suffering are opposites, so if something is a real cause of happiness it cannot give rise to suffering. This is not true Pain and suffering teaches us certain lessons and can serve as a purpose in life. One obvious way is that it helps us to recognize happiness. Without suffering, we cannot have happiness, because we would have nothing to measure our happiness against. Therefore, suffering provides us with the ability to be happy and experience the good of life. it can inspire others. When people undergo suffering, no matter what they are, they like knowing that they are not alone and that others can relate to them. the suffering person will later be able to help someone else and make that person feel happy Both pain and happiness lies in our mind true happiness comes not by striving for happiness but to stand calm during pain and suffering. saints were able to achieve long drawn happiness and peace not by aspiring for happiness, but treating all type of pain and suffering to be divine gift. At the highest level of spiritual attainment pain and comforts look alike.
|
Link turn – sustaining life is necessary for people to learn to generate happiness through suffering
| 5,993 | 100 | 2,127 | 1,041 | 16 | 371 | 0.01537 | 0.356388 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,281 |
The point of a philosophically enlightened suicide for a Schopenhauerian might nevertheless be the rationally justifiable desire to bring about an end to the suffering of continued willing. The purpose is then merely to eliminate personal consciousness and the phenomenal will to life that through empirical circumstances no longer wills to live. This is a Kantian type contradiction only if Schopenhauer stubbornly requires that we continue to designate whatever the individual will wills as will to life when the content of what the individual will has come to will is rather the will- not-to-live. It appears more plausible in such a case to speak of the will to life having been replaced by a reluctant but possibly equally determined will to death. That such a decision might be reached on Schopenhauerian philosophical grounds, at some point in a philosopher’s existence, moral questions aside, may therefore not be as metaphysically confused as Schopenhauer seems to think.’7
|
Jacquette 05 – professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Bern (Dale, “The Philosophy of Schopenhauer” pp. 140, 2005; print)//Beddow
|
The point of a philosophically enlightened suicide for a Schopenhauerian might nevertheless be the rationally justifiable desire to bring about an end to the suffering of continued willing. The purpose is then merely to eliminate personal consciousness and the phenomenal will to life that through empirical circumstances no longer wills to live. It appears more plausible in such a case to speak of the will to life having been replaced by a reluctant but possibly equally determined will to death. That such a decision might be reached on Schopenhauerian philosophical grounds, at some point in a philosopher’s existence, moral questions aside, may therefore not be as metaphysically confused as Schopenhauer seems to think.’7
|
Concede [the disad] – embracing death escapes suffering and link turns the K.
| 982 | 77 | 728 | 155 | 13 | 113 | 0.083871 | 0.729032 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,282 |
This brings us to a shortcoming of Schopenhauer's theory of the arts in general which derives from his pessimism. He asserts that the appeal of art as such resides in the fact that art provides a temporary escape from the otherwise almost intolerable unhappiness of life. But it seems to me an obvious empirical fact that we are not as unhappy as all that, most of us, for most of the time. Here, as in the case of music, we are confronted with an instance of Schopenhauer's personality disorder distorting the contents of his philosophy. If anything – and there are places in his writings where he says as much – what is typical of human beings is to drift through life in a somewhat neutral, equable mood which for much of the time tends to look hopefully, if also uncertainly, on the bright side. This weak, tentative optimism maybe unjustified by the realities of our situation, and may therefore be facile, but it is a wholly different state of mind from the frustrated misery which Schopenhauer attributes to us as our normal condition. Like-wise, his purely negative definition of happiness as the absence of suffering, or boredom, or anxiety, or unsatisfied longing – and his related definition of pleasure as the absence of pain – run counter to direct experience. We are indeed exhilarated by relief from pain or danger, and it can be a marvelous feeling, but in the enjoyment of great art, or love, or friendship, there is something altogether more outgoing than this. These things involve us in a relationship with something or someone outside ourselves, a gratified extension of ourselves which is self-enhancing, and thus life-enhancing, and in that specific sense positive. Something of the sort is true of even our purely physical pleasures. When confronted with good food and drink we do not usually push them aside the moment our hunger and thirst are assuaged, but carry on eating and drinking for the sheer enjoyment of it. And this is normal behavior. Addictions provide examples of pleasure in Schopenhauer's sense, but they also illuminate the difference between that and something more positive. A compulsive smoker (I have been one) rarely feels 'My God, I am enjoying this cigarette!' For most of the time that he is smoking he is only subliminally aware of the fact. It is when he is not smoking that smoking fills his consciousness, in the form of an almost intolerable craving to smoke. He smokes in order not to suffer this craving – the reason why he keeps lighting cigarettes is not that he enjoys them so much but that he cannot bear not smoking. Thus far, the, the analysis confirms Schopenhauer: the so-called 'pleasure' of smoking is the perpetual staving-off of an intolerable craving. But the fact is that, in addition to this, there are times – after a good meal, very often, or with the first cigarette of the day – when the compulsive smoker does feel 'My good, I am enjoying this cigarette!' And that is an altogether different kind of experience, as anyone who has had both will testify. Among other things, it is an unmistakably positive pleasure. But the Schopenhauerian analysis rules out the possibility of it. And this is an inadequacy of the Schopenhauerian analysis across the whole range of pleasure in activity, happiness in life, and appreciation of the arts.
|
Magee 83 – Fellow @ Harvard, Yale and Oxford Bryan, fellow at Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Sydney in philosophy, "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer," 1983, page 241-242
|
This brings us to a shortcoming of Schopenhauer's theory He asserts that the appeal of art resides in the fact that art provides a temporary escape from the unhappiness of life. But it seems an obvious empirical fact that we are not as unhappy as all that Here we are confronted with an instance of Schopenhauer's personality disorder distorting his philosophy. there are places in his writings where he says what is typical of human beings is to drift through life in a neutral, equable mood which for much of the time tends to look on the bright side. This optimism maybe unjustified but it is a different state of from frustrated misery his definition of happiness as the absence of suffering run counter to direct experience. We are indeed exhilarated by relief but in the enjoyment of great art, or love, or friendship, there is something more These things involve us in a relationship with something or someone outside ourselves, a gratified extension of ourselves which is self-enhancing and in that sense positive. Something of the sort is true of physical pleasures. When confronted with good food and drink we do not push them aside the moment our hunger and thirst are assuaged, but carry on eating and drinking for the sheer enjoyment this is normal A compulsive smoker rarely feels 'My God, I am enjoying this cigarette! he is only subliminally aware of the fact. It is when he is not smoking that smoking fills his consciousness But the fact is that, in addition to this, there are times after a good meal or with the first cigarette of the day – when the compulsive smoker does feel 'My good, I am enjoying this cigarette!' And that is an altogether different kind of experience it is an unmistakably positive pleasure. But the Schopenhauerian analysis rules out the possibility of it. And this is an inadequacy of the Schopenhauerian analysis across the whole range of pleasure happiness and appreciation
|
Schopenhauer is wrong – ignores the positive aspect of happiness and bases his analysis in his mental disorder
| 3,312 | 110 | 1,920 | 567 | 18 | 330 | 0.031746 | 0.582011 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,283 |
By the time a desire has been turned into a standard, it has likely become quite intense. At that point, it is no longer simply one of many desires that a person has. It may be desired more than anything else and is something that a person feels that he or she must have for life to be worth living. Some who have such a desire then make exaggerated claims in an attempt to defend this desire to others who may not value, as much as they do, if at all, the thing or experience that is desired. For example, they argue that if there is no immortality (i.e., if this desire for immortality cannot be satisfied), then “life is futile.” 34 Just because personal immortality is unachievable does not mean that all of our efforts are futile. In other words, there are many goals that we can achieve, and desires that we can satisfy, even if we cannot satisfy this one desire to live forever. The problem in allowing an unrealizable desire, such as immortality, to become part of a standard for judging whether our efforts are worthwhile or important is that it predetermines that we will fail to achieve the standard. Furthermore, it can lead us to lose sight of or discount all of the other things that matter to us besides fulfilling this one desire, as, for example, when the father concludes that helping his daughter is not worthwhile. Since there is no way to satisfy the desire for quasi - immortality, one may fall into a state of despair, as did Tolstoy. Furthermore, because the desire may be concealed in the standard, the person may be unable to pinpoint the source of the despair and, consequently, may be unable to figure out how to overcome it. The person may believe that he or she has a new perspective on life that suddenly revealed that human endeavors are and have always been futile, when, in fact, the only thing that changed was that this person increased the standard that he or she had previously used to judge significance. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize when an unrealizable desire, such as the desire to have our works appreciated forever, has infected our standards and, when it has done so, to purge it from these standards. The original standard that we used to judge significance was likely realistic and inspiring before it became corrupted with the desire to achieve qu asi - immortality.
|
Trisel 04 – Memdeley member of philosophy (Brooke Alan, “Human Extinction and the Value of our Efforts”, Fall 2004; < http://philpapers.org/archive/TRIHEA>)//Beddow
|
it is no longer simply one of many desires that a person has. It may be desired more than anything else and is something that a person feels that he or she must have for life to be worth living. , they argue that if there is no immortality (i.e., if this desire for immortality cannot be satisfied), then “life is futile.” 34 Just because personal immortality is unachievable does not mean that all of our efforts are futile. The problem in allowing an unrealizable desire, such as immortality, to become part of a standard for judging whether our efforts are worthwhile or important is that it predetermines that we will fail to achieve the standard. it can lead us to lose sight of or discount all of the other things that matter to us besides fulfilling this one desire, as, for example, when the father concludes that helping his daughter is not worthwhile The person may believe that he or she has a new perspective on life that suddenly revealed that human endeavors are and have always been futile, when, in fact, the only thing that changed was that this person increased the standard that he or she had previously used to judge significance. when an unrealizable desire, such as the desire to have our works appreciated forever, has infected our standards and, when it has done so, to purge it from these standards. The original standard that we used to judge significance was likely realistic and inspiring before it became corrupted with the desire to achieve qu asi - immortality.
|
The futility of life doesn’t make it meaningless – the neg begs the question by building ascetic conclusions into their standards.
| 2,323 | 130 | 1,492 | 414 | 21 | 262 | 0.050725 | 0.63285 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,284 |
Preparing for Death Generally, our fear of death is an unhealthy and unrealistic fear-we don’t want to die, so we ignore the subject, deny it, or get morbidly obsessed by it and think that life is meaningless. However, right now we cannot do anything about dying, so there is no point fearing death itself. What kind of fear is useful? A healthy fear of death would be the fear of dying unprepared, as this is a fear we can do something about, a danger we can avert. If we have this realistic fear, this sense of danger, we are encouraged to prepare for a peaceful and successful death and are also inspired to make the most of our very precious human life instead of wasting it. This “sense of danger” inspires us to make preparations so that we are no longer in the danger we are in now, for example by practicing moral discipline, purifying our negative karma, and accumulating as much merit, or good karma, as possible. We put on a seat belt out of a sense of danger of the unseen dangers of traffic on the road, and that seat belt protects us from going through the windscreen. We can do nothing about other traffic, but we can do something about whether or not we go through the windscreen if someone crashes into us. Similarly, we can do nothing about the fact of death, but we can seize control over how we prepare for death and how we die. Eventually, through Tantric spiritual practice, we can even attain a deathless body. In Living Meaningfully, Dying Joyfully, Geshe Kelsang says: Dying with regrets is not at all unusual. To avoid a sad and meaningless end to our life we need to remember continually that we too must die. Contemplating our own death will inspire us to use our life wisely by developing the inner refuge of spiritual realizations; otherwise we shall have no ability to protect ourself from the sufferings of death and what lies beyond. Moreover, when someone close to us is dying, such as a parent or friend, we shall be powerless to help them because we shall not know how; and we shall experience sadness and frustration at our inability to be of genuine help. Preparing for death is one of the kindest and wisest things we can do both for ourself and others.
|
Kelsang 99 - internationally renowned teacher of Buddhism Geshe, http://dealingwithfear.org/fear-of-death.htm
|
right now we cannot do anything about dying, so there is no point fearing death itself. What kind of fear is useful A healthy fear of death would be the fear of dying unprepared as this is a fear we can do something about, a danger we can avert. If we have this realistic fear this sense of danger, we are encouraged to prepare for a peaceful and successful death and are also inspired to make the most of our very precious human life instead of wasting sense of danger” inspires us to make preparations so that we are no longer in the danger we are in now for example by practicing moral discipline, We put on a seat belt out of a sense of danger of the unseen dangers of traffic on the road, and that seat belt protects us from going through the windscreen. We can do nothing about other traffic, but we can do something about whether or not we go through the windscreen if someone crashes into us , but we can seize control over how we prepare for death and how we die. Dying with regrets is not at all unusual. To avoid a sad and meaningless end to our life we need to remember continually that we too must die. Contemplating our own death will inspire us to use our life wisely by developing the inner refuge of spiritual realizations; otherwise we shall have no ability to protect ourself from the sufferings of death and what lies beyond.
|
Should avoid preventable death – contemplating it gives meaning to our life
| 2,192 | 75 | 1,345 | 398 | 12 | 254 | 0.030151 | 0.638191 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,285 |
Equally, there is no empirical reason to prefer non‐existence over existence unless one dismisses (as Benatar appears to do) all possible (not to mention actual!) human valuations of the positive value of life as the by‐product of “Pollyannaism”—a tendency to cope psychologically with a bad situation through adaptation, accommodation or habituation that reinforces belief that things are better than they are.10 The fact that people may often accentuate the positive to eliminate the negative does not mean that this is inevitable. There is something extraordinarily paternalistic about suggesting as much. Yet, really, Benatar has no option but to be dismissive of all of us who believe that the adventure of being alive and of striving for our own individual stamp of meaning within in it makes the perceived or non‐perceived harms of existence worth the potential benefits. If even one of us—the “cheerful” as he calls his opponents—might be right on the basis of our experience to prefer existence over non‐existence, it is hard to see how Benatar could then sustain his main argument.
|
Doyal 07 – writer for the Journal of Medical Ethics (Len, “Is Human Existence Worth Its Consequent Harm?” October 2007; < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652792/>)//Beddow
|
Equally, there is no empirical reason to prefer non‐existence over existence unless one dismisses (as Benatar appears to do) all possible (not to mention actual!) human valuations of the positive value of life as the by‐product of “Pollyannaism” The fact that people may often accentuate the positive to eliminate the negative does not mean that this is inevitable. There is something extraordinarily paternalistic about suggesting as much. Yet, really, Benatar has no option but to be dismissive of all of us who believe that the adventure of being alive and of striving for our own individual stamp of meaning within in it makes the perceived or non‐perceived harms of existence worth the potential benefits. If even one of us—the “cheerful” as he calls his opponents—might be right on the basis of our experience to prefer existence over non‐existence, it is hard to see how Benatar could then sustain his main argument.
|
Life is worth it – all individuals’ subjective valuation is positive.
| 1,091 | 69 | 923 | 174 | 11 | 151 | 0.063218 | 0.867816 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,286 |
The shortcuts some people try for achieving happiness include ingesting drugs like alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, narcotic pain medicines, to name just a few; have the consequence of generating imbalances that can lead to addiction, unwanted moods like anxiety and depression, and worse. The shortcuts to happiness are often attempts to resolve stress, worry, hurtful relationships, low energy, loss of confidence, and a broad range of other problems, but the shortcut can lead to those unintended consequences. Better to rely on one's own body chemistry factory instead of shortcuts. It’s scientific truth that our bodies are extraordinary chemical manufacturing plants. Bottom of Form. In much the same way that the powerful pain medicine morphine blocks how your brain perceives pain, your brain has naturally occurring chemicals that do the same thing and more, regulating your emotions, your sleep, your energy, your ability to interact with others and as a result, your happiness. The state of happiness is natural. We all basically seek happiness. I’ve not had a person ever come to my office with the problem, “I’m just too darned happy,” and seeking to be ‘bummed out’ a bit. So, how does a person direct their inner chemistry set to whip up some dopamine or endorphins, or add a dash of serotonin for that matter? Of course, there’s not just one way, there are many. Meditation, love, helping others, long-distance running are some. But when a person has tried and not succeeded, there is a reliable process that helps to dissolve the blocks to allowing the flow of happiness to develop. Blocks to happiness have little to do with the outside world. A considerable body of research shows that happiness is not a product of money or wealth, except at the extreme ends of poverty, money, even lottery style wealth doesn’t lead to lasting happiness. People are able to experience states of happiness almost regardless of life circumstances. Yet, even people who are blessed with the most idyllic set of life circumstances can discover that happiness eludes them. In writing Code To Joy: The Four-Step Solution to Unlocking Your Natural State of Happiness, we found there is a process to melt away the blocks to joy and happiness. The four steps constitute a reliable method for reversing the blocking beliefs that hide happiness from view and are adaptable to a wide range of individual life experiences that created those blocking beliefs. Those four steps are: Identify the belief; clear the interference; Repattern the beliefs; and lastly; Anchor the new belief for lasting effect.
|
Lambrou 7/22-PhD, past chairman of psychology at Scripps Memorial Hospital, author of 5 books, member of professional organizations including the Association for Psychological Science, past-president of the American Psychotherapy and Medical Hypnosis Association , the San Diego Psychological Association (Peter, “Opening Your Happiness Value”, Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/codes-joy/201207/opening-your-happiness-valve)
|
shortcuts for achieving happiness have the consequence of generating imbalances that lead to addiction, unwanted moods like anxiety and depression, shortcuts to happiness are often attempts to resolve stress, worry, hurtful relationships, low energy, loss of confidence, and a broad range of other problems, but the shortcut can lead to those consequences your brain has naturally occurring chemicals regulating your emotions, your sleep, your energy, your ability to interact with others and as a result, your happiness. happiness is natural. We all seek happiness when a person has tried and not succeeded, there is a reliable process that allow happiness to develop happiness is not a product of money or wealth, style wealth doesn’t lead to lasting happiness. People are able to experience states of happiness almost regardless of life circumstances there is a process to joy and happiness
|
One can find value even in the worst circumstances
| 2,589 | 50 | 893 | 422 | 9 | 139 | 0.021327 | 0.329384 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,287 |
While you may not be a climber, you can likely recognize the metaphorical implications of this story. In so many ways, and for so many people, the pursuit of goals is like a climb up the side of a mountain. There are better routes and worse routes; there are hazards and setbacks; effort is required; and there is the hope ultimate success. Perhaps most important, the summit is only one small part of the climb. Just as climbers eagerly anticipate their expedition, enjoy the relief of an occasional rest, and savor the memory of their trips. Happiness is often less about achieving goals than it is about enjoyment along the way, and fond recollections afterward. In this way, Art Kramer's story beautifully illustrates one of the main points in this book: happiness is not just a destination. That's right: despite the fact that many people seek out lasting fulfillment - and it is natural and understandable to do so - happiness is not an emotional finish line in the race of life. We should repeat that; happiness should not be looked at just as a destination we try to reach, but as a beneficial way we leant to travel. A key to psychological wealth is to understand the importance of the journey itself to happiness. What does it mean to that happiness is a process, not a place? There are several important lessons in the dictum. The Art Kramer story illustrates one meaning – that happiness often comes from doing rather than having. If we enjoy the activities needed in working for our goals, many hours and years of pleasure are provided, whereas reaching summits provides only the occasional short-term high. Another important meaning of the "process, not a place' maxim is that no matter what good life circumstances we obtain, things can still go wrong. Furthermore, even in good circumstances we need to find new challenges and goals, or things will grow boring. We adapt to good things and need to move on to new goals to continue to enjoy life to the fullest.
|
Diener, Biswas-Diener ’08-psychologist, professor, and author, senior scientist for The Gallup Organization, BA in Psychology from California State University at Fresno, PhD from the University of Washington, was a faculty member for the University of Illinois, honorary PhDs from Free University of Berlin and Eureka College, psychologist, researcher, managing director at Positive Acorn, professor at Portland State University, PhD from University of Tromso, author of many books and articles, on the editorial boards of the Journal of Happiness Studies and Journal of Positive Psychology, co-founded The Strengths Pro (Ed, Robert, “Happiness Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth”, Blackwell Publishing, 2008)
|
the pursuit of goals is like a climb up the side of a mountain. There are better routes and worse routes hazards and setbacks; effort is required; and there is the hope ultimate succes the summit is only one small part of the climb Happiness is often less about achieving goals than enjoyment along the way, and fond recollections afterward happiness is not just a destination happiness is not an emotional finish line in the race of life. happiness should not be looked at just as a destination we try to reach, but as a beneficial way we leant to travel. A key to psychological wealth is to understand the importance of the journey itself to happiness. that happiness often comes from doing rather than having. If we enjoy the activities needed in working for our goals, many hours and years of pleasure are provided, whereas reaching summits provides only the occasional short-term high , even in good circumstances we need to find new challenges and goals, or things will grow boring. We adapt to good things and need to move on to new goals to continue to enjoy life to the fullest.
|
Humans, if living, can adapt to create happiness
| 1,976 | 48 | 1,087 | 345 | 8 | 193 | 0.023188 | 0.55942 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,288 |
Are nuclear war and its consequences morally measurable? Or is it truly an infinite evil, "unbounded" as McNamara and Bethe say? The answer has profound consequences for moral analysis. To assess the moral cost of nuclear war we must begin by conceiving of it. Can we? For a long time we told ourselves that we could not. And if it would impose truly infinite human costs, it is little wonder. We called it "the unthinkable" and works of fiction skirted its boundaries. Nevil Shute, in On the Beach} wrote about consequences occurring well after a nuclear war, exclusively from radiation effects and only in the Southern Hemisphere. Even that was frightening enough. Terry Southern took us right to the edge in the film, Dr. Strangelove, then left us to try to conceive it for ourselves. Not so any longer! Numerous works of nonfiction have been written about the effects of nuclear war, from the Office of Technology Assessment’s sober The Effects 0f Nuclear War’ to Jonathan Schell's rather frantic The Fate of the Earth} Several attempts have been made to assess the medical consequences, including Last Aid’ and The Final Epidemic? At long last, popular fiction and drama have begun to grapple directly with nuclear war, rather than to dance around its edge. Examples include General Sir John Hackett’s The Third World War,’ the novel Warday,“ and the films The Day After, Testament, and Threads. Though the definitive fictional account of an unlimited nuclear war has yet to be published, we can begin, through these fictional accounts, to see the outlines of what it might be like. The truth is that nuclear war is quite conceivable, although doing so takes hard work and is profoundly disturbing. A. The Notion of Moral Commensumbi/ily Can the effects of nuclear war be related to our history in a meaningful way? Can they be compared to past catastrophes? lf the answer to the two previous qustions is yes, then moral analysis and evaluation can at least begin. Furthermore, we can employ the categories and concepts of previous moral thought about human conflict and, in particular, just war theory. lf, however, nuclear war is fundamentally different, geniuneiy new under the sun, then new categories and a new conceptual framework might well be required. Which is it? The antinuclear movement has answered without much inquiry that nuclear war is sui generis, and that is a handy answer. But is it the right one? As we shall see, that is a complex question. What kinds of nuclear wars are we referring to and what are their consequences? l—low much human death, suffering, and privation does, or might, a given kind of nuclear war produce? ls it commensurable with the human experience of other wars or the Black Plague, for example? Can it be measured on the same scale of human cost? A word about the notion of moral measurement. We work here with a concept familiar to economists, game theorists, and business planners. It is known as "utility." Utility is just some good or value. It may be pleasure, happiness, self-expression and self»development, or one of several other things, depending upon the moral theory of value one holds. The important thing is that it is abstract and, by definition, quan» tifiable and, therefore, measurable} Since we are working with bad things here, like wars andthe bombing of cities, we will speak more of negative utility. It is interesting that philosophers and moralists more often agree about negative utility than about positive. It seems obvious to most of us that human pain, suffering, deprivation, and death are bad (have negative utility). I will refer to this negative utility as "human cost." Some would say that there are bad things other than those which can be measured in terms of human cost, such as blaspheming God or making animal species which have no utility to man extinct. Others, like me, would say that violating the rights of people, or failing to carry out duties owed to them, is also bad, never mind that no human cost may result. But whether it is the only bad thing or not, nearly universal agreement exists that human cost is very bad, indeed. Note also that while we often cannot measure instances of human cost directly, we certainly can (and often do) rank them in order of severity. A ruptured appendix is worse than a hangnail. A child being hungry is worse than a child being deprived of television, and the hunger of ten children is worse than that of one. One thousand human deaths are worse than ten, and (to go to a far more difficult moral claim) we intuitively feel that the death of an innocent person is worse than the death of a person who somehow "deserves it": a terrorist who is killed in his own effort to kill many other innocent people, for example. As we approach the consequences of nuclear war and attempt to get a conceptual grip upon a catastrophe of such large human proportions, we must knock down one very large bogyman raised by the antinuclear defense movement. The philosopher Michael Dummett says: Those who devise nuclear strategies and talk of megadeaths are already insane.*° In describing the numerical proportions of a U.S. attack on the Soviet Union, Helen Caldicott tells us, "These numbers are obscene,"" and by implication she calls "obscene" anyone who analyzes nuclear war by using such numbers. The actress, Coleen Dewhurst, at a meeting of the Cambridge Union, has said that defense planners who think about nuclear war are "pure evil." It is not evil, nor obscene, nor insane to think and talk about the consequences of nuclear war. To be told that it is can only be understood as name-calling and bullying. The reader should note that those who use such abusive ad hominem arguments almost always go on to discuss nuclear war and its effects. They do not deem themselves to be insane, obscene, or evil, only those who might use such numbers to disagree with them. To talk about quantities of human cost—death, pain, and suffering —and to reason about them, does not necessitate a callous or indifferent attitude toward that suffering and death. Nor does it indicate approval of the actions which cause it, whatever they may be. We may talk of tens of thousands of deaths in conventional bombing raids in World War ll or millions of deaths in a nuclear war[’l`he horror felt at the deaths, often painful, of many of our fellow humans ought never to leave us. For myself, at least, it never does. We must not become inured to the horror by using numbers, but neither should we let it paralyze our thinking process. We are not less humane or human for pushing beyond the horror we feel to use what tools of reason we have, to think and to analyze. We must, after all, decide what we shall do, for great decisions about nuclear war and peace remain to be made. Time and events dictate that these decisions will be made. But it is our choice whether they are made thoughtfully and carefully or by default. Unexamined horror and reac tivc revulsion alone will make for very poor decisions, and perhaps dangerous ones. Now for the commensurability of wars. Wars are great producers of all sorts of human cost and, thus, of massive amounts of clisutility. We can compare those disutilities and measure them (at least rank them in order of their severity, if not on an exact metric scale). Wars (or any other events productive of human cost) are commensurable {flhey can be measured 0n the same scale. That is all that is at issue here! ‘Comrnen» surable’ does not mean "no worse than." I shall argue that the consequences of any practically possible nuclear war are indeed comrnen» surable with past human catastrophes. This claim, if satisfactorily established, has important moral consequences. Indeed, it leads to answers to seemingly unanswerable moral questions. For there is little wonder that "unbounded calamities" are mythic in nature. They are very difficult to think about any other way. But a bounded, finite catastrophe, however vast, however unequaled in our history, is commensurable and thus comparable. The near term effects (within the first ninety days) of various possible nuclear wars are, within very broad but meaningful limits, known; thus, we can arrive at approximations of commensurability. The long term et`fects, on the other hand, are almost completely unknown. Indeed, the theory of the nuclear winter appears to hold that in important sorts of ways, nuclear war might be truly incommensurable. And l shall examine the theory and these apparent claims. But let us look first at the consequences that would occur in the first ninety days following a nuclear war. lB. The Cnmmensurabilily of Nuclear War in Historical Perspective ln thinking about wars in history, one is inclined to think of the neat, orderly battlefields of Frederick the Great or the Duke of Marlborough, where each army formed neat lines, and each soldier was in a colorful uniform which clearly identified him as a combatant. ln these kinds of battles, noncombatants were nowhere to be seen—or threatened. But we must remember that battles are like this only in Hollywood epics. Grapeshot was a vicious weapon which often struck off heads or limbs, or disemboweled its victims. An asymmetric, tumbling musket ball behaved much like a modern dum—dum bullet, which was outlawed at Geneva as inhumane. Wars kill brutally and painfully! They always have. Still, wars, like those of Frederick or Marlborough, made up of a series of battles between professional armies, often mercenaries and always predominantly (before the French Revolution) volunteers, on isolated fields, are not even a good paradigm. Wars have always been worse than that, far worse. Whole peoples have made war their primary cultural activity, or source of livelihood, or both. The Yanomamo of the Orinoco Valley in Venezuela live to fight." War and plunder (more often than not visited upon noncombatants) were central to the tribal existence ofthe Mongols, the Norse raiders, and numerous American Indian tribes. Of more relevance to our purposes, total war—defined as the oblitera» tion of whole societies and the enslavement or slaughter of whole peoples—did not arrive with the nuclear weapon or even with the strategic bomber. It is literally as old as recorded history. Sargon of Akkad, for example, conducted strategic devastation throughout Mesopotamia around 2250 B.C. lf one activity captures the essence of war in history it is not the battlefield, but the siege and sack of cities and the devastation of the country— side: total war carried out upon civilians. The Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.) matched two of the greatest generals of the ancient world, Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. The battles they fought are still studied in military schools. Less often remembered is the horrible devastation that resulted in Southern Italy, the locus of most of the campaigns, devastation that resulted from the marching armies, rather than the historic battles. Some claim that 50 perecent of the population was killed or died of hunger or disease in the seventeen years of the war." Genghis Khan (1 162?-1227), one of the greatest conquerers of all time, quite consciously used terror to prompt surrender. ln one particularly brutal campaign, he attempted to slaughter the entire population of the Khorezin Empire of Persia. " He did not quite succeed, although millions must have died and scores of cities and towns were completely destroyed in the process. Desmond Seward, in his excellent book, The Hundred Years’ War: The Eng/ish in France [337-[453, gives us a frightening account of strategic devastation on a smaller scale, but one which is completely characteristic of military campaigns throughout history. On 13 July 1346 the English armada landed at La Hogue, on the north of the Cherbourg peninsula .... The following day the King launched a chevauchee through the Cotentin, deliberately devastating the rich countryside, his men burning mills and barns, orchards, haystacks and cornricks, smashing wine vats, tearing down and setting fire to the thatched cabins of the villagers, whose throats they cut together with those of their livestock. One may presume that the usual atrocities were perpetrated on the peasants·the men were tortured to reveal hidden valuables, the women suffering multiple rape and sexual mutilation, those who were pregnant being disembowelled. Terror was an indispensable accompaniment to every chevuuchee and Edward obviously intended to wreak the maximum ‘dumpnum’—the medieval term for that total war which struck at an enemy King through his subjects .... On 26 July Edward’s army reached Caen, larger than any town in England apart from Loudon, and soon stormed their way through the bridge gate. When the garrison surrendered, the English started to plunder, rape and kill, ‘for the soldiers were without mercy‘. The desperate inhabitants then began to throw stones, wooden beams and iron bars from the rooftops down into the narrow streets, killing more than 500 Englishmen. Edward ordered the entire population to be put to the sword and the town burnt, ‘and there were done in the town many evil deeds, murders and robberies’~although Godefroi d`l—{arcourt per— suaded the King to rescind his order. The sack lasted three days and 3,000 townsmen died." And so goes the grim tale throughout Edward’s entire campaign in France. Closer to our own time, it is estimated that in the Thirty \’ears’ War (1618-1648) as much as 40 percent of the population of Germany was wiped out either directly by siege or by strategic devastation with its consequent disease and hunger. Reports of starvation and cannibalism were not uncommon. What was almost certainly the greatest human cost ever expended in human conflict before the dawn of the twentieth century is almost unknown in the West. China in the middle of the last century was wracked by a series of revolutions and outbursts of civil violence on a scale never seen anywhere before. They lasted from 1850 until 1878. The cost in lives can never be known within even a worthwhile approxima~ tion, but it was vast. The worst outbreak, called the Taiping Revolution, lasted from 1850 to 1864. lt has been estimated that forty million people died, perhaps l0 percent of the entire population of China. Much of this monumental human cost resulted from the conscious policies of both the rebels and the lmperial Manchu armies as they killed civilians and induced starvation by strategic devastation.‘° To get a measure of the ethnocentrism we practice in these matters, consider the fact that this titanic human cataclysm does not even merit its own article in most English language encyclopedias. As we shall see, this ethnocentrism is a key feature of our assessment of nuclear war. ln general, wars throughout history were characterized by armies marching from siege to siege and laying waste to the countryside along the way. Moreover, one is constantly struck while reading in primary historical sources just how casually such brutality was accepted. Hugo Grotius, whom we have met before, did as much as anyone to civilize and humanize war. Nonetheless, in his The Law of War and Peace, he blithely comments that after a city falls to siege the commander ought to turn it over to his troops for three days of plunder (always unavoidably attend— ed by rapes and killings).‘” lt is after all, he assures us, a conventional law of war, honored throughout history. He was quite correct, of course. And besides, he continues, it is their due! Just three days though, H0 more. Quite simply, most wars in history have been total wars waged without quarter against combatants and noncombatants alike, with the level of destruction limited only by the means available. Sometimes this viciousness and brutality was part of the conscious use of terror; sometimes it was completely without rational purpose. Whether purposive or not, it occurred over and over throughout history. Of course, fact does not translate to value; the frequent occurrence of such frightful events does not render them justifiable: most certainly not. It only sets the stage for consideration of what we face today. It tells us that our problems might not be without precedent in history. The siege and sack of cities and the devastation of rural areas made the whole population of a city and the surrounding countryside hostage to their leaders` policies and their enemies’ mercy. Constant risk of total war—the stakes being death or enslavement—seems to have been an element of the human <>0¤· dition. Quite simply, the period between the Thirty Years’ War and the advent of the strategic bomber in World War ll represents a short hiatus, while the era of strategic bombing and nuclear weapons is a return to the norm. lf the military historian Michael Howard is correct, even this relatively humane respite from an otherwise horrifying tale of brutality was not due to the moral values ofthe West but, instead, to the meager national treasuries that funded wars during that time.'“ But surely, we want to say that, however regrettable this sad tale is, nuclear war is worse than these examples of human cruelty and stupidity. An unlimited nuclear war between the super powers would, quite simply, be the worst catastrophe in human history, substantially worse than anything that has preceded it.
|
Child, 86 (James W., professor of philosophy, Bowling Green State University, “Nuclear War: The Moral Dimension,” Transaction Publishers, pg. 33-39, Tashma)
|
nuclear war is an infinite evil We called it "the unthinkable consequences after a nuclear war, exclusively from radiation effects was frightening moral analysis and evaluation can begin. nuclear war is sui generis pain suffering and death are bad Those who devise nuclear strategies are already insane. It is not evil to think and talk about the consequences of nuclear war. theory of nuclear winter appears to hold that nuclear war might be truly incommensurable. wars in history only set the stage for what we face today. nuclear war is worse than examples cruelty and stupidity. unlimited nuclear war between super powers would be the worst catastrophe in history
|
Nuclear war makes the worst forms of suffering inevitable – comparatively worse than any event in history
| 17,352 | 105 | 667 | 2,885 | 17 | 109 | 0.005893 | 0.037782 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,289 |
According to Levinas's phenomenology, mild discomfort can be mastered by consciousness. But, as suffering increases and overwhelms the subject, it becomes a pure passivity, meaningless and evil. Suffering that leaves the subject without resources, Levinas consistently emphasizes, is characterized by an excessive passivity. It is a submission without a synthesizing act of consciousness. Our senses in their receptivity to the world, phenomenologists insist, are still acting, constituting meaning, forming the material content of sensation. As a content of consciousness, suffering lends itself to phenomenological description, not unlike other sensations of vision, hearing, or touch. And yet, according to Levinas's phenomenology, suffering cannot be grasped, it is 'unassumable,' and this elusiveness is its 'content' (US91). Suffering is outside the intending capacity of consciousness or the apperceptive synthesizing activity of the Kantian 'I think.' Levinas thus speaks of the ambiguity of suffering as a consciousness of the refusal of order and this refusal itself. In suffering, Levinas argues, the refusal of meaning is itself a sensible quality: 'In the guise of "experienced" content, the way in which, with a consciousness, the unbearable is precisely not borne, the manner of this not-being-borne; which, paradoxically, is itself a sensation or a datum' (US92). Beyond the ambiguity of patience - the hope and activity of passivity that masters itself- Levinas insists, there is suffering in which even the exertion of the will as hope is no longer possible. Such suffering is an undergoing without initiative, a bearing of the world, a pure passivity not associated with an activity that senses pain as an object. Thus, the very content of suffering is passivity: 'passivity - that is, a modality - signifies as a quiddity' (US92). The passivity of suffering does not derive simply from a great intensity; the essence of suffering is disproportionate to our senses, an excess beyond the measure of our faculties. Because suffering is a pure passivity, lived as the breach of the totality we constitute through intending acts, Levinas argues, even suffering that is chosen cannot be meaningfully systematized within a coherent whole. Suffering is a rupture and disturbance of meaning because it suffocates the subject and destroys the capacity for systematically assimilating the world. 9 Pain isolates itself in consciousness, overwhelming consciousness with its insistence. Suffering, then, is an absurdity, 'an absurdity breaking out on the ground of signification.'1~ This absurdity is the eidetic character of suffering Levinas seeks to draw out in his phenomenology. Suffering often appears justified, from the biological need for sensibility to pain, to the various ways in which suffering is employed in character formation, the concerns of practical life, a community's desire for justice, and the needs of the state. Implicit in Levinas's texts is the insistence that the analysis of these sufferings calls for a distinction between the use of pain as a tool, a practice performed on the Other's body for a particular end, and the acknowledgement of the Other's lived pain. A consequence of Levinas's phenomenology is the idea that instrumental justifications of extreme suffering necessarily are insensible to the unbearable pain they seek to legitimize. Strictly speaking, then, suffering is meaningless and cannot be comprehended or justified by rational argument. Meaningless, and therefore unjustifiable, Levinas insists, suffering is evil. Suffering, according to Levinas's phenomenology, is an exception to the subject's mastery of being; in suffering the subject endures the overwhelming of freedom by alterity. The will that revels in the autonomous grasping of the world, in suffering finds itself grasped by the world. The in-itself of the will loses its capacity to exert itself and submits to the will of what is beyond its grasp. Contrary to Heidegger, it is not the anxiety before my own death which threatens the will and the self. For, Levinas argues, death, announced in suffering, is in a future always beyond the present. Instead of death, it is the pure passivity of suffering that menaces the freedom of the will. The will endures pain 'as a tyranny,' the work of a 'You,' a malicious other who perpetrates violence (TI239). This tyranny, Levinas argues, 'is more radical than sin, for it threatens the will in its very structure as a will, in its dignity as origin and identity' (TI237). Because suffering is unjustifiable, it is a tyranny breaking open my world of totality and meaning 'for nothing.' The gratuitous and extreme suffering that destroys the capacity for flourishing human activity is generally addressed by thinkers in European traditions in the context of metaphysical questions of evil (is evil a positive substance or deviation from the Good?), or problems of philosophical anthropology (is evil chosen or is it a result of ignorance?). For these traditions it is evil, not suffering, that is the great scandal, for they consider suffering to be evil only when it is both severe and unjustified.
|
Edelglass, 6 (William, Department of Philosophy, Colby College in Maine, “Levinas on Suffering and Compassion,” Sophia, Volume 45, Issue 2, October 2006, pg. 43-59, SpringerLink, pdf, Tashma)
|
mild discomfort can be mastered by consciousness. as suffering increases and overwhelms the subject it becomes meaningless and evil Suffering that leaves the subject without resources is characterized by excessive passivity without consciousness. Suffering is outside the intending capacity of consciousness there is suffering in which exertion of hope is no longer possible. the essence of suffering is disproportionate to our senses Suffering is a rupture of meaning because it suffocates the subject and destroys capacity for assimilating the world. Pain isolates itself in consciousness Suffering is an absurdity justifications of extreme suffering are insensible to the unbearable pain they seek to legitimize. death in suffering menaces freedom of the will. The will endures pain 'as a tyranny who perpetrates violence This tyranny threatens dignity and identity breaking open totality and meaning for nothing extreme suffering that destroys capacity for human activity is generally addressed in the context of metaphysical questions of evil when it is severe and unjustified.
|
Some suffering may be inevitable – but extreme suffering is unjustified
| 5,165 | 71 | 1,082 | 802 | 11 | 159 | 0.013716 | 0.198254 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,290 |
The idea that suffering is an inevitable and inescapable aspect of worldly existence but that it can be escaped by a form of self-transcendence, an elevation to a higher mode of existence, can also be found in many of the great world religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. In the West, the pre- dominant way of giving suffering meaning is still derived from Christianity. For a Christian, human beings are tainted with original sin. There is here another version of the notion that worldly existence is less than perfect, even corrupt, but in this version, the primordial condition of humanity requires reparation. As a natural outgrowth of a religious tradi- tion in which ritual blood sacrifice was used to appease God and seek His favor, and in which guilt for sin was washed away in sacrificial blood, suffering came to be seen as a price that had to be paid for sin. And so heinous was the original crime of humanity that nothing less than the suffering of a God was required to achieve reparation for it. Christ's suffering on the cross thus becomes a paradigm case of positive suffering. It was this sacrifice that saved human- kind from sin, and every Christian is called upon to participate in it by dedicating his or her own suffering to this salvific task or by declaring his or her faith in its achievement. Thus the Christian believes that salvation is achieved through suffering, whether his or her own or that of Christ. This account can be complicated. At least one writer in the Christian tradition, Stanley Hauerwas, has recently argued that Christians should not in any simplistic way align their suffering with that represented by the cross. According to Hauerwas, only suffering accepted for some moral reason is Christlike. Hauerwas argues that suffering is an intrinsic part of our moral lives. No human life could be complete without accepting some suffering as part of its moral project. Just as we should be prepared to accept death for some overwhelmingly noble cause, so we should be pre- pared to accept suffering in proportion to the value at issue. Even in mundane contexts our moral self project or our autonomy involves being able to give up things that we want. "Suffering is not morally significant only because things happen to us that we cannot avoid," writes Hauerwas, "but because the demand of morality cannot be satisfied with- out asking the self to submit to limits imposed by morality itself. In this sense, without allowing ourselves and others to suffer we could not be human or humane."5 This insightful observation about human life recasts the meaning of suffering by turning it into sacrifice. Suffering for a cause, even merely giving up something we want for the sake of something worthier, frustrates our desires and might for that reason be thought of as suffering. Insofar as these experiences are freely accepted for the sake of some good, however, they are actually cases of sacrifice. That is, one is accepting some frustration, pain, or negative experience for the sake of something better or worthier. However the relation between the Christian's suffering and the sufferings of Christ is understood, the out- lines of the Christian theory of suffering are clear. At the contemplative level of our being, where we establish the meaningfulness of our lives by relating it to a larger story, reality, or cosmic theory, Christians relate their suffering to the story of Christ so as to give it meaning. In this way Christians feel that they can contribute their suffering to the salvific plan of God. Suffering loses its prima facie negative character for the victim by being given a transcendent, positive meaning. The Christian concept of divine providence works in a similar way, by suggesting that all the unfortunate things that occur in the world have a larger purpose and will ultimately tend to the good, as guaranteed by God. This too is a theory that belongs to the meaning-seeking or contemplative aspect of our existence. It too allows us to understand suffering and misfortune as meaningful, in this case by situating it within a divine providential plan. The key point about an authentic acceptance of suffering is that suffer- ing is not made meaningful. It is inherently negative. What is crucial in the Christian theories is that suffering is experienced as negative-it really is suffering-but that when suffering is given meaning within the larger story, it becomes something positive. Suffering will be negative in that it hinders the fulfillment of the biological aims of the body, negative in that it involves pain or other frustrations of our desires and needs, and negative in that it frustrates our practical projects and our pursuit of everyday goals. Yet it becomes positive by virtue of the meaning-giving aspect of our existence. Our bodies might suffer maladies, we might suffer pain, our zest for life might be lost, our relationships shattered, our projects failures, our suffering real, and yet we can think of it as for the ultimate good. And in this way the meaningfulness and integration of our existence can be preserved and even enhanced despite the trauma we experience. It is among the highest triumphs of human existence that it can achieve the overcoming and transformation of suffering in this way. Even within the Christian tradition, these ways of turning suffering into something positive have been questioned. In a rich and complex argument, Simone Weil has stressed the irreducibly negative character of suffering even when conceived from a theological perspective. Weil argues that some suffering amounts to what she calls "affliction," a form of suffer- ing that damages the selfhood and crushes the spirit of its victim. Whereas everyday pain and suffering are troubles we can cope with, in the face of which we can bless God for the challenges He sends us, affliction cannot but lead to despair. Whether because of the intensity or the inter- minable duration of the agony, the victim of affliction is reduced to being a thing completely determined by the blind forces of causality. Such suffering is a form of humiliation and of absolute degradation. To endure it is to be a slave to the pain and anguish that the victim undergoes. Moreover, by focusing the victim's attention excusively on personal distress, it constitutes the victim as totally alienated in relation to others and to Otherness. Affliction leads to total separation from hope, from society, and from God.
|
Hooft, 98 (Stan Van, professor of philosophy, Deakin University in Melbourne, “The Meanings of Suffering,” The Hastings Center Report, Volume 28, Issue 5, pg. 13-19, JSTOR, pdf, Tashma)
|
The idea that suffering is inevitable but can be escaped by self-transcendence can be found in religions, including Buddhism Suffering for a cause frustrates desires and are actually cases of sacrifice. these ways of turning suffering into something positive have been questioned. suffering amounts to affliction that damages the selfhood and crushes spirit of its victim. everyday suffering we can cope with in the face of God affliction cannot but lead to despair victim of affliction is reduced to being a thing completely determined by the blind forces of causality. suffering is humiliation and absolute degradation To endure it is to be a slave to pain and anguish by focusing attention on personal distress, it constitutes the victim as totally alienated Affliction leads to total separation from hope
|
Suffering leads to alienation and degradation
| 6,500 | 45 | 808 | 1,078 | 6 | 128 | 0.005566 | 0.118738 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,291 |
Reflecting on the Holocaust, Levinas concedes that suffering of such magnitude and such uselessness cannot be absorbed into a justifying theological narrative. God was silent in Auschwitz and remains so. And yet there is a nontheological meaning that can be ascribed to suffering if one's view of one's own suffering might be different from one's view of the suffering of others. Indeed, it must be different. To say of the suffering of another that it is justified by having a meaning or a purpose is to denigrate the other by making him a means to some purpose. It is an immoral gesture that refuses to see the suffering for what it is: useless. Our response to the suffering of the other must be compassion, not explanation. Indeed, Levinas argues that suffering is a unique possibility for overcoming the isolation that we all experience as atomistic individuals in a narcissistic society. Even in our own experience, suffering cannot be absorbed into the world that we constitute for ourselves as our own. It is always strange and foreign. Whereas it is the existential nature of our being to be active in relation to the world, in the face of suffering we are passive. As a result suffering is always an alienation of our being. It destroys our self-possession and our self-satisfied enjoyment of life.
|
Hooft, 98 (Stan Van, professor of philosophy, Deakin University in Melbourne, “The Meanings of Suffering,” The Hastings Center Report, Volume 28, Issue 5, pg. 13-19, JSTOR, pdf, Tashma)
|
suffering of such magnitude and uselessness cannot be absorbed nontheological meaning can be ascribed to suffering if one's view of suffering might be different from others. it must be different suffering cannot be absorbed into the world that we constitute for ourselves as our own. suffering is always an alienation of being It destroys self-possession and self-satisfied enjoyment of life.
|
Extreme suffering is inherently bad – it's impossible to determine how individuals view suffering
| 1,308 | 97 | 392 | 222 | 14 | 60 | 0.063063 | 0.27027 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,292 |
The capacity to suffer is, clearly, part of being human. But not all suffering is equal, in spite of pernicious and often self-serving identity politics that suggest otherwise. One of the unfortunate sequelae of identity politics has been the obscuring of structural violence, which metes out injuries of vastly different severity. Careful assessment of severity is important, at least to physicians, who must practice triage and referral daily. What suffering needs to be taken care of first and with what resources? It is possible to speak of extreme human suffering, and an inordinate share of this sort of pain is currently endured by those living in poverty. Take, for example, illness and premature death, in many places in the world the leading cause of extreme suffering. In a striking departure from previous, staid reports, the World Health Organization now acknowledges that poverty is the world's greatest killer: "Poverty wields its destructive influence at every stage of human life, from the moment of conception to the grave. It conspires with the most deadly and painful diseases.
|
Paul Farmer 1996 - Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, practices medicine at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and at the Clinique Bon Sauveur in rural Haiti. (“On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below,” Daedalus, Winter 1996, http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/pdfplus/20027362.pdf, JSTOR)
|
The capacity to suffer is part of being human not all suffering is equal, in spite of pernicious and often self-serving identity politics that suggest otherwise Careful assessment of severity is important, What suffering needs to be taken care of first and with what resources? It is possible to speak of extreme human suffering , illness and premature death, in many places in the world the leading cause of extreme suffering
|
Not all suffering is the same
| 1,097 | 29 | 426 | 175 | 6 | 71 | 0.034286 | 0.405714 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,293 |
The present discourse of security reflects this change in the global reality and the change in perspective that goes with it. No longer are we limited to discussions of states' rights and national sovereignty. Protecting civilians, addressing the plight of war-affected children and the threat of terrorism and drugs, managing open borders, and combating infectious diseases are now part of a dialogue. This shift reflects a growing recognition that the protection of people must be a principal concern. But the term is not really new. A recognition that people's rights are at least as important as those of states has been gaining momentum since the end of World War II. The Holocaust forced a serious examination of the place of international moral standards and codes in the conduct of world affairs. It also caused us to rethink the principles of national sovereignty. The Nuremberg trials acknowledged that grotesque violations of people's rights could not go unpunished. The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide and Geneva conventions all recognized the inherent right of people to personal security. They challenge conventional notions of sovereignty when serious violations of rights occur. Human security today puts people first and recognizes that their safety is integral to the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security. The security of states is essential, but not sufficient, to fully ensure the safety and well-being of the world's peoples. Several current challenges are particularly compelling.
|
Lloyd Axworthy 2001 - director of the University of British Columbia's Centre for the Study of Global Issues and former minister of foreign affairs of Canada. (“Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,” Global Insights, http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/pdfplus/27800284.pdf, JSTOR)
|
Protecting civilians, addressing the plight of war-affected children and the threat of terrorism and drugs, managing open borders, and combating infectious diseases are now part of a dialogue. the protection of people must be a principal concern people's rights are at least as important as those of states The Holocaust forced a serious examination of the place of international moral standards and codes in the conduct of world affairs The Nuremberg trials acknowledged that grotesque violations of people's rights could not go unpunished They challenge conventional notions of sovereignty when serious violations of rights occur The security of states is essential, but not sufficient, to fully ensure the safety and well-being of the world's peoples.
|
Protection of people is worth it
| 1,579 | 32 | 754 | 243 | 6 | 115 | 0.024691 | 0.473251 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,294 |
Remembering our above analysis of self-defeating arguments, we can easily understand the contradictory nature of the statement: “preferences do not exist.” Given that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement. Arguing that preferences do not exist is exactly the same as arguing that language does not exist. It is an utterly self-defeating argument. Since it is impossible to act without expressing a preference – either implicitly or explicitly – anyone who acts accepts the premise that preferences exist. Thus it is impossible to debate the existence of preferences without accepting the existence of preferences. […] If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal. You don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is universally preferable to error, and that truth is universally objective.[…] How else can we know that the concept of “moral rules” is valid? We can examine the question biologically as well as syllogistically. For instance, all matter is subject to physical rules – and everything that lives is in addition subject to certain requirements, and thus, if it is alive, must have followed universally preferred behaviours. Life, for instance, requires fuel and oxygen. Any living mind, of course, is an organic part of the physical world, and so is subject to physical laws and must have followed universally preferred behaviours – to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life. Arguing that consciousness is subject to neither physical rules nor universally preferred behaviours would be like arguing that human beings are immune to gravity, and can flourish without eating. Thus it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behaviour, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking. Syllogistically, this is: 1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live. 2. Man is a living organism. 3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour. 4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour. 5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.
|
Molyneux 07 – philosopher, MA in history from the University of Toronto(Stefan “Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics” October 2007; http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf)//Beddow
|
every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement Since it is impossible to act without expressing a preference – either implicitly or explicitly – anyone who acts accepts the premise that preferences exist. Thus it is impossible to debate the existence of preferences without accepting the existence of preferences. […] If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is universally preferable to error, and that truth is universally objective. everything that lives is in addition subject to certain requirements, and thus, if it is alive, must have followed universally preferred behaviours. Any living mind, of course, is an organic part of the physical world, and so is subject to physical laws and must have followed universally preferred behaviours – to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life Thus it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behaviour, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live. 2. Man is a living organism. 3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour. 4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour. 5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.
|
Argumentation is a physical action that presupposes norms – arguing against life is unjustifiable insofar as argumentation requires a preference for living.
| 3,143 | 156 | 1,973 | 497 | 22 | 310 | 0.044266 | 0.623742 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,295 |
Here are some possible answers to the question of what makes life worth living: (1) nothing; (2) religion; (3) happiness; (4) love, work, and play. Evidence from psychology and neuroscience supports the fourth answer. (1) Nothing. A few despondent philosophers such as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and David Benatar have cast doubts on whether life has any intrinsic meaning, and some people are driven to suicide by depression and negative events in their lives. But most people, fortunately, are able to find lots of reason to value their lives, and in surveys most people report themselves as pretty happy. So nihilism is not a plausible position. (2) Religion. Surveys also indicate that many people report that religion and spirituality are major sources of meaning in their lives. Unfortunately, however, these sources are bogus if there is no evidence to support claims for particular religious beliefs. Religious faith may be reassuring, but cannot objectively tell you whether you should adhere to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or some other religion. Faith cannot even tell you what version of Christianity (Catholic, Baptist, Morman, etc.) or Islam (Shia or Sunni) you ought to adopt. Hence religion and vague spiritual ideas like "everything happens for a reason" cannot provide a sound basis for living. (3) Happiness. Psychological research has identified many ways in which people can increase the happiness in their lives, as in Sonja Lyubomirsky's fine book, The How of Happiness. But happiness is usually the result of having a meaningful life, not what makes life worth living in itself. There are people whose lives are meaningful even though they may not be very happy, for example when struggling with a challenging job while raising a special needs child. On the other hand, happiness can be cheaply achieved by slacker serenity, a mindless bliss resulting from having minimal goals, access to drugs, or unlimited time for meditation. You can have happiness without much meaning, and meaning without much happiness; so happiness is not the meaning of life. (4) Love, work, and play. In my new book, The Brain and the Meaning of Life, I argue that these three activities make life worth living. Love includes friendships and family relationships as well as romantic ones. Work includes diverse productive activities such as community volunteering in addition to wage slavery. Play includes all forms of entertainment such as reading and watching movies, not just games. Surveys and other psychological studies indicate that love, work, and play do indeed enable people to have lives they value. Neuroscience provides a deeper understanding of how brain processes generate needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence that can be satisfied by the successful pursuit of love, work, and play. Such satisfaction yields happiness, but even the pursuit is enough to give life meaning.
|
Paul Thagard 2/25/2010 - Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Cognitive Science Program at the University of Waterloo, Canada. (“What Makes Life Worth Living?,” Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201002/what-makes-life-worth-living)
|
philosophers such as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and David Benatar have cast doubts on whether life has any intrinsic meaning most people are able to find lots of reason to value their lives nihilism is not a plausible position. happiness is usually the result of having a meaningful life, not what makes life worth living in itself. Love, work, and play I argue that these three activities make life worth living Love includes friendships and family relationships as well as romantic ones. Work includes diverse productive activities such as community volunteering in addition to wage slavery. Play includes all forms of entertainment such as reading and watching movies psychological studies indicate that love, work, and play do indeed enable people to have lives they value. Neuroscience provides a deeper understanding of how brain processes generate needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence that can be satisfied by the successful pursuit of love, work, and play. Such satisfaction yields happiness, but even the pursuit is enough to give life meaning.
|
The capacity to love, work, and play make human life intrinsically valuable – even if happiness isn’t achievable, the pursuit is valuable
| 2,900 | 137 | 1,062 | 459 | 22 | 166 | 0.04793 | 0.361656 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,296 |
In thinking about this question, it is important to be clear about what we're asking. In particular, we are not asking whether or how the process of dying can be bad. For I take it to be quite uncontroversial—and not at all puzzling—that the process of dying can be a painful one. But it needn't be. I might, after all, die peacefully in my sleep. Similarly, of course, the prospect of dying can be unpleasant. But that makes sense only if we consider death itself to be bad. Yet how can sheer nonexistence be bad? Maybe nonexistence is bad for me, not in an intrinsic way, like pain, and not in an instrumental way, like unemployment leading to poverty, which in turn leads to pain and suffering, but in a comparative way—what economists call opportunity costs. Death is bad for me in the comparative sense, because when I'm dead I lack life—more particularly, the good things in life. That explanation of death's badness is known as the deprivation account. Despite the overall plausibility of the deprivation account, though, it's not all smooth sailing. For one thing, if something is true, it seems as though there's got to be a time when it's true. Yet if death is bad for me, when is it bad for me? Not now. I'm not dead now. What about when I'm dead? But then, I won't exist. As the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote: "So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more." If death has no time at which it's bad for me, then maybe it's not bad for me. Or perhaps we should challenge the assumption that all facts are datable. Could there be some facts that aren't? Suppose that on Monday I shoot John. I wound him with the bullet that comes out of my gun, but he bleeds slowly, and doesn't die until Wednesday. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, I have a heart attack and die. I killed John, but when? No answer seems satisfactory! So maybe there are undatable facts, and death's being bad for me is one of them. Alternatively, if all facts can be dated, we need to say when death is bad for me. So perhaps we should just insist that death is bad for me when I'm dead. But that, of course, returns us to the earlier puzzle. How could death be bad for me when I don't exist? Isn't it true that something can be bad for you only if you exist? Call this idea the existence requirement. Should we just reject the existence requirement? Admittedly, in typical cases—involving pain, blindness, losing your job, and so on—things are bad for you while you exist. But maybe sometimes you don't even need to exist for something to be bad for you. Arguably, the comparative bads of deprivation are like that. Unfortunately, rejecting the existence requirement has some implications that are hard to swallow. For if nonexistence can be bad for somebody even though that person doesn't exist, then nonexistence could be bad for somebody who never exists. It can be bad for somebody who is a merely possible person, someone who could have existed but never actually gets born. It's hard to think about somebody like that. But let's try, and let's call him Larry. Now, how many of us feel sorry for Larry? Probably nobody. But if we give up on the existence requirement, we no longer have any grounds for withholding our sympathy from Larry. I've got it bad. I'm going to die. But Larry's got it worse: He never gets any life at all. Moreover, there are a lot of merely possible people. How many? Well, very roughly, given the current generation of seven billion people, there are approximately three million billion billion billion different possible offspring—almost all of whom will never exist! If you go to three generations, you end up with more possible people than there are particles in the known universe, and almost none of those people get to be born.
|
Kagan 12 – Professor of Philosophy @ Yale Shelly, professor of philosophy at Yale University, "Is Death Bad for You?" 5/13/12, http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/131818/
|
how can sheer nonexistence be bad nonexistence is bad in a comparative way because when I'm dead I lack the good things in life death's badness is known as the deprivation account. if death is bad when is it bad for me I'm not dead now. What about when I'm dead? I won't exist. If death has no time at which it's bad for me, then maybe it's not bad Isn't it true that something can be bad for you only if you exist Should we just reject the existence requirement in typical cases—involving pain, blindness, losing your job, and so on—things are bad for you while you exist. But sometimes you don't even need to exist for something to be bad for you. Arguably, the comparative bads of deprivation are like that. if nonexistence can be bad for somebody even though that person doesn't exist, then nonexistence could be bad for somebody who never exists. It can be bad for somebody who is a merely possible person It's hard to think about somebody like that. call him Larry how many of us feel sorry for Larry? Probably nobody. I've got it bad. I'm going to die. But Larry's got it worse: He never gets any life at all. there are a lot of possible people there are approximately three million billion billion billion different possible offspring
|
Death is bad, and nonexistence is worse – deprivation account
| 3,964 | 62 | 1,242 | 715 | 10 | 227 | 0.013986 | 0.317483 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,297 |
According to Schopenhauer, aesthetic perception offers only a short-lived transcendence from the daily world. Neither is moral awareness, despite its comparative tranquility in contrast to the daily world of violence, the ultimate state of mind. Schopenhauer believes that a person who experiences the truth of human nature from a moral perspective — who appreciates how spatial and temporal forms of knowledge generate a constant passing away, continual suffering, vain striving and inner tension — will be so repulsed by the human condition, and by the pointlessly striving Will of which it is a manifestation, that he or she will lose the desire to affirm the objectified human situation in any of its manifestations. The result is an attitude of the denial towards our will-to-live, which Schopenhauer identifies with an ascetic attitude of renunciation, resignation, and willessness, but also with composure and tranquility. In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, he recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration, and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one's desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) emerge, accordingly, as Schopenhauer's prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, as do the ascetics from every religious tradition. This emphasis upon the ascetic consciousness and its associated detachment and tranquility introduces some paradox into Schopenhauer's outlook, for he admits that the denial of our will-to-live entails a terrible struggle with instinctual energies, as we avoid the temptations of bodily pleasures and resist the mere animal force to endure and flourish. Before we can enter the transcendent consciousness of heavenly tranquillity, we must pass through the fires of hell and experience a dark night of the soul, as our universal self fights against our individuated and physical self, as pure knowledge struggles against animalistic will, and as freedom struggles against nature. One can superficially maintain that no contradiction is involved in the act of struggling (i.e., willing) to deny the will-to-live, because one is not saying that Will is somehow destroying itself, but only saying that a more universal manifestation of Will is overpowering a less universal manifestation, namely, the natural, individuated, physically-embodied aspect. But it remains that within this opposition, Will as a whole is set against itself according to the very the model that Schopenhauer is trying to transcend, namely, the model wherein one manifestation of Will fights against another manifestation, like the divided bulldog ant. This in itself is not a problem, but the location of the tormented and self-crucifying ascetic consciousness at the penultimate level of enlightenment is paradoxical, owing to its high degree of inner ferocity. Even though this ferocity occurs at a reflective and introspective level, we have before us a spiritualized life-and-death struggle within the ascetic consciousness. This peculiarity notwithstanding, the ascetic's struggle is none other than a supreme struggle against human nature. It is a struggle against the close-to-unavoidable tendency to apply the principle of sufficient reason for the purpose of attaining practical knowledge — an application which has for Schopenhauer, the repulsive side-effect of creating the illusion of a world permeated with endless conflict. From a related angle, the ascetic's struggle is a struggle against the forces of violence and evil, which, owing to Schopenhauer's acceptance and interpretation of Kant's epistemology, locates these forces significantly within human nature itself. When the ascetic transcends human nature, the ascetic resolves the problem of evil: by removing the individuated and individuating human consciousness from the scene, one removes the entire spatio-temporal situation within which daily violence occurs. In a way, then, the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well.
|
Stanford 11 – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“Arthur Schopenhauer”, 11/19/11; < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/>)//Beddow
|
This emphasis upon the ascetic consciousness and its associated detachment and tranquility introduces some paradox into Schopenhauer's outlook, for he admits that the denial of our will-to-live entails a terrible struggle with instinctual energies, as we avoid the temptations of bodily pleasures and resist the mere animal force to endure and flourish. pure knowledge struggles against animalistic will, and as freedom struggles against nature. One can superficially maintain that no contradiction is involved in the act of struggling (i.e., willing) to deny the will-to-live, because one is not saying that Will is somehow destroying itself, but only saying that a more universal manifestation of Will is overpowering a less universal manifestation, namely, the natural, individuated, physically-embodied aspect. But it remains that within this opposition, Will as a whole is set against itself according to the very the model that Schopenhauer is trying to transcend, namely, the model wherein one manifestation of Will fights against another manifestation, like the divided bulldog ant. the location of the tormented and self-crucifying ascetic consciousness at the penultimate level of enlightenment is paradoxical, owing to its high degree of inner ferocity. Even though this ferocity occurs at a reflective and introspective level, we have before us a spiritualized life-and-death struggle within the ascetic consciousness. the ascetic's struggle is none other than a supreme struggle against human nature. It is a struggle against the close-to-unavoidable tendency to apply the principle of sufficient reason for the purpose of attaining practical knowledge — an application which has for Schopenhauer, the repulsive side-effect of creating the illusion of a world permeated with endless conflict. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well.
|
The alt is an internal contradiction – the desire to overcome desire just links back to itself.
| 4,493 | 95 | 1,989 | 671 | 17 | 290 | 0.025335 | 0.432191 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,298 |
The theme is first explored in Schopenhauer’s early Manuscript Remains, where he declares that “The highest degree of asceticism, the total denial of the temporal consciousness, is the voluntary death through starvation; of this only two instances have so far come to my knowledge”. He continues, “From absolutely pure asceticism we cannot think of any other death than that through starvation, since the intention to avoid a long agony and affliction is already an affirmation of the world of the senses” (HN 1: 74—5). His approval of the ascetic’s suicide by starvation is not entirely persuasive. 1f we try to imagine ourselves in that situation, we are likely to think of the overwhelming desire for nourishment that would accompany a prolonged death fast. This is hardly the kind of occurrence that is likely to help anyone overcome the suffering of individual will. What Schopenhauer seems to have in mind, and what in this kind of case could only excite his admiration about the ascetic’s decision, is a scenario in which the ascetic has so completely renounced the will to life before this point that starvation is accepted without succumbing to physical cravings. What is supposed to be noble about this kind of suicide for Schopenhauer is not the death that it occasions, but the subject’s prior separation from all concern for the individual will to life. The ascetic who embarks on a course of death by starvation presumably does so as a manifestation of neither the will to life nor the will to death, but with an absolute indifference to any object of individual willing.’8 Still, there is another qualification that the starving ascetic must satisfy. Schopenhauer contends that persons as self-conscious beings have an unconditional duty to place knowing above willing. The starving ascetic must first attain the highest degree of philosophical wisdom, for there can be no justified exception from such an epistemic obligation even for the saintly suicide (WWR 1: 399—400). Schopenhauer indicates that the height of knowledge required is achieved precisely as a result of this cruel manner of death. The knowledge that every subject is supposed to seek is facilitated by the ascetic’s suppression of will. The denial of will in turn constitutes the profound indifference to life and death that makes suicide by starvation at first possible, and then inevitable. Schopenhauer depicts the saint’s life as a renunciation of will for the sake of obtaining a more valuable state of understanding.’9 The problems in Schopenhauer’s philosophy of death are also revealed by these implications. If the philosophically appropriate response to suffering is to withdraw from the phenomenal will to life by entering into an ascetic attitude of indifference toward both life and death, then why should death he preferred? If we admire the starving ascetic, it is probably because we suppose that starving oneself to death requires an extraordinary act of will, rather than for Schopenhauer’s explanation involving the total suppression of will. Suspending the will to life to the extent necessary to starve to death cannot occur as the result of a willful decision. If the act is not deliberately chosen, then in what sense can it be meaningfully attributed to the saint’s inner moral character? In what way does the “unwillful” suicide by starvation through a supposedly exalted indifference to the will to life redound creditably to the ascetic if the event is not the result of a conscious decision? The best that Schopenhauer can say is that the denial of will and its obliteration resulting from the ascetic’s “unwilful” death through starvation is a good thing. Such a death is not good because it results from starvation, hut only because it is generally better from the standpoint of Schopenhauer’s pessimism for the world to contain less willing and therefore less suffering. The same might nevertheless be said of any death brought about by accident, disease or even murder.2°
|
Jacquette 05 – professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Bern (Dale, “The Philosophy of Schopenhauer” pp. 137-139, 2005; print)//Beddow
|
The highest degree of asceticism, the total denial of the temporal consciousness, is the voluntary death through starvation; of this only two instances have so far come to my knowledge From absolutely pure asceticism we cannot think of any other death than that through starvation, since the intention to avoid a long agony and affliction is already an affirmation of the world of the senses” His approval of the ascetic’s suicide by starvation is not entirely persuasive. 1f we try to imagine ourselves in that situation, we are likely to think of the overwhelming desire for nourishment that would accompany a prolonged death fast. This is hardly the kind of occurrence that is likely to help anyone overcome the suffering of individual will. What is supposed to be noble about this kind of suicide for Schopenhauer is not the death that it occasions, but the subject’s prior separation from all concern for the individual will to life. The ascetic who embarks on a course of death by starvation presumably does so as a manifestation of neither the will to life nor the will to death, but with an absolute indifference to any object of individual willing.’ The knowledge that every subject is supposed to seek is facilitated by the ascetic’s suppression of will. The denial of will in turn constitutes the profound indifference to life and death that makes suicide by starvation at first possible, and then inevitable. The problems in Schopenhauer’s philosophy of death are also revealed by these implications. If the philosophically appropriate response to suffering is to withdraw from the phenomenal will to life by entering into an ascetic attitude of indifference toward both life and death, then why should death he preferred? If we admire the starving ascetic, it is probably because we suppose that starving oneself to death requires an extraordinary act of will, rather than for Schopenhauer’s explanation involving the total suppression of will. Suspending the will to life to the extent necessary to starve to death cannot occur as the result of a willful decision
|
Alt links back to itself – voting neg represents a choice to die, reifying the Will to Life.
| 3,987 | 92 | 2,077 | 647 | 18 | 342 | 0.027821 | 0.528594 |
Aff Schopenhauer K - Michigan7 2013.html5
|
Michigan (7-week)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
1,299 |
John Kerry faced nearly universal skepticism when he set out to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table after five years of shuttle diplomacy. Now that he has succeeded against all odds, that pessimism will shift to the prospects for an actual agreement. Nobody has ever gone broke betting against Israeli-Palestinian peace—I certainly wouldn’t take even money on the chances this time around—and there remain many obstacles and unanswered questions (Will Hamas and other regional spoilers torpedo the process? Can an Israeli government confront an entrenched settlement enterprise? Are both leaders prepared to make the compromises that will be necessary for an agreement?) And yet, as I argued in my March story on the two-state solution, the basic conditions for Israeli-Palestinian peace remain—at least for now—and some of them have begun to seem even more favorable in recent months. 1. John Kerry Not since James Baker cajoled the Arabs and Israelis to the Madrid Conference in 1991 has a secretary of state invested so much time and political capital in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Kerry made six trips here since being confirmed in January, spending hours on end with Netanyahu and Abbas. It’s a preview of the hands-on involvement we can expect as these talks get underway. Intense American mediation is, of course, not sufficient for peace—the difficult decisions will have to be made by the two leaders—but it is necessary: Virtually no achievement in Arab-Israeli diplomacy over the past 40 years has come but for the involvement of the United States. Should these negotiations become serious, it will take American bridging proposals to seal a deal. And it will take American prestige, money, and potentially military forces (see: Jordan Valley) to guarantee one. If any American can successfully navigate the minefields of the coming process, it is Kerry, who is intimately acquainted with the issues and the personalities (it was the trust he had with both Netanyahu and Abbas that enabled him to overcome their mutual suspicion). Barack Obama already has his Nobel Peace Prize. Kerry seems to view Middle East peace as the key to his.
|
Ben Birnbaum, reporter covering foreign affairs for The Washington Times, reporter-researcher at the New Republic, won multiple collegiate journalism awards for his articles and columns in the Cornell Daily Sun, 7-21-13, [“Seven Reasons There's Hope for Israeli-Palestinian Peace,” http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113968/print]
|
even more favorable so much time and political capital made six trips hands-on involvement Intense American mediation is necessary no achievement American bridging proposals American prestige, money,
|
Kerry’s focusing his capital on an Israeli-Palestine peace agreement – He’s getting it now but intense US involvement is necessary to make it work
| 2,174 | 146 | 199 | 349 | 24 | 27 | 0.068768 | 0.077364 |
Diplomatic Capital Disadvantage - DDI 2013 CM.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.