Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1 Politics
GDI Scholars
2 Politics Draft good..................................................................... 119 Draft bad....................................................................... 120 Draft bad....................................................................... 121 Draft bad....................................................................... 122 ***ROE/ABORTION Roe doesnt matter to abortions................................... 123 Roe good (Backally abortions) .................................... 124 Roe good (Turns are NU: abortions still happen)....... 125 Roe good (AT: Kills innocent babies)......................... 126 Roe good (Feminism/War) .......................................... 127 Roe good (Court Legitimacy) [1/2]............................. 128 Roe good (Court Legitimacy) [2/2]............................. 129 Roe good (Warfare)...................................................... 130 Abortion bad (Nuclear War/Militarism)...................... 131 Abortion bad (Militarism)............................................ 132 Abortion bad (Feminism)............................................. 133 Abortion bad (Dehumanization).................................. 134 Roe bad (Human Rights Credibility)........................... 135 Abortion bad (AT: Back ally abortions kill) ............... 136 ***OTHER ELECTIONS STUFF Kerry multilateralism/soft power ............................. 137 Kerry hurts federalism ................................................. 138 Bush ANWR ............................................................. 139
Kyoto Defense Not Solve 2/2 ..................................... 98 War outweighs Kyoto .................................................... 99 Global Warming long timeframe.............................. 100 ***BUSH DOCTRINE/STRIKES Bush strike on NK..................................................... 101 Bush strike on NK..................................................... 102 Bush Iran war ............................................................ 103 Bush Syria invasion .................................................. 104 Bush loss Syria war (wag the dog)........................... 105 Bush wont attack Syria ............................................... 106 ***TESTING Bush testing ............................................................... 107 Testing good deterrence............................................ 108 Testing good EMP .................................................... 109 Testing bad war ......................................................... 110 Testing bad free trade................................................ 111 Testing bad A2: EMP................................................ 112 Testing bad A2: deterrence....................................... 113 Testing bad A2: deterrence....................................... 114 ***DRAFT Bush draft .................................................................. 115 Bush draft .................................................................. 116 Bush draft .................................................................. 117 Draft good..................................................................... 118
GDI Scholars
3 Politics
B. Link: Supporting Peacekeeping Operations decreases credibility and triggers controversy in congress, draining political capital MICHELE KELEMEN Source: Weekend Edition Sunday (NPR); 07/13/2003
In making his decision this week on a military contingent for Liberia, President Bush faces some tricky issues involving administration credibility. Based on the assessment of a Pentagon survey team, the president is expected to go for a plan that would have the American forces provide mainly logistical support for a peacekeeping force drawn from West African countries, including Nigeria and Ghana. But a cost estimate for American participation is likely to raise anew in Congress the issue of the lowball cost estimate for the invasion of Iraq.
GDI Scholars
4 Politics
C. Impacts: Failure to act on FSC causes EU sanctions, hurts US business, and destroys US/EU Trade Relations Australian Financial Review, 3-1-04
In the latest trans-Atlantic trade dispute, the European Union will start imposing millions of dollars in sanctions on US goods on Sunday because of Washington's failure to end export tax breaks ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation. "We've been waiting for years," European Commission spokesman Diego de Ojeda said in confirming that the sanctions would go ahead as announced months ago. They "are automatic and there's nothing we can do about it". Although the WTO has authorised a whopping $US4 billion ($5.2 billion) in sanctions - the biggest amount ever - the EU is taking a graduated approach intended to increase the pressure on Congress while limiting the disruption to European companies and consumers. Sanctions hurt US producers by making it more expensive for them to sell their products in Europe. But they can also backfire by pushing up prices in Europe or disrupting production if other suppliers can't be found. "The longer Congress takes to act, the more damage could be done to US-EU trade relations," said Richard Weiner, a trade lawyer with Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood in Brussels. The duty might not be taken seriously at first by US exporters coasting on the weak US dollar, he said. "But if that flipped and the dollar reached parity, this would become a major issue."
GDI Scholars
5 Politics
GDI Scholars
6 Politics
Yes FSC
FSC will pass soon Main Wire, 7-16-04
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas said Thursday that Congress could conceivably pass a stripped down corporate tax bill in a short period of time, but added that the talks are more likely to drag on and not be concluded until September. At a breakfast speech to National Association of Manufacturing, Thomas said that passing the corporate tax bill that includes the FSC-ETI export subsidy is crucial given that the EU continues to ratchet up the sanctions it is imposing on a wide array of American products that are exported to Europe. Thomas said that it urgent "to get the sanctions off our back. Time is our absolute and mortal enemy," noting that Congress will soon take a six week summer recess and then return to a highly politicized climate for a brief session in September.
GDI Scholars
7 Politics
GDI Scholars
8 Politics
GDI Scholars
9 Politics
A compromise FSC bill will pass Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
Conferees could have their first meeting as early as this week on the corporate tax bill in the wake of the Senate's vote last week that ended a procedural logjam on the matter. And early assessments are that the outlook is good for the proposed $19.4 billion energy tax package in the Senate version of the bill, aimed at oil and gas, coal, nuclear, renewable energy companies and energy efficiency programs. The House version of the bill also included some energy provisions, but less extensively. The House version advances extenders for oil and gas and wind energy production tax credits, as well as nuclear import-related measures targeted at the industry's need for steam generators and reactor vessel heads for nuclear power plants. Lobbyists say they expect that something resembling the Senate version of the energy tax package will prevail, as it was a key element of passing the bill out of the chamber two months ago and the House already has given some ground on the energy tax package with its extenders.
FSC has strong support, but Democrats would like to block it Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
"The Democrats don't want to give President Bush a signing ceremony, that's what it's come to," said one lobbyist. Lobbyists are waiting for the House to name its conference committee members, expected early this week, as well as who will get the chairmanship -- either House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) or Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Indeed, the final push to get to conference on the corporate tax bill appears designed to show some congressional movement on the issue, considered a "must pass" piece of legislation in this final week of legislative activity before the six-week congressional summer recess. The Senate took procedural votes last week to incorporate the language of its corporate tax bill, S. 1637, into the House corporate tax bill, H.R. 4520, with one change: The Senate adopted a combination of the House's tobacco industry buyout language with provisions giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products. The combination appeared to win significant Senate support for the bill, though the tobacco regulation provision is likely to find just-as-significant opposition in the House. The corporate tax bill is considered must pass this year because it repeals the Foreign Services Corporation/Extraterritorial Income Act (FSC/ETI), a law the World Trade Organization declared illegal, leading European nations this spring to impose rising tariffs on U.S. goods. It has attracted a series of tax provisions considered essential to the various interests who would benefit, including energy industries. For these energy industries, the corporate tax package in its Senate iteration represents a significant portion the comprehensive energy bill that stalled on the Senate floor last fall. The $19.4 billion energy tax package targets oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewable and energy conservation programs. The most significant of those provisions is an expansion of the production tax credit for wind power to other renewable energy sources.
GDI Scholars
10 Politics
GDI Scholars
11 Politics
GDI Scholars
12 Politics
FSC action soon is key to save the economy Forbes, 3-25-04, http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2004/03/25/rtr1312140.html
Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress Thursday to quickly resolve the impasse over legislation that would allow the European Union to lift its costly tariffs on U.S. exports. The Senate became deadlocked this week on the corporate tax and trade bill when it became tangled in an unrelated legislative dispute over the administration's proposed rules on overtime pay. "I certainly would implore the Congress to act on it. It's awfully important to get that resolved so that these sanctions don't adversely affect our economy and our recovery," Snow said at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. U.S. manufacturers expect the tariffs imposed March 1 by the European Union will soon begin to hurt them.
GDI Scholars
13 Politics
EU Sanctions Bad
EU sanctions cause US company trade backlash EUpolitix, 3-1-04, http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200403/098220aa-65fa-45fe-998d-23c1506f7cc7.htm
Britain wants Brussels to tread carefully in its latest dispute with Washington over illegal tax breaks since it stands to lose the most in any Trans-Atlantic trade tussle. CBI an organisation representing British industry stressed that the 290 million sanctions imposed by the EU on a range of US products was extremely bad news for UK business, fearing retaliation as well as a weakening of US-UK trade relationship, worth 76bn annually. There wasnt much business support for this case being brought in the first place, said a CBI spokesman, and the UK is always going to come off worse due to our particularly strong relationship with the US. The phenomenon of tax and trade being put together is a worrying one, he added referring to the illegal tax breaks known as Foreign Sales Corporations at the heart of the dispute. Brussels had given Washington until March 1 to repeal the FSC legislation, but with the Congress and Senate dragging their feet in election year Brussels claimed it was left with no other choice than to impose the sanctions. UK trade minister Mike OBrien is reportedly putting pressure on Brussels to suspend the sanctions as soon as the US shows signs of pushing the necessary legislative changes through to repeal the FSCs. "I hope the European Union won't be unnecessarily pedantic if there is legislation that's going through at a reasonable rate," OBrien told The Independent. UNICE an umbrella group representing European business asked Brussels last month to consider softening their stance over imposing sanctions amid fears of a backlash from US companies.
GDI Scholars
14 Politics
No FSC
FSC is in committee differences still need to be resolved before it can pass Mondaq News Alerts, 7-19-04
SENATE MOVES TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON FSC/ETI BILL: Yesterday, the Senate passed the House FSC/ETI bill and appointed its conferees. The Senate also approved an amendment on tobacco that provides a federal buyout for tobacco farmers and requires FDA oversight of tobacco products. The House could appoint conferees on July 19 followed by a possible conference committee meeting on July 20. The issue of who will serve as chairman for the conference committee meetings still has to be determined. Significant differences in the House and Senate bills will have to be resolved once the conference committee meetings officially begin. Yesterday, in a speech, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) threatened to use a "surgical saw" on extraneous provisions unrelated to the corporate tax cuts and repealing the FSC/ETI, but did not specify which provisions he was referring to. Thomas said, "What we need is a very sharp saw." Thomas also commented on the short timeframe for completing the conference before the elections. Thomas said the negotiations could take "almost forever." Thomas added, "Imagine what happens if we can't get this and if we have to come back in January next year and start all over."
FSC will collapse under its own weight Energy Pulse, 7-6-04, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=772
The bottom line: Energy-efficiency tax breaks likely will be preserved in the resulting FSC/ETI bill, but so will many of the things that the Senate is unhappy with. Although Congress has a way of welding the good to the bad (however you might define them) the entire package could die of its own weight. That would leave everyone frustrated, fail to address the international trade crisis, and defer the conflict over energy-tax provisions to another day.
Democrats will block FSC for now Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
Lobbyists say they expect that something resembling the Senate version of the energy tax package will prevail, as it was a key element of passing the bill out of the chamber two months ago and the House already has given some ground on the energy tax package with its extenders. "I can't see how you can't have the energy taxes in this bill," one lobbyist said. But even as the bill is now officially in a conference committee, many observers do not expect to see final action on it until either shortly before Congress adjourns for the presidential election or during a lame-duck session at the end of November. "The Democrats don't want to give President Bush a signing ceremony, that's what it's come to," said one lobbyist.
GDI Scholars
15 Politics
GDI Scholars
16 Politics
GDI Scholars
17 Politics
Contextual evidence that the trade deficit outweighs Frank Wolf, United States Congressman, 3-19-04, http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-3-19/20505.html
Yet today, the United States buys more goods from China than it sells there a gap of $124 billion in 2003, an all-time high. By country, the U.S. trade gap with China is the largest, twice that with Japan, the next largest, and it makes up almost one-fourth of the total U.S. trade deficit. Putting that into perspective, in 1989, at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $6 billion. That deficit is a major reason the U.S. is losing its manufacturing base. Commerce Department data show that since December 1997, over 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated as imports replace domestic production. As the fast-rising trade deficit with China documents, many of those jobs have gone to China as U.S. firms have moved their factories there.
GDI Scholars
18 Politics
GDI Scholars
19 Politics
GDI Scholars
20 Politics
GDI Scholars
21 Politics
GDI Scholars
22 Politics
GDI Scholars
23 Politics
GDI Scholars
24 Politics
GDI Scholars
25 Politics
Deficits raise long-term interest rates and sap recovery Roll Call, April 8, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1629)
The consequence of the lost surplus, he argues, is a reversal of the conditions that led to prosperity in the 1990s - low long-term interest rates and a boom in business investment and productivity. Instead, despite the Federal Reserve Board's consistent lowering of short-term rates, Sperling contends, long-term rates have risen, inhibiting investment and probably contributing to a weak economic recovery.
GDI Scholars
26 Politics
Deficits impact capitals rates - arguments to the contrary are false Gene Sperling, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, FDCH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, February 14, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1633)
Therefore, the full reason that net national savings nearly doubled, as opposed to declining, was that the federal government went from dissavings and deficits of 4.7% of GDP to a surplus of 2.2% of GDP -- a swing of 6.9% of GDP. Between 1993 and 2000, the swing of 6.9% of GDP is the equivalent of making $680 billion additional capital available to private sector. To argue that deficits and debt are irrelevant to long-term interest rates, one would have to argue that an additional $680 billion in the supply of capital has no impact on the price of that capital - a highly dubious proposition.
GDI Scholars
27 Politics
Deficits cause long-term interest rates to rise The Atlanta Journal and Constitution February 24, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1635)
Critics of deficits warn that they push up long-term interest rates, forcing consumers and companies alike to pay a hidden tax every month on everything from office buildings to refrigerators. Deficits force taxpayers to spend billions of dollars on interest, money that could be used for other needs.
Low deficits have been vital to keeping long-term rates low Gene Sperling, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, FDCH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, February 14, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1636)
Some have tried to downplay the impact of deficits on interest rates by stating that interest rates did not drop in 1999 when surpluses were rising and have not skyrocketed this year when the surplus were plummeting. But such observations ignore the demand side of the supply and demand laws. We expect the price of capital to fall when there is low demand for capital in times of recession, and we expect such interest rates to rise when there is great demand for capital in boom times. The right issue, therefore, is whether fiscal policies have made interest rates higher or lower than they otherwise would have been in differing economic times. A Goldman Sachs analysis published on April 14, 2000 asked the right question in discussing how, given the high level of investment demand, interest rates would have been different under the scenario of large deficits. The Goldman Sachs analysis concluded that "According to the model the swing in federal budget position from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a surplus of $124 billion in 1999 - roughly matching the improvement in the general government position - has lowered equilibrium bond yields by a full 200 basis points." This estimated 200 basis points impact would save an owner of a $150,000 home as much as $3,000 a year in mortgage costs.
GDI Scholars
28 Politics
Bond investors are worried - rise in rates could harm the recovery Business Week Online, April 1, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1638)
Some worrying signs, however, indicate that the long-term rate rise could get out of hand. Just as they did in the early '90's, investors are beginning to fret about a pick-up in inflation. Some question the Fed's determination to control it by manipulating short-term rates. "There has been a big increase in inflation expectations," says Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at broker Miller Tabak & Co. In fact, real long-term rates are more than 4%, well above the average of 3.4% over the last decade. If the Fed can't assuage the market's nascent concerns about inflation, long-term rates could rise further, undercutting the stock market and stifling the economy in the process.
Rising long-term rates hurt the recovery CNN - FN, MONEY & MARKETS, April 1, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1639)
And obviously the worry, as you mentioned, that the Bush administration must have, and obviously the financial markets or equity markets now have, the higher long-term interest rates might abort this recovery, which is still, if we call it a recovery, in its very early stages. So the worry is, is the recovery won't continue.
Deficits raise long-term rates, which harms the economy Bloomberg News, April 17, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1640)
"We have to be very careful about going back into deficit spending, which is very easy to do," Greenspan said. "And the reason largely, obviously, is that the evidence does indicate that if you start to run substantial deficits you will begin to move long-term interest rates. And the effect of that on the economy is clearly not favorable."
GDI Scholars
29 Politics
High deficits could spark a cycle collapsing US economy and leadership The Hamilton Spectator, February 25, 2003; Pg. B04 (PDOCSS225)
The trade deficit too was an equal concern. Thus far the downward adjustment of the dollar has been relatively orderly but, in Mr Greenspan's words, "There are other scenarios in which there are disruptions.... How adjustments will occur is unclear. That it will occur is inevitable." His comments, especially about those about the desirability of the tax cuts so infuriated the White House that leaks emerged of how a displeased President may not renominate Mr Greenspan for a further two years when his current term expires in 2004. But pique does not banish the nightmare -- that foreign investors, who have poured in hundreds of billions of dollars in the belief the U.S. economy offers the best returns, are no longer willing to fund the deficit, at least at the current exchange rate. At that point a vicious circle could set in, as investors became ever more wary of holding dollar debt as the currency declined. The enormous strategic advantage of the dollar's role as reserve currency would be eroded. And so the U.S. might face the sort of humiliating crisis suffered by the Thailands, Indonesias and Argentinas of this world: a flight of short-term capital and collapse of the currency. Would the U.S. favour the "benign neglect" of old, letting the dollar fall and in the process dealing a heavy blow to recovery prospects elsewhere? Or would the Fed feel obliged to act, raising interest rates and delivering the coup de grace to a faltering Wall Street? And a final point is worth remembering. When it was the superpower in the late 19th century, Britain was also the world's largest creditor. The U.S. is the world's largest debtor. One day, even the all-dominant U.S. may be forced to choose between guns and butter.
GDI Scholars
30 Politics
Tax cuts extensions will cost billions Washington Post, 7/20/04 (Jonathan Weisman, Bush Pushes Congress To Extend Tax Cuts,
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2004/07/20/nation_world/news01.txt, accessed 7/20/04) "Our intent is to have middle-class tax relief passed," said House Ways and Means Committee spokeswoman Christin Tinsworth. But the scope of the package is in dispute. House GOP leaders and the White House want a five-year extension of the three middle-class tax cuts, with a one-year AMT fix, a package that would cost the Treasury up to $130 billion. Some House Republicans are pushing for an expanded child credit that would extend eligibility for the credit to families with incomes as high as $309,000. Currently, the full credit is available to families with incomes up to $110,000. Grassley aides called that "an overreach" that could sink the whole package, though administration officials expressed confidence that expanding the child credit to higher-income families "would not be an issue" in the end. The desire to trim expectations was underscored Monday, when Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Max Baucus, D-Mont., John McCain, R-Ariz., Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and John Breaux, DLa., endorsed a far more modest approach. Citing a budget deficit that will top $400 billion this year, the senators proposed a one-year extension of the middle-class cuts, with the $30 billion cost fully offset by closing tax shelters and raising customs fees.
GDI Scholars
31 Politics
GDI Scholars
32 Politics
GDI Scholars
33 Politics
GDI Scholars
34 Politics
Bush tax cuts force decisions between cutting services and increasing taxes. Krugman 04 (Paul Krugman, New York Times, Were the Bush tax cuts good for the economy? YES/NO, New
York Times Upfront, March 8 2004, p.28) NO Nobody likes paying taxes, but most Americans care a lot about the things taxes pay for. As a result of the tax cuts of the last three years, there is now a fundamental mismatch between the benefits Americans expect from the government and the revenues government collects. This is already having profound effects at the state and local levels: Teachers and policemen are being laid off. The federal government can mask its problems for a while by running huge budget deficits. But eventually, it will have to decide whether to cut services or raise taxes. And we are not talking about minor policy adjustments. If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained. Social security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor. Though most Americans feel that they pay too much in taxes, they get off quite lightly compared with the citizens of other advanced countries. Furthermore, most middle-income Americans haven't seen a significant tax increase since 1989. The wealthy, meanwhile, have had their taxes cut to the lowest levels since the 1930s. The question isn't whether the tax cuts were better for the economy than nothing; they probably were. The right question is whether some other economic-stimulus plan could have achieved better results at a lower budget cost. And it is hard to deny that, on a jobs-per-dollar basis, the Bush tax cuts have been extremely ineffective.
GDI Scholars
35 Politics
No CAFTA
Bush wont push for CAFTA because hes too weak to take on the sugar industry Australian, 7-17-04
Australia, for example, didn't get the extra sugar quota into the highly priced US market that the Central American nations got under the CAFTA - but that deal has yet to make it to Congress, although it was negotiated before Australia's. The reason is, the sugar lobby is so widespread and powerful that members of Congress and Bush weren't prepared to take them on, especially in an election year.
Bush cant get the votes for CAFTA Boston Globe, 7-6-04
Democratic lawmakers now say they are determined to deny the Bush White House the votes it needs to pass the trade agreement. A majority of the vote in both the House and the Senate is all that is needed to pass the agreement, which is expected to go before Congress for ratification after the November election. "The political environment has made it more difficult to put together a bipartisan majority for CAFTA and a number of free trade agreements," said Representative Calvin Dooley, Democrat of California, one of the minority of Democrats who support the agreement.
Opposition from Democrats is preventing the passage of CAFTA VOA News, 7/14/04, http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=9EEE9498-789F-4544BE073ED0C181AED4 Officials of the Bush administration say they are making progress on the administration's trade agenda, having achieved approval of accords with Singapore and Chile last year, and started negotiating agreements with a range of countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East. However, efforts to achieve easy congressional approval of a Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) are not doing as well, as Democrats, with support from major labor unions, press for tougher labor and environmental provisions. Trade agreements and their impact on employment in the United States, are an issue in this U.S. election year. Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic party nominee for President, opposes the Central American pact, and says he would review existing trade deals if he is elected.
GDI Scholars
36 Politics
GDI Scholars
37 Politics
GDI Scholars
38 Politics
No CAFTA delay
Bush wont push CAFTA until after the election, it would fail anyway if pushed now United Press International, 7/13/04
Prospects for the agreement remain uncertain. It appears less vital for the United States than for the other countries, which exported almost $17 billion in goods and services to the United States in 2003, but it aims to expand freetrade opportunities in the Western Hemisphere, in the light of other trade agreements currently negotiated with Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Panama. The Bush Administration has announced that it would not submit the treaty to Congress for a vote before the presidential election. The outcome of the election could also influence the ratification of CAFTA, as presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., has said that he would review the agreement if he wins the election. All other signatories also need to ratify CAFTA separately. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said that if the agreement were submitted to Congress, "it would be defeated." Levin added that Democrats were not opposed to CAFTA, but that they want core labor rights to be included in the treaty.
GDI Scholars
39 Politics
GDI Scholars
40 Politics
GDI Scholars
41 Politics
GDI Scholars
42 Politics
GDI Scholars
43 Politics
GDI Scholars
44 Politics
GDI Scholars
45 Politics
GDI Scholars
46 Politics
AFTA passed
AFTA has already been passed PR Newswire, 7/15/04 (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/0715-2004/0002211572&EDATE=, accessed 7/17/04) Harold McGraw III, Chairman of Business Roundtable's International Trade and Investment Task Force and Chairman, President and CEO of The McGraw-Hill Companies, today praised the Senate for approving a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with Australia. "By approving the Australia free trade agreement, the Senate has sent a strong bipartisan message that it is committed to new opportunities for American companies and workers and to the advancement of a forwardlooking U.S. trade policy that will help keep other trade negotiations on track.
GDI Scholars
47 Politics
No space
NASA just got its budget cut again there isnt enough money for the vision Reuters, 6/20/04
The bill, approved in the subcommittee by a voice vote, cuts National Aeronautics and Space Administration funding by $229 million compared to the 2004 budget. It falls $1.1 billion short of the amount requested by Bush. The president earlier this year declared a long-term plan to return humans to the moon and on to Mars but has since said little about this idea. The subcommittee left intact the requested $4.3 billion for the space shuttle program. New programs such as Project Prometheus, NASA's plan to develop nuclear power for spacecraft to help explore the solar system, bore the brunt of the cuts. "We simply could not afford to fund the vision," said the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Walsh, a New York Republican.
GDI Scholars
48 Politics
GDI Scholars
49 Politics
GDI Scholars
50 Politics
Bush will push Social Security privatization if he wins Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
Bush threw his support behind private investment accounts during the 2000 campaign, as a way to give workers more control over their money, then sidetracked Social Security in favor of revamping Medicare. But if voters return Bush to the White House, conservatives say, they have been told the president's top domestic priority will be Social Security, the New Deal creation that paid $471 billion in benefits last year, making it the nation's largest domestic program. "I think the prospect of Social Security being an agenda item in a second Bush administration is a certainty," said Derrick Max, executive director of the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, one of several conservative coalitions working to promote private investment accounts.
Bush will push for Social Security privatization Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
Bush campaign adviser James C. Capretta confirmed those expectations. "The president has made it very clear that he is willing and eager to show the leadership that is necessary to move the (Social Security) program to a much more solvent and secure program," said Capretta, a former White House budget official who worked on Social Security issues. "The president believes personal accounts are central to that." Bush has not embraced a specific plan for creating private accounts, but conservatives say he will support their idea of carving the accounts out of the existing 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax. Proposals call for setting aside up to half of the payroll tax to establish the accounts.
GDI Scholars
51 Politics
GDI Scholars
52 Politics
GDI Scholars
53 Politics
GDI Scholars
54 Politics
B. If Libertarians are pissed at Bush theyll nominate their own candidate causing him to lose. Ennis, 2002 (Patrick, 3/30, Democratic Underground,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/03/30_help.html ) It is possible that significant elements of the GOP may turn against the president in '04, as happened to his father in '92, with Democrats lifting nary a finger, except perhaps to call attention to the reasons Bush has already given them to do so. This includes, among others, both
libertarians and far-right extremists, who can and likely will field their own presidential candidates.
The reason such candidates failed to draw voters away from the GOP base in the last two presidential elections is obvious: They had no chance whatsoever of winning, and a vote for them would have been a vote for the Democratic candidate, the worst possible option in their eyes. But then, that was true in 1992 also, and Ross Perot still managed 19% of the vote nationwide. This total included many libertarians incensed over Poppy Bush's broken "Read My Lips" pledge on new taxes. So, Democrats have a vested interest in making certain elements of the Republican base who aren't particulary Republican, unhappy with Republicans and the president.
conservatives spring readily to mind, as both are numerous within the GOP and both tend to be well organized politically. It is not even necessary to make these erstwhile Republicans enamored of their own third-party candidates - say, Harry Browne (again) for the Libertarians and Gary Bauer or Pat Buchanan (again) for the Christian Right -
it is only necessary to give them sufficient reason to turn on their Republican incumbent. An anti-Bush vote would be as almost as good as a pro-Gore (or Kerry or Edwards, etc.) vote. And they are not necessarily pragmatists, you know.
Consider the way conservative Republicans in California rejected moderate Republican Gubernatorial candidate Dick Riordan, despite his overt support from the White House, in favor of right-wing ideologue Bill Simon, who has little chance to unseat Democrat Gray Davis in such a liberal state. So what may make Christian conservatives stand on principle and turn against Bush in 2004? Barely a year into the reign of George II, there is already his failure to deliver on his promise of private school vouchers as part of his education reform package, his promise of an "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives" which has not gotten off the ground, and the open courting of the Hispanic vote, which parallels the overt and unabashed "pandering" to the African-American community for which conservatives have been haranguing Democrats for years. Toward that end, the GOP is encouraging party leaders who are not already bilingual to take Spanish lessons - rather inconsistent for the party that brought us "official English" and "English only" education. But what is much worse, in the eyes of the Christian Right, is the GOP's much more low-key solicitation of - dare I say it aloud? - the gay community. Gasp! Sinners! Abominations before God! I did mention that this pandering is low-key, didn't I? Good. No surprise there. The question: How to publicise the fact. Then there
are those maddeningly elusive independent libertarians. Wrapped in a flag, holding a rifle and a copy of the U.S. constitution, and quoting Thomas Jefferson, libertarians espouse both the left and right of the
political spectrum, pledging allegiance to the whole of the constitution - or at least to their interpretation of it - libertarians are widely credited with costing Al Gore both his home state of Tennessee and his former boss's state of Arkansas in 2000, primarily because of a perceived hostility to the 2nd Amendment. Is there anything about the Bush administration so far (remember, we have a good two and a half years yet to go) to start these Friends of Franklin thinking of revolt? Of course! We can start with the ironically named "Patriot Act," which curtails civil liberties, the very raison d'etre of civil libertarians. Then there is the president's decision to impose tariffs on imported steel, a move that, while popular with blue collar labor unions, is seen as a slap in the face for free trade and a betrayal of general principle for the sake of political expediency. And let's not forget Bush's freshly inked signature on the hated Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which had the NRA and other libertarian as well as conservative groups scrambilng for the courts to challenge its constitutionality before the day was even out. The likelihood of luring the
If Democrats can just get them to vote for somebody - anybody! - other than Bush, they'll likely win a plurality in a 4-5 way race. Just as Nader in 2000 pulled votes from the left, Buchanan or Browne (or whoever represents their factions) in 2004 will pull votes from the right.
Christian Right and the civil libertarians into the Democratic fold is practically nil. But that is not necessary. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
GDI Scholars
55 Politics
B. Jewish people hate the UN because of anti-Israli tendencies Salvato, 2004 (Frank, a political media specialist, Jews In The United States: Whose Side Are They On?, April
20th, http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/fsalvato/2004/fs_0420.shtml) Conversely, while John Kerry contends that he stands in alliance with Israel, he supports using the United Nations to bring about peace, not only in the Middle East but to the Israeli and Palestinian people as well. On the surface it sounds as though Mr. Kerry stands committed to Israel but that would be a flawed assumption to say the least. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the Israeli government for their retaliation against acts of terrorism sponsored by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that sit at the negotiating table by proxy every time the Palestinian Authority takes its seat. Yet they expect the Israelis to negotiate in good faith with the very people that send young, brainwashed children to commit acts of terrorism against innocent Israelis through the employment of suicide bombings. The United Nations may have spoken out against the use of terrorism but they refuse to acknowledge the fact the Palestinian Authority, who they recognize as a member in good standing of the world community, counts terrorist organizations among their "legitimate government." To say the least, a level playing field for the Israelis does not exist within the walls of the United Nations.
C. Jewish people are key to the election changing positions will affect their vote Helmreich, 2001 (Jeff, writer for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, April 6th, written for the Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs, Forward, Jewish Voters still in the Swing of Things, www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.04.06/oped1.html, Some people, no doubt, are wondering when these factors will add up to the death knell of Jewish political power in this country. The answer: no time soon, and probably never. The truth is that the doomsayers (Mr. Lefkowitz et al.) have had it wrong all along. The available evidence on Jewish voting patterns, when examined closely, shows that the Jewish community is in fact an extremely potent political force in the United States and will likely be so for years to come. But its power does not depend on the size or party loyalties of the American Jewish population, nor does it derive from the mythical Jewish money and media machines. One true source of Jewish clout is, nevertheless, easy to spot: Jews are strategically located in the places that make the most difference on Election Day. Remember those TV ads for George W. Bush and Al Gore? Probably not, if you're from New York or Maryland. These states are a lost cause to the Republicans and a sure thing for the Democrats; therefore, they are not worth the cost of campaigning. But the so-called swing states Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and, as the Republicans saw it, California are the ones both parties seek to sway, because their voters historically
GDI Scholars
56 Politics
GDI Scholars
57 Politics
Jews effect the election monumentally due to geographical location Arab News, 2004 (May 1 ,
st
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/May/1%20o/US%20Elections%20and%20the%201%20Percent%20Solution %20Michael%20Saba,%20Arab%20News.htm)
Jews constitute only about two percent of the American population, but they tend to have a much stronger political role in American politics than their raw numbers indicate. Jews are concentrated in important political battleground states such as Florida and Ohio. They are known for their large turnout in elections as much as 80 percent as compared to around 50 percent for the national average of all American voters.
GDI Scholars
58 Politics
Bush needs conservative support to win the election Tom DeWeese February 8, 2004, NewsWithViews.com
A President and a Party get elected and reelected based as much on what they are for as what they are against. A lot of Republicans and independents who lean in their direction are against Big Government and Big Spending. Since 2000 that is all the Bush administration has given them and many are in a state of insurrection, desperately trying to get the White House to understand this is not what they voted for. Does the White House need to be reminded how narrow their last victory was? Do they need to be reminded that they are in office only because the Supreme Court gave them an Electoral College victory, not a victory by the popular vote?
Bush needs to assert himself as a hardcore conservative by denying UN action Tom DeWeese February 8, 2004, NewsWithViews.com
In a nation that remains sharply divided, the Republican Party and the White House, however, have abandoned the very principles that drew people increasingly to its ranks. Half or more of all Americans no longer even bother to vote and, if disaffected Republicans and Independents stay home on Election Day in November, George W. Bush will become, as his father before him, a one-term President. Are there differences between the Republican and Democrat Parties? Yes, but the line has been so blurred by the policies and actions of the White House, a rising tide of distress is being expressed from within the Party and may well be reflected in a new administration in January 2005, one that will win because too many are asking, Is Bush listening? Is Bush a conservative?
GDI Scholars
59 Politics
If his base stays home, it will hurt Bushs chances IPS, 7/7/04 (Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service News Agency, Cheney in the balance,
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=24533, accessed 7/17/04) Although the neo-conservatives have seen their influence steadily decline since late last year, Cheney's absence in a second Bush term would make it far more difficult for them to stage a comeback. Indeed, this was precisely the motive behind a discreet effort launched late last year by some cronies of former president - the current leader's father -- George HW Bush (1989-93) including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, to persuade the younger Bush to dump Cheney. But given his failure so far to fire anyone responsible for the post-war debacle in Iraq, most analysts believe the president will not force Cheney off the ticket, particularly because it would risk alienating much of his core constituency, especially the Christian Right and aggressive nationalists. If even small numbers of these groups stay home on Election Day, Nov. 2, Bush's chances of winning re-election would be significantly eroded.
GDI Scholars
60 Politics
GDI Scholars
61 Politics
Money is the lifeblood of politics, and increasingly, it defines and dominates campaigns. It gives rich candidates an instant edge. It makes politicians prisoners of the coffee-andcocktail fund-raising circuit - time that could be used to do the work of government, or to engage voters who are not wielding checkbooks. It fuels the constant barrage of costly TV ads that have become a staple of elections in an era where a 30-second commercial can define a life. Critics complain the frantic scramble for money is corrosive and has turned elections into a carnival of slick consultants, pollsters and sound bites. They say well-heeled contributors spread around enormous wads of cash in return for favors, corrupting the system. But defenders say money is used to inform voters and dollars collected from grass-roots fund-raising - including the Internet - give Americans more of a say in deciding who will govern. Either way, money talks in politics and it's louder than ever. "The amount of money that it takes to run a presidential campaign is just absolutely mind-blowing," says Joe Scarborough, a former Florida congressman-turned-MSNBC talk show host. "It can't be healthy for this republic that you've got to raise $200 million to have a shot."
Many of President Bush's supporters think he could raise $200 million in his re-election bid; Democratic challenger John Kerry hopes to reach about $105 million by summer. And that doesn't include the $74.6 million each candidate will receive in public financing for the fall race. But not everyone laments the high cost of campaigns
GDI Scholars
62 Politics
Bush space
A second term for Bush is key to Space plan and Space exploration Washington Post, 2004 (Mike Allen and Eric Pianin, Republican officials said conservative lawmakers who
might balk at the cost are likely to be lured by the chance to extend the U.S. military supremacy in space, January 15, 2004, www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1027.aspx) President Bush vowed yesterday to "extend a human presence across our solar system," starting with a return to the moon within 16 years to build a permanent staging ground for manned missions to Mars and planets beyond. The election-year plan calls for retiring the three remaining space shuttles by 2010, after the international space station is complete. Bush wants to develop a manned exploration vehicle to travel to the moon and farther, and he made a commitment that Americans would return to the moon between 2015 and 2020. In a concession to objections in Congress and elsewhere that such an audacious goal is out of place in an era of deep deficits, Bush said the research and development for the exploration venture can be done for relatively little over the course of this presidential term and the next one - $12 billion over five years, just $1 billion of which would be new money for NASA. Bush's plan would gradually shift more and more of the space agency's budget and resources to the lunar and Mars missions and away from the space shuttle and space station. The Pentagon and private companies will collaborate with NASA on the venture. Bush invited other countries to join, and officials said Russia has already expressed interest. "We may discover resources on the moon or Mars that will boggle the imagination, that will test our limits to dream," Bush said. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: Human beings are headed into the cosmos."
Bush re-election gets us off the rock Newsday, 2003 (December 9, p. Lexis)
Now word emerges from the White House that the president's men contemplate a grand return to space - to the moon, no less - if Bush wins a second term. The news excites the imagination, if only because we need some project to relieve the melancholy. Among scientists, there is no agreement that moon exploration is the next important undertaking in space. The argument, if it indeed becomes seriously engaged, is not likely to be settled through the collective effort of the best and the brightest but by a contest among lobbyists for big defense contractors. That is how things are decided these days. It is commonplace for presidents to seek higher ground when seeking re-election. But if Bush takes such a giant leap, he also must be required to take one small step: Tell us how he would pay for his big ideas. And who would do the paying. When it is not conjuring up some expansive vision for the future to win voters' hearts, the Bush administration is concocting more tax-cut schemes and sending the bill to future generations. That is, to people who won't yet be eligible to vote next year.
GDI Scholars
63 Politics
Bush space
Kerry would stop Bushs space plan if elected Sietzen, 2004 (UPI, Frank Sietzen, Space Daily Washington, April 22, 2004 United Press International. www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04p.html)
Meanwhile, the administration is moving along another track to bolster the new space plan. The White House has endorsed language in a proposed NASA reauthorization bill that essentially takes the goals embodied in the new space plan and defines them as the central purpose for NASA's existence. Should the reauthorization bill pass this year, it would formalize all of the advanced human spaceflight goals that Bush is seeking to pay for with his budget. That way, even if the full budget request fails to pass, having the supporting language written into law might create an easier starting point for the FY 2006 budget debate. The move would create a political backstop in case Bush fails to win reelection and Sen. John F.
Kerry, D-Mass., is elected instead. Kerry has been critical of the Bush space plan and might even attempt to cancel it, in whole or in part, if he assumes the presidency next year. However, if this year's authorization is approved and if it contains
language supporting a moon-Mars goal, Kerry would have a tough time trying to adjust NASA's charter to accommodate lesser objectives. Others have suggested that, ultimately, the distinction would not matter. They note that Kerry would not be
obligated to continue Bush space policies, no matter what language is contained in NASA's reauthorization. Moreover, without funding, the point would be moot.
Bush requires a second term to keep the space plan alive The Mars Society, January 24, 2004
For various political and diplomatic reasons, the Bush policy delays the phase out of the Shuttle and ISS until 2010, thereby delaying substantial human exploration program start until about that time. Thus the choice on whether or not to really start a Moon or Mars human exploration program, and what its pace or objectives should be, is effectively being placed in the hands of the 2009 administration. The merit of this decision is debatable. A key point however, is that the 2009 administration will have a choice. By making clear that the fundamental purpose of the human spaceflight program is to allow humans to FLY ACROSS SPACE (the Apollo era vision) to explore other worlds, rather than to allow humans to EXPERIENCE SPACE (the Shuttle era vision), the Bush policy (should it be sustained by either his reelection or the concurrence on this issue of an alternative 2005 administration) effectively precludes the commitment of NASA to a second generation Shuttle ("Shuttle 2") as its next major program.
GDI Scholars
64 Politics
Bush space
Kerry election is the only way for Space Privatization, which is key to space exploration Bloomberg News, 2004 (June 22nd, http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039 &refer=columnist_ferguson&sid=aEyz6I6oiDts)
And all of this could be achieved, Bush claimed, by reshuffling NASA's existing budget, augmented by modest increases of 5 percent a year through 2008. The apparent inconsistency between Bush's rhetoric and the reality of his budget proposals has drawn criticism from Democratic challenger John Kerry. This in turn raises hope, especially among space enthusiasts, that space may yet be an issue in this November's presidential campaign. ``There's little to be gained from a `Bush space initiative' that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic funding,'' Kerry last week told the weekly business publication Space News. Here is where the commission's work may prove unexpectedly clarifying. Its report concludes that Bush's modest budget proposals for NASA could support his ambitious goals -- but only if the agency were radically reformed and its mission sharply redefined. Privatizing Space ``Root-and-branch change must be fully internalized throughout NASA,'' the report said. Specifically, the commission proposes privatizing huge chunks of the agency's mission, handing them over to an as-yet nonexistent private space industry. NASA's work would be limited to the far-reaching tasks that no venture capitalist would dare underwrite: remote exploratory missions, for example, whether manned or robotic. ``The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the (government's space) vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey,'' the report said. Not surprisingly, the report was warmly embraced by space enthusiasts. `Critical Shift' ``This is a critical shift, said George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society, a grassroots group that lobbies for space exploration. ``It keeps NASA at the forefront of exploration, where it should be.'' And it gets NASA out of the way of private companies, which see a commercial future in space. The Bush administration embraced the commission's privatization plan last week, as well. Kerry, in comments to Space News, declined to go that far. He said only that a Kerry administration would pursue ``continued investment in a reinvigorated NASA.'' As the commission points out, the creation of a private space industry would require reorienting the government's role in regulating private space endeavors, and here again the differences between Bush and Kerry should be more widely aired. Last March, with White House encouragement and the approval of the Republican leadership, the House of Representatives passed a bill streamlining federal regulation of private space flight. Among its features were a simplified process for licensing experimental manned flights and a relaxation of liability rules for entrepreneurs who conduct them. The bill isn't popular with trial attorneys, a key Kerry constituency, and for now it remains stuck in the Senate. But like the commission report, the House bill can have a clarifying effect. It forces the space debate beyond romantic talk about the ``final frontier, on the one hand, and extravagant, ``Swiss Army knife'' claims about public policy implications on the other. What's NASA's future? Will the U.S. have a private space industry, and if so, how will it be developed? Those are the kinds of questions voters should ask, and presidential candidates should answer.
GDI Scholars
65 Politics
Bush wont be able to pass the plan after being elected TCU Daily Skiff, 2004 (January 28, www.skiff.tcu.edu/2004/spring/issues/01/28/mars.html)
The Bush space plan a better name would be the Bush re-election plan is another classic Karl Rove bait and switch. The president promises us the moon literally while saddling the next president with the costs of such a lofty mission. Bush proposes shifting $11 billion in NASAs five-year budget and adding another $1 billion in new funding as a down payment for the mission. The plan is sure to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Papa Bush proposed a Mars mission in 1989, which crashed and burned in Congress after cost estimates hit $400 billion, or $600 billion in todays dollars.
GDI Scholars
66 Politics
Continued
GDI Scholars
67 Politics
Space is key to prevent extinction [gender modified] James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagans opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagans vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.
GDI Scholars
68 Politics
Space good
10 to the 32 power lives perish every second we delay Space Exploration Bostrum, 2003, Professor of Philosophy at Yale, Is Cosmology Relevant to Transhumanism
Suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms; unused energy is being flushed down black holes; our great common endowment of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale, as I write these words. These are resources that an advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentinent beings living worthwhile lives. The rate of this loss boggles the mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential humans lives in our own galactic super cluster is at least 10^46 per century of delayed colonization (Cirkovic 2002 ). This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been used for productive purposes, although no currently known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that. Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this radically un-conservative assumption is undesirable. THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local super cluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second
nd
GDI Scholars
69 Politics
GDI Scholars
70 Politics
GDI Scholars
71 Politics
Space Bad
Going to space causes extinction, intergalactic environmental exploitation, epidemics and war Bruce K. Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, 1999,
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/ We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations.
Going to space results in asteroid-slinging terrorists that destroy the world Clifford E. Singer, professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Spring 2001, Swords and
Ploughshares, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/homepage_docs/pubs_docs/S&P_docs/S&P_XIII/Singer.htm However the technology to build isolated extraterrestrial settlements naturally brings along with it another potentially powerful technologythe ability to move sizeable asteroids. Back in 1979 it was shown that this is not as difficult as one might at first think. The requisite technique is to land a spacecraft on one asteroid, dig up material and throw it the path of another asteroid that will approach nearby, and perturb the orbit of that asteroid until it passes nearby another large object. Once an asteroid or comet makes a controlled approach near any planet but Mercury or Pluto, then it can easily be directed near or at the earth at enormous velocity. Fortunately for our hypothetical descendants here destroying all human life on earth by asteroid impact would likely require moving objects with a diameter in excess of ten kilometers. While there are many of these, the required orbit perturbation would require a lot of lead-time and work and could be very difficult to motivate and conceal. Nevertheless with contributions from this technology a dispute between the earth and a handful of its fragile far-flung offspring in space that is carried to the extreme could conceivably lead to human extinction. Only when settlements in space are sufficiently numerous or far flung would such a possibility effectively be ruled out, primarily by physical considerations.
Space flight destroys the ozone layer Helen Caldicott, April 15, 2000, http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/
But in reality NASA is busily destroying the ozone layer. Because each space shuttle releases 240 tons of concentrated HCl, hydrochloric acid, much of it in the stratosphere where the ozone layer is located. The chlorine atom then splits off from the HCL molecule and starts eating up the ozone layer. It was predicted a few years ago by a Russian scientist that if the space program continued as planned (though it's actually expanding), ten percent of the ozone would be depleted within ten years. NASA didn't contradict this prediction. I broke this story in the US, and instead of NASA trying to fix the problem they launched a satellite to measure the ozone depletion and the ozone holes in the southern hemisphere, and radioed back the results to high schools here, so the children could all do projects on the ozone depletion. That's called management control in PR language..
GDI Scholars
72 Politics
Space Bad
Ozone destruction causes extinction Anna Goodwin et al, students at the University of Bristol, 2001,
http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp.htm The Permian-Triassic boundary extinction was the largest extinction the world has ever experienced. About 90 percent of all species vanished in this mass extinction 250 million years ago. Approximately 85% of all marine species and 70% of all terrestrial species went extinct in less than one million years. By studying the species which became extinct at this time, the rate at which they became extinct, and the regions of the Earth in which the greatest extinction occurred, hypotheses about possible methods for the cause of extinction have been devised. There are many theories which have been developed to understand this historic mass extinction. One theory is the formation of a super-continent which caused a reduction of shallow continental shelves. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangaea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian Impact from an extraterrestrial object is a common theory for the explanation of this extinction. The collision wasn't directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean oxygen, sea level and climate. Those in turn led to species extinction on a wholesale level. The collision would either weaken or kill much of the life that thrived during this time. Dust clouds and CO2 in the atmosphere would have caused major climate changes for the species and make it unsuitable for them to thrive. Evidence of increased levels of atmospheric levels of CO2 exists in the fossil record. Glaciation is also a viable theory. Simultaneous glaciation events on the north and south poles could have caused rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred. Another theory is volcanism. Basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred. Other than changes in atmospheric carbon, no other evidence exists for this theory. Scientists are working to precisely date volcanic ash from Permian fossil reefs in Texas and China. This will provide a kind of timeline for the extinction to build a global database of extinction for the Permian Age, which species died, where they died and when they died. This too will help him determine the timing of the extinction in more detail and highlight gaps in the fossil record that may be distorting palaeontologists' understanding of when various organisms went extinct and how rapidly they did so. Lastly, a new theory has been proposed- the Supernova explosion. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for several years. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destructionlarge amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus global and atmospheric cooling. With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer, these problems could cause widespread destruction of life.
GDI Scholars
73 Politics
Space Bad
Space exploration risks extra-terrestrial pandemics Helen Caldicott, April 15, 2000, http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/
I digressed. Well, NASA and the relevant corporations plan bring this 300 grams of space minerals back to earth, but they are not going to use a parachute, they're going to slam it into Utah at 300 to 400 G-force. Which will break the container apart. Now why is this a problem? Oh, I forgot, they have to put two nuclear power plants up on Mars, by the year 2007, so they can provide power for the human colony, keep it operating, turn the urine into water, do all that stuff, keep the men warm, and to provide power I suppose to the robots that will travel around picking up the dirt. It is predicted that humans will be present on Mars by the year 2016. But there is a problem, it is believed that there could be bacteria on Mars. Now, you know about the Ebola virus. Everyone is scared by Ebola viruses well as HIV and many other dangerous viruses. Scientists predict that there could be a massive epidemic of some uncontrollably dangerous virus in the future. It's quite interesting, though, when you look at history, in the early to mid-1300s, one quarter of the European population died as the result of a flea from China that carried the plague. When the Spaniards began to explore the Americas, they brought with them the smallpox virus, that killed tens of thousands of people. European explorers to Polynesian Hawaii in the 1500s, infected the natives with microbes. We killed a large number of Aborigines from just the common cold and flu in Australia. So if 300 grams of Martian soil slams into the desert on earth and bursts apart, there is a possibility that the earth could be infected, and the microbes could spread. The scientists will not have microscopes, labs and gram-positive stains to search for Martian bacteria, before they return. And what about our bacteria infecting Mars? And guess what they'll do? They'll stick an American flag on Mars. So that's probably all I have to say, except that-in the March issue of the Scientific American which I stole from my son under great protest-there is a huge section describing how men will get to Mars. By God, are they pushing it. So we've got a huge amount of work to do. And I think anger is totally appropriate, because I always mentally refer to Germany. The only way evil flourishes is for good people to do nothing. And I don't mean being polite. Go and lobbying your representatives and really tell them the truth, don't take no for an answer. Be nasty to them if necessary. Take a baby into your senator's office and change the diaper on the table, and say, "I am talking about this baby's future". Do whatever it takes to penetrate their psychic numbing.
The terminal impact is human extinction Frank Ryan, M.D., 1997, virus X, p. 366
How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally intrusive species, with its transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent regions where the virus is most likely to first emerge a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water supplies and hospitality to biting insects' The virus is best seen, in John Hollands excellent analogy, as a swarm of competing mutations, with each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in the new ecological habitat.3 With such a promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must eventually come to dominate viral behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a coevolution takes rather longer in "human" time too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. A rapidly lethal and quickly spreading virus simply would not have time to switch from aggression to coevolution. And there lies the danger. Joshua Lederbergs prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical one. Pandemics are inevitable. Our incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the advances of our complex industrial society, all have moved the natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change, has greatly augmented the potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison, scientific director of Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: "Will we survive! We have invaded every biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day when no life exists on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An increasing multitude of disturbed viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This is a dangerous situation. And we have seen in the previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the most frightening question of all: could such a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?
GDI Scholars
74 Politics
Kerry Kyoto
Bush keeps the US out of Kyoto Lamb, 2001 (Henry, the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman
of Sovereignty International. Copywrite 2001 WorldNet.Com, www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23830) The recent negotiations in Bonn, Germany, have breathed a semblance of life into the monstrosity still-born in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. Fortunately, President Bush understands the dangers inherent in the monster and has chosen to keep the United States out of its grasp for now. You can be sure that had the election gone the other way last November, the U.S. would be caught in the clutches of this maniacal global monster.
Kerry would take us back to Kyoto Kuwait Times, March 4th, 2004
More striking are his differences with the Bush administratioin over the environment, with the White House pulling the United Strates out of the Kyoto protocol on global warming. "We will return America to its rightful role as a leader in the global battle against climate change, poverty and the spread of disease," says Kerry, who became known as an environmental champion in the Senate.
Its Bushs fault we arent in Kyoto National Journal, April 3, 2004 (p. Lexis)
Bush's environmental record has been defined by his most controversial actions. Key examples are his decisions not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and to withdraw from the Kyoto global-warming treaty aimed at controlling worldwide emissions of such greenhouse gases. Analysts across the political spectrum describe those acts as among Bush's most important environmental decisions, though they disagree on how voters should interpret them. Environmentalists charge that Bush abdicated his responsibility to lead the world on environmental policy. "The climate-change issue is the single most urgent environmental issue of our generation," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, one of the most moderate national environmental groups. "The rest of the industrialized world is moving forward with real [greenhouse-gas] reductions," Krupp said. "But, to date, this administration has taken no constructive actions on addressing climate change."
Democratic president ensures that we would ratify Kyoto Lamb, 2004 (Henry, the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman
of Sovereignty International, Republicans: Dont give up on W now!, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36863, January 31, 2004) A return to progressive Democrat leadership in the United States is a return to the Kyoto Protocol and U.N. control over energy use in the United States. It is a return to subservience to the United Nations as Howard Dean says, to get "permission" from the U.N. before defending our nation. It is a return to total government control over land use, education and every other facet of life.
Kerry win would bring the US into ratification Agence France Presse, April 14th, 2004
"We call on the Duma to take an important step by ratifying the Kyoto protocol," he said, noting that Russia's ratification was currently essential if the agreement is to come into force. "Once again, our country is lagging behind the world community," Panfilov said. The Kyoto treaty, aimed at reducing the emissions which cause global warming of the atmosphere, needs to be ratified by either the United States or Russia if it is to come into force. The US administration of President George W. Bush has refused to ratify it, although John Kerry, the presumed Democratic candidate in next November's US presidential election has said he favours ratification. "If John Kerry wins the US election, the American Congress will ratify the agreement and Russia's stance on it will no longer have any importance," said Panfilov, whose tiny party has no seats in the Duma.
GDI Scholars
75 Politics
GDI Scholars
76 Politics
GDI Scholars
77 Politics
Kyoto inhibits foreign operations. Domestic criticism will block deployment Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Director of the Center for Security Policy, May 14, 1998, http://www.securitypolicy.org/papers/1998/98-C83at.html Readiness: Unfortunately, the U.S. military is already being "hollowed out." After thirteen years of real reductions in defense spending, America's armed forces are at the ragged edge of what is required to perform competently in wartime and, perhaps, even to operate safely in peacetime. If training has to be cut back further to reduce fossil fuel emissions, there will not only be still fewer flying hours, steaming days and training opportunities in tank and other gas-guzzling motorized vehicles; there will probably also be accidental and avoidable losses of the lives of servicemen and women. The readiness of America's military is to some extent a function of the extent to which its force structure is too small to be everywhere it is needed. This translates into longer overseas deployments and excessive wear-and-tear on both personnel and materiel. If, as Secretary Goodman has anticipated, the Nation has to obtain and operate larger military forces than those now in place (or projected), it will be unable to do so under the Kyoto Protocol ceilings. Unless the Defense Department is clearly exempted from those limits, the treaty could become an impediment to rebuilding the sort of defense capabilities the United States requires. Presence: The Protocol could have another impact on U.S. overseas deployments if, as seems predictable, the cutbacks translate into reduced operations abroad -- whether because it is deemed necessary to do so in order to meet lower levels of emissions or to hoard emission chits against future warfare requirements. A related question that the White House "guidance" addresses incomprehensibly involves the treatment of American forces on foreign soil: Will their emissions count against our national allowances -- or against those of the host governments? If the latter, it seems predictable that this will serve to increase the pressure from host governments (e.g., Japan) to reduce U.S. forward deployments. Will to Fight: The American people are always reluctant to go to war, often even when national security requires such a step. Under the Kyoto regime, that reluctance may translate into an absolute refusal to do so -- notwithstanding the fact that vital interests and alliance commitments may be at stake -- if the practical effect will be to cripple the U.S. economy by diverting emissions from fossil fuel consumption in the private sector to the military.
GDI Scholars
78 Politics
Kyoto would reduce military readiness to the point where none of the armed forces would be able to train or respond immediately to any crisis Randall, 99 (Tom, The Heartland Institute, Environment News, Kyoto Protocol puts National Security at
Risk, Oct 1, accessed: Jul 15, 04, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12997)
But the Kyoto Protocol raises national security implications not because there is doubt as to whether the military can meet the treatys goals for reducing energy usage. The Clinton-Gore administrations downsizing of the military has already reduced its energy use by 20 percent since the Kyoto baseline year of 1990. The real national security question lies in the international controls the
treaty seems to place on the use of our military. That question, as well as the possibility of further energy cuts that might be imposed by the administration, have raised concerns in Congress and among many military experts. The Threat to Preparedness Salmon quotes Sherri Goodman, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security,
as saying the DoD would be a leader in addressing the greenhouse problem. While it is difficult to know what exactly such vague statements mean, the Clinton-Gore administration has already made deep cuts in the military. According to the Marshall Institute, the
Pentagon has already published a paper detailing the impact on preparedness of just a 10 percent cut in energy usage. Salmon quotes that report as concluding: For the Army, a 10 percent reduction in fuel use would reduce OPTEMPO [thats Pentagonese for the pace of operations] . . . to a level that would downgrade unit readiness and require up to six additional weeks to prepare and deploy. Strategic deployment schedules would be missed, placing operations at risk. For the Navy, this 10 percent reduction would cut some 2000 steaming days per year from training and operations for deployed ships, causing cancellation of both bi-lateral and multi-lateral exercises. And, since reductions would not be taken from ships and aircraft deployed in trouble spots, other units would be required to take proportionately greater cuts, meaning less training and a potentially significant threat to crew safety. In the Air Force, a 10 percent reduction in fuel use would result in the loss of over 210,000 flying hours per year. Readiness would be reduced to the point [that the Air Force] would be incapable of meeting all the requirements of the national Military Strategy.
GDI Scholars
79 Politics
Kyoto increases energy prices Frank Murkowski, US Senator, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer, 2000, 37 Harv. J. on Legis. 345
At the same time, the Kyoto treaty would harm the United States economy. It requires us to reduce energy use by as much as 40% below the levels otherwise expected in the year 2010. The Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Department of Energy, predicts that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol could cause gasoline prices to rise by 53% and electricity prices by 86% over the next decade. The estimated total cost of implementation is between 2% and 5% of the annual United States Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). Cost estimates for other developed nations show similar impacts.
GDI Scholars
80 Politics
The steel industry is key to the economy and military Bob Taft, Governor of Ohio, September 17, 2001, http://www.steel.org/policy/pdfs/ITCinj_taft.pdf, accessed
2/3/03 Ohios steel makers and steelworkers will be competitive under an open and fair international trading system. On behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and encourage you to find in favor of our domestic steel industry and recommend a strong, comprehensive and fair set of remedies. Lastly, although it is beyond the scope of your review, I would like to point out that Americas entire steel industry is in jeopardy and it would be a grave risk to be entirely dependent on other nations for a commodity that is so essential to our economy and our military capability.
GDI Scholars
81 Politics
GDI Scholars
82 Politics
GDI Scholars
83 Politics
GDI Scholars
84 Politics
Kyoto drives multinationals away from US markets World Climate Report, New Kyoto: 1 Winner, 178 Losers, August 6, 2001
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/previous_issues/vol6/v6n23/feature1.htm, accessed 2/2/03 The warming rate in the U.N. models is fairly constant, once you choose your "storyline" (that's what they call their future social projections these days). The mean "storyline" in vogue right now warms the surface about 2.5C in 100 years, or 0.025C per year. Thus does the New Kyoto signify nothing. Do the math: If all participants do what they say they will, the mean global surface temperature that normally have been expected on January 1, 2050, will appear on September 18, 2050. The New Kyoto delays that warming by 288 days. That, of course, assumes that the United States does nothing, while the other nations raise taxes enough to drive emissions to 1.8 percent below 1990 levels. That's the only way we know to reduce the energy use that produces these emissions. No one knows what the total cost will be. But it certainly means that European governments are going to gobble up even more of their people's income and corporate profits than they do now. That will have the salutary effect of forcing multinational business over to our side of the ocean, where people will have more money to invest. Like stockholders everywhere, they are going to demand more production with increased efficiency. Thus the New Kyoto will in fact force investment in technologies that are more likely to produce things that cost less energy to operate. The irony is that our European friends have sentenced themselves to economic stagnation while doing nothing about global climate change. At the same time, they have insured a vibrant United States that will, with the investment dollars that the New Kyoto diverts in our direction, produce a cleaner future. All of which is inevitable only if President Bush stays the course and stays away from the New Kyoto. All signs point in that direction. The July 27 Washington Post reports that EPA administrator Christine Whitman "said President Bush is unlikely to offer a substantial alternative [to the New Kyoto] when negotiators meet again late this year in Morocco."
GDI Scholars
85 Politics
Kyoto will devastate the US economy and should be avoided Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 98 (Thomas Gale, Global Warming: More Than Hot Air?, Jun 24, accessed: Jul 15, 04,
http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-24-98.html) In short, this unnecessary measure would devastate our economy. For most of the world, warming over the next century would cost only a little or would be an actual benefit. The few regions that actually would be harmed by warming should have help. Delaying action by 20 to 30 years is the only prudent, "no regrets" policy. Technology will advance. Incomes in Third World countries will grow. The world will be more capable of coping with change. Except for measures that make sense with or without global warming -- like ending subsidies for energy and energy use -- Congress should resist any attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
GDI Scholars
86 Politics
Kyoto wont work it will hurt the US economy which hurts the world economy The Heritage Foundation, 01 (Washington, May 11, accessed: Jul 15, 04,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/NR051101b.cfm) The Kyoto Protocol simply wont work, Coon says. Even if it comes into force, it wont do what its supporters claim it will. All it will do is drag down the U.S. economy, which drags down the world economy. We need to know more about climate change and how human behavior affects it before we lock ourselves into policies such as this.
Kyoto requires the reduction of emissions, hurting major economies Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 00 (Thomas Gale, Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, In Sickness and in Health: The Kyoto
Protocol Versus Global Warming, accessed: Jul 15, 04, http://wwwhoover.stanford.edu/publications/epp/104/104b.html) Most of the concern with climates effects on health relates to mortality in the poor tropical portions of the globe. Reducing incomes in the industrialized nations, however, is no remedy for sickness and deaths in Africa and Southeast Asia. Economics is not a zero-sum game in which the poor benefit from making the rich less wealthy, but Kyoto would do just that. It requires the affluent countries of the world to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5 percent from 1990 levels during the years 2008 to 2012. For the United States and Canada as well, this implies a major cutback, over 30 percent, from levels that would exist under a business-as-usual scenario. On a per capita basis, Canada is a more prolific user of energy even than the United States and would suffer much more from slashing fossil fuel consumption.
GDI Scholars
87 Politics
GDI Scholars
88 Politics
Kyoto would kill jobs, spike energy prices, create international bureaucracies and police forces, damage exporters and 3rd world countries, and be difficult to enforce Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, 00 (S. Fred,
Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, Climate PolicyFrom Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000and Beyond, accessed: Jul 16, 04, http://wwwhoover.stanford.edu/publications/epp/102/102c.html?GRAB_ID=104617800\&EXTRA_ARG=\&HOST_ID=1\&P AGE_ID=1810) To sum up: Controlling emissions, by whatever method, is extremely costly, distorts economic decisions, destroys jobs, is difficult to monitor, and practically impossible to enforce. It is likely to create huge international bureaucracies and police forces, damaging not only industrialized countries but also certainly coal and oil exporters, and most of the developing countries, since they depend on trade with the industrialized nations. In addition, controls would do little good unless emissions are cut drastically worldwide.
Kyoto would devastate 3rd world countries and increase their death tolls dramatically Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 00 (Thomas Gale, Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, In Sickness and in Health: The Kyoto
Protocol Versus Global Warming, accessed: Jul 15, 04, http://wwwhoover.stanford.edu/publications/epp/104/104b.html) The Kyoto Protocol would devastate Third World countries as well. Even if they remain exempt from the limits on CO2 emissions, they will find that the United States buys fewer of their goods and services. Imported goods from the advanced countries will also cost more. As a result, the poor countries will become even poorer. We cannot estimate the toll on those countriesit would vary greatly from country to countrybut we know that being poorer will increase their already too high death rate. What these countries need is higher, not lower, incomes. With greater earnings, their people can look forward to longer life expectancies and reductions in disease. Higher incomes may also reduce violence between and within these states. All in all, the Kyoto treaty is a far more violent killer than any climate change could be. Lets arrest it before it kills someone.
GDI Scholars
89 Politics
That sends a signal for self-determination Dean Suagee, J.D., University of North Carolina, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Spring and Summer 1992, 25 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 671
There is, of course, a political dimension to the transfer of soft-path technologies to indigenous communities. Providing communities in indigenous areas with electricity by connecting them to power grids reinforces state authority over indigenous peoples, as does the practice of building transmission lines and oil pipelines through indigenous territories. Providing electricity to indigenous communities through stand-alone systems has the potential to empower indigenous peoples in a political sense and, because such stand-alone systems can readily incorporate telecommunications, this approach also has the potential to link indigenous communities into the growing global network of indigenous peoples. Thus, realizing the soft energy vision could support self-determination for indigenous peoples not only by relieving the pressure on their homelands from exploitative "development," but also by empowering indigenous communities both to make their own decisions about the kinds of development that they want for themselves and to draw on the experiences of other indigenous peoples in making those decisions.
A right to self determination leads to rampant secessionism Daniel Philpott, assistant professor of Political Science at UC-Santa Barbara, 1998, National Self-Determination
and Secession, p. 84 A principle of self-determination does not have to be converted into law or policy. It could be that the worlds political institutions, its international law and its domestic constitutions, are, at this stage in history, too blunt-edged, too bereft of judicial clout and enforcement capacity, to propound a law of self-determination that would, through its legitimation and its enforcement, effectively cull the just claims, sift out the harmful consequences, make the precious distinctions, qualify nimbly, issue the partial and truncated approvals that many imperfect claims will require, determine the extent and amount of settlements, and perform judgments that would be heeded and respected just as, say, the judgments of the United States Supreme Court are usually heeded and respected. It could be that to bolster any movement would be to goad all, even the worst.
Secessionism causes multiple global wars Gidon Gottlieb, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Diplomacy University of Chicago Law School, 1993, Nation Against State, p. 26-27
Self-determination unleashed and unchecked by balancing principles constitutes a menace to the society of states. There is simply no way in which all the hundreds of peoples who aspire to sovereign independence can be granted a state of their own without loosening fearful anarchy and disorder on a planetary scale. The proliferation of territorial entities poses exponentially greater problems for the control of weapons of mass destruction and multiplies situations in which external intervention could threaten the peace. It increases problems for the management of all global issues, including terrorism, AIDS, the environment, and population growth. It creates conditions in which domestic strife in remote territories can drag powerful neighbors into local hostilities, creating ever widening circles of conflict. Events in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union drove this point home.
GDI Scholars
90 Politics
GDI Scholars
91 Politics
GDI Scholars
92 Politics
GDI Scholars
93 Politics
GDI Scholars
94 Politics
GDI Scholars
95 Politics
GDI Scholars
96 Politics
GDI Scholars
97 Politics
Kyoto will never work European countries cannot adopt it and it doesnt include China or India Zakaria, Professor of International Relations, 02 (Fareed, The New Yorker, Oct. 14, accessed: Jul 15, 04, p.72, http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/nyer/101402.html)
The complaints have risen to a clamor during the current Bush Administration, which has shown a disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations. In its first two years it has reneged on more international treaties than any previous Administration. Often its actions seem gratuitous. The Kyoto treaty on global warming, for example, was moribund before the Administration loudly pronounced it dead. (Few European countries are close to meeting their goals, and by leaving out China and India the treaty forfeited the possibility of having any real effect.) But by withdrawing in such confrontational tones the Administration sent a signal that the world's largest consumer of energy was unconcerned about the environment. American allies-even, on occasion, Great Britain-complain that they are informed of, rather than consulted about, American policy. Even when the Administration has ended up pursuing policies multilaterally it has done so muttering and grumbling-as it has in taking its case against Iraq to the United Nations-so that much of the good will it might have generated has been lost.
Kyoto lacks scientific founding even environmentalists agree Catanzaro, staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 03 (Michael,
Climate-Gate: What Is President Bush Being Accused Of, Exactly? Jun 20, accessed: Jul 15, 04, http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climate-Gate.html) Or, what about the 46 climate scientists who sent a letter, printed in the June 3 edition of Canada's National Post, to a Canadian member of Parliament, questioning the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming? According to the signatories, the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." Moreover, "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord."
GDI Scholars
98 Politics
GDI Scholars
99 Politics
GDI Scholars
100 Politics
GDI Scholars
101 Politics
Bush strike on NK
A Bush Election in 2004 leads to a first strike on North Korea Pinkerton 2002, (Fellow New America Foundation, James, Newsday December 31)
Not every New Year's resolution is kept. The year 2002 began with America hunting for Osama bin Laden, and it ended with America aiming for Saddam Hussein. In between has come the inconvenient nuclear news from North Korea - but that's been pushed way down on the "to do" list. Indeed, the last half-century shows that the low-prioritizing of Pyongyang has been the norm. Yet one year, maybe next year, Uncle Sam is going to regret his irresolution. "U.S. softens line on North Korea." That was the header atop Monday's Financial Times, the London-based paper that most pithily captured the incongruity between the administration's unilateralist hawkery toward Iraq and its multilateralist dovery toward North Korea. But nobody should be fooled. George W. Bush has no intention of taking a soft line on North Korea forever.
A military conflict between the US and North Korea would ignite a thermonuclear exchange Choi, 2002 (Kim, Nautilus Institute for Security and Stable Development, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/securitv/0212A Chol.html, October 24) Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: 'North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong II. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with nerve gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people."
GDI Scholars
102 Politics
Bush strike on NK
Bush in 2004 leads to North Korean first strike Cummings 03, Korea Historian [Bruce, Standoff in the East, LA Weekly, August 29, p.24., LN]
If Gore had won in 2000, I think North Korea would have evolved a great deal from its menacing state. It keeps saying it wants change and good relations. There can be more change if Bush loses re-election or exercises leadership now by following a consistent policy. North Korea, too, also has responsibilities in this. I don't think it's made up its mind to reform like China or Vietnam. While it's behaved rationally, from the view of its own interests, the real danger is that for a long time it's had no hope of extending its system south. That was always their goal in the past. Old hard-liners who fought the war are maybe going around thinking: If Bush wants to push this, it's our last chance to unify Korea through force -- we've got nothing from our attempts to engage Washington. Hard-liners here have their counterparts there. They're both wrong. Kim Jong Il himself doesn't have a policy of taking the South through force. I think he's desperate to find a way out of North Korea's troubles. But he's in a patriarchy where age counts so much. Bush's team seems split on whether to keep his regime involved in change or squeeze it. But wish for collapse and you're wishing for the next Korean War, because they'll go down fighting. What can come of this week's multilateral negotiations in Beijing? North Korea's package deal has to be taken seriously. It's the essence of what they want. They proposed it in last year's talks, this April's talks and in 1993, which led to the agreement. It involves security guarantees, aid and normalization. The U.S. should go ahead and do it. It's the one way we'd finally gain influence over North Korea. The key is simultaneous, confidence-building steps, but Bush wants Kim to give it all up first, saying he won't be "blackmailed." We've been threatening North Korea for 50 years with our own nukes. When Bush says blackmail, it's just a sign he's not serious. What's easy is figuring out what works with North Korea. You push them around -- it won't work. You engage in tradeoffs and treat them as equal partners -- it works every time. That's what worked finally for Clinton. But to expect them to give up something for nothing is idiotic! Yet that's what Bush wants them to do while we continue to threaten them. It sounds like there's no hope until after the 2004 presidential elections. I'm much more worried if Bush gets re-elected absent any progress. In a second term, the administration might feel they have a freer hand to push coercively. They'd have troops for it. I hope the talks achieve some success or lead to more. But North Korea will probably table proposals attractive to everybody except Bush. Let's say the talks go well, the U.S. and North Korea come to a rapprochement. What's the best-case scenario? The future [that former South Korean President] Kim Dae Jung laid out in his "sunshine" policy: a prolonged peace as North Korea changes so that, decades from now, Korea unifies under a democratic system. Worst-case: The negotiations keep tanking. Then all bets are off. North Korea might declare itself a nuclear power, even test nuclear weapons. It'll be Bush's bomb. You can blame it on Bush because it didn't have to happen.
GDI Scholars
103 Politics
Iranian war leads to counterbalancing, full scale warfare, and brings the world to the nuclear Brink Gaffney, 2003 (Mark is a researcher, writer, poet, environmentalist, anti-nuclear activist, and organic gardener.
He was the principal organizer of the first Earth Day in April 1970 at Colorado State University. Mark's forthcoming book is a radical study of early Christianity: SECRETS OF THE NAASSENE SERMON.2003.05.29, http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1933 Asks: Will Iran be next?) It is very possible--some would say probable--that the U.S., possibly in conjunction with Israel, will launch a "preventive" raid and destroy the Bushehr reactor before it goes on line. Such a raid would be fateful for the region and the world. It would trigger another Mideast war, and possibly a confrontation with Russia, with effects that are difficult to predict. A war with Iran might bring about the collapse of the NPT, and bring the world to the nuclear brink. THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES In their current state of hubris the men around the president obviously believe they can accomplish anything with U.S. military power, now supreme on the planet. However, such a war would undoubtedly be perceived by the world as a serious escalation, and would likely produce a new anti-U.S. coalition. Various states, in defiance of U.S. threats, might even come to Iran's assistance. The common border shared by Russia and Iran raises the stakes. To understand why, we need only consider how the U.S. would respond to a foreign attack on, say, Mexico. The Russians might supply Iran with advanced military arms, ground-toair missiles, etcetera. Pakistani President Musharraf would face growing pressure at home to assist a fellow Islamic state. With assistance from Russia and/or Pakistan, the Iranians might force the U.S. to launch commando assaults with special forces, or even invade and occupy the country (notice, this implies regime change, precisely what Ariel Sharon has advocated). Such a path--I hasten to add-would be insane, for reasons that should be apparent to anyone who can find Iran on a map. Iran is five times larger than Iraq, a rugged mountainous country of sixty-five million people. What if invading U.S. forces should meet return fire, in kind? One shudders at the reaction in Washington should the Iranians turn on U.S. troops the same depleted uranium weapons that the U.S. has been using with such horrible effect on others. That would bring George W. Bush eyeball-to-eyeball with Vladimir Putin, the obvious supplier, and possibly even with Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan. Lest we forget, both are nuclear-armed (unlike Saddam Hussein) and capable of defending themselves. The assumption that Putin will back down in a crisis on his own border could be a serious miscalculation. If U.S. hawks insist on victory, and escalation ensues, events could spin out of control. To prevent such a catastrophe we must all work together. We must stop Bush's next war BEFORE it starts.
GDI Scholars
104 Politics
While Syria has long been on the Pentagons list of countries targeted for preemptive military strikes, the timing of the administrations rhetoric agaist Syria is meant to serve a secondary purpose as well: that of distracting the publics mind from the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and keeping up the war hysteria that is bound to disapate with the end of military operations in Iraq.
Having promised the public that U.S. troops would be greeted with flowers, the Bush administration is now trying to hide the embarrassing fact that, every day, an increasing number of ordinary Iraqi people are joining anti-occupation demonstrations, right in front of U.S. troops, demanding that they leave the country immediately.
By extending the threat of war to Syria, the Bush administration is, indeed, throwing gasoline on the Middle East fires. The region is already brimming with anger and growing anti-American feelings. Any expansion of the war into other countries of the region will not only lead to an uncontrollable regional conflagration, but also to a further isolation of the United States. It is time to disarm Bush. And the first step towards this end is putting an end to his doctrine of preemptive strike. Congresswoman Barbara Lees (D-Calif.) anti-preemption resolution is a good starting point.
GDI Scholars
105 Politics
GDI Scholars
106 Politics
GDI Scholars
107 Politics
Bush testing
A second term gives Bush free reign leads to unrestrained testing Isaacs 03, Executive Director of Council for a Livable World
[John, To vote or not to Vote? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/ April, ASE] Congress approved an administration study that would examine the cost and requirements for resuming nuclear testing on an accelerated schedule. While few expect the president to break the decade long American nuclear testing moratorium before the 2004 election, political restraints would disappear in a second Bush term.
Bush re-election leads to nuke testing Norris, May, 2003 ( The Bush administrations plan for nuclear testing)
The administration is planning to revitalize the entire nuclear weapon complex so that it could, if directed, design, develop, manufacture and certify new warheads. One essential activity in this process would be testing new warhead designs. In expectation of that possibility, the administration has recommended that the Nevada Test Site drastically reduce the amount of time it would take to resume testing. NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) sees this initiative as the first step toward resuming testing and designing a new generation of nuclear weapons if President Bush wins a second term.
Nuke testing comes after re-election Japan Economic Newswire May 6, 2003
The administration of President George W. Bush has decided to reduce the time needed to resume nuclear tests to 18 months from the current two to three years and asked Congress for $25 million to help meet that goal, congressional sources said Tuesday. The Energy Department recently decided that it should be capable of conducting a nuclear test within 18 months should the president determine one necessary, the sources said.
GDI Scholars
108 Politics
Deterrence is critical to credibility and preventing nuclear war by design or miscalculation Robert Spulak, senior analyst at the Strategic Studies Center, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Opposing Viewpoints, 1999, p. 53-54
The need for nuclear deterrence will not disappear. There are still powerful nations in the world which are potential adversaries, both immediate and future. The interests of these other nations will, at times, be in conflict with the interests of the United States. It is inevitable that another great power or a coalition of powers will arise to oppose the hegemony of the United States. Although the Cold War is over, Russia still has the capability to destroy the United States; the strong showing of the nationalists and communists in the Russian elections, the obvious failure of reforms, the desire of Russia to be recognized as a great power, and replacement of the reformers in the Russian government with officials from the communist era have refocused our concerns on this point. In a few years Japan, a Western European state, or China could pose a strategic threat to our broad security interests; China is rapidly modernizing its arsenal and could soon be a strategic nuclear threat. Since we will be cautious about attacking any nuclear power with conventional forces, it will be difficult to deter even smaller nuclear powers such as North Korea, Iran, or Iraq if our nuclear threat to them is not credible. Credibility is important for deterrence because the conditions under which the United States would actually use nuclear weapons, and therefore the conditions under which nuclear deterrence even exists, depend on limitations we place on ourselves. Credibility has been one of the most important aspects of nuclear policy from the beginning. For example, the lack of credibility of the U.S. policy of massive retaliation led to the more limited U.S. doctrines that were then developed. The development of warfighting capabilities as a contribution to deterrence was based on the need to demonstrate that there was a likelihood that nuclear weapons would actually be used. Minimizing and stigmatizing our nuclear weapons can create a self-imposed taboo with respect to even nuclear adversaries, thereby delegitimizing deterrence and inviting threats to our interests. This self-injury to our nuclear deterrence is not the delegitimization of all nuclear weapons that the proponents of nuclear stigma hope for. It is neither reciprocal with our potential enemies nor permanent, even for ourselves. Credible nuclear deterrence is robust, not delicate. Policies and actions that establish credibility couple with our nuclear arsenal to create the possibility that in a war with the United States an enemy may face a risk of annihilation. A potential enemy need not even be very rational to be deterred from actions that ensure his own destruction. (This is not to argue for belligerence; we can keep the threshold for nuclear use high without undermining credibility.) This creates extreme caution in the behavior of other states if they wish to threaten vital U.S. security interests, and it substantially reduces the likelihood of miscalculation.
GDI Scholars
109 Politics
EMP vulnerability destroys power projection Jack Spencer, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 5/26/2000, Heritage Foundation Reports
Although the threat that an enemy would use a high-altitude EMP against America existed during the Cold War, the likelihood that this could happen may be greater today. n5 During the Cold War, an EMP attack was viewed as the first step in launching a nuclear war, but it was never tried because the threat of massive nuclear retaliation provided an effective deterrent. This principle holds true today for an attack by Russia or China on the United States. In the post -- Cold War years, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction makes the threat more difficult to assess. More important, the traditional deterrent of retaliation does not apply. No rogue nation has the capacity to fight a general nuclear war with the United States; therefore, it is not likely that an EMP blast would be used as a precursor to full-scale war. And since an EMP blast is not likely to kill anyone directly or to be followed by a nuclear strike that would annihilate U.S. cites, the United States is less likely to retaliate and destroy an entire nation of innocent people as punishment for the decisions of a rogue leader. The motivation for a rogue state to use its limited nuclear arsenal in an EMP strike against the United States is simple: It maximizes the impact of its few warheads while minimizing the risk of retaliation. This decrease in risk for rogue leaders could compel them to use EMP to offset overwhelming U.S. conventional power on the battlefield. An EMP blast would debilitate U.S. forces in a hot spot where they might be deployed and throughout a region of strategic interest, such as Northeast Asia or the Middle East. Because the United States has no policy on deterrence for a rogue state's use of high-altitude EMP, and because EMP attacks are less risky for those states, such attacks are far more likely to occur in this era of nuclear proliferation than they were at any time during the Cold War.
GDI Scholars
110 Politics
Testing leads to regional conflict and arms buildup Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada) August 15, 2002
Such a move 'would open the floodgates for nuclear testing worldwide,' he said, noting later, 'If we decide to resume nuclear weapons testing, other countries are going to take notice of that. While we don't have anything to fear from India or Pakistan, both of those countries fear each other
GDI Scholars
111 Politics
GDI Scholars
112 Politics
Critical systems are already shielded Eileen Walling, Colonel Eileen Walling, 2001, The Technological Arsenal, p. 91-92
The militarys interest in HPM technology is an outgrowth of previous military and civilian research and studies in the field of radar technology that began during the 1930s and continues today. This work also emerged from the U.S. nuclear program with the discovery of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) during the 1950s. Although typically equated with nuclear detonations, EMP is also produced by nonnuclear sources. An example is the static and distorted radio signals that occur when a car is driven beneath high-voltage power. Although, in this case, EMP only disrupts the signals and does no harm to the radio, it can have such serious and catastrophic effects on electronics equipment that the Department of Defense hardens and shields many of its weapons systems and subsystems against the effects of EMP.
The limited test ban treaty already stops effective EMP testing Steve Fetter, Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland, 1992, Towards A
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/fetter/norway.pdf Since the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) was signed in 1963, all U.S., Soviet, and U.K. nuclear testing has been performed underground; France and China have more recently restricted their testing to underground. This greatly limits the types of nuclear effects experiments that can be done. For example, one can test the vulnerability of a reentry vehicle to the X-rays and neutrons produced by an explosion, but one cannot test C3 or BMD systems for the effects that are produced only by atmospheric explosions. Understanding these effects is crucial for building C3 and BMD systems that would be effective during nuclear war, but the existing LTBT already prohibits gaining such understanding; a CTB would not change anything in this respect. The LTBT also prevents nuclear experiments to determine the hardness of silos, mobile missile launchers, and bombers. A CTB would only eliminate nuclear weapons as test sources of X-rays, gamma rays, neutrons, and ground shock, and there are other ways to generate these phenomena.
GDI Scholars
113 Politics
GDI Scholars
114 Politics
On balance, the SSP maintains a credible deterrent Christopher Paine, Senior Researcher, NRDC Nuclear Program, February 1999,
http://www.clw.org/coalition/nrdc299b.htm Some additional observations by Hecker, not cited in the Cato Policy Analysis, are pertinent to the subject at hand: "I believe that the SSMP as currently configured and fully funded provides the best approach to keeping the confidence level in our nuclear stockpile as high as possible for the foreseeable future. We recognize that there is no substitute for full-systems testing in any complex technological enterprise. This is certainly true for nuclear weapons. A robust nuclear testing program would undoubtedly increase our confidence. However, our long-term confidence in the stockpile would suffer if we substituted a program consisting of an occasional nuclear test for a robust stewardship program because it would lock us into an empirical approach tied to limited testing data without the benefit of the flexibility and resiliency provided by better scientific understanding (emphasis added."(4) Hecker certainly realizes, even if Dr. Bailey does not, that in the post-Cold War era "a robust nuclear testing program" cannot be justified by DOD's current or reasonably foreseeable nuclear weapon requirements, and could not be justified politically to the American public and the international community, which overwhelmingly support an end to nuclear explosive testing. In his responses to Kyl, Director Hecker returns twice more to the theme of the tradeoff between continuation of a modest nuclear test program without the CTBT, and a robust stewardship program with the CTBT, and he repeatedly chooses the latter: "Again, I would like to add the caution that conducting an occasional nuclear test in lieu of a fully-funded SSMP will jeopardize our long-term confidence in the stockpile.
A preponderance of experts agree ratification wouldnt hurt U.S. stockpiles Tom Collina, director of the Arms Control and International Security Program, and Christopher Paine, senior
research associate in the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 1999, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/ja99/ja99collina.html, accessed 8/8/02 While tacitly acknowledging the lack of any current requirements for nuclear test explosions, test ban opponents raise worst-case "what if" scenarios to suggest that a "prudent" approach to maintaining nuclear deterrence requires an ever present option to test, and thus the avoidance of any binding treaty commitment. In reality, America's deterrent can be sustained without nuclear explosive tests. This conclusion is supported by the three nuclear weapons laboratories; by numerous independent weapons experts; by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and four former chairmen (Colin Powell, John Shalikashvili, David Jones, and William Crowe); and by the Defense Department. And if the United States ever chose to exercise the "option" to resume underground nuclear test explosions, it would pay a very high political cost.
GDI Scholars
115 Politics
Bush draft
If Bush is re-elected, the draft will be reinstated Farrell, 2003 (Maureen, writer and media consultant, Would a Second Bush Term mean a return to
Conscription? Why Dodging the Draft Would be Trickier Than you Thnk, November 11, www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/11/far03001.html) So now that occupation "ifs" have become reality, concerns that the US military is stretched too thin are being voiced regularly. And news that the Pentagon is advertising for personnel to staff draft boards has
notched up speculation. "This is significant," Dartmouth presidential scholar and former professor of strategy at the National War College in Washington Ned Lebow said. "What the department of defense is doing is creating
the infrastructure to make the draft a viable option should the administration wish to go this route."
Meanwhile, the Guardian openly wondered "why the Pentagon decided at this time it was necessary to fill staff bodies which had played no function since the early 1980s." [LINK] As early as last November, however, red flags were being raised. The Journal News in New York state, for example, featured an article regarding New York's Selective Service System need for draft board members in case "a military draft would ever become necessary." And Rep. Charles B. Rangel's Dec. 31 op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Bring Back the Draft" caused considerable uproar, especially as it was accompanied by legislation introduced by Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings to do just that. "The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," Rangel said in the Nov. 3, 2003 edition of Salon.com. "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft." As most point out, however, any mention of conscription would be ill-advised before the 200 4 election. "A number of analysts said yesterday that while any public suggestion of a draft would be politically suicidal for U.S. President George W. Bush in an election year, he could find himself with few other options if he is returned for a second term and the fighting in Iraq is still raging," the Toronto Star recently reported. "I don't think a presidential candidate would seriously propose a draft," the Cato Institute's Charles Pena added. "But an incumbent, safely in for a second term -- that might be a different story." Moreover, though a recent Newsweek poll should that only 44 percent of American voters would like to see a second Bush term (vs. fifty percent who would not), as concerns over voter roll-scrubbing, black box voting irregularities and other election oddities raise questions about our democracy, its nave to imagine that next years presidential election won't involve some of the same shenanigans we saw in 2000. And given the radical direction the Bush
administration has taken this country since barreling into power, can you imagine what four years of Bush would be like if reelection wasn't a consideration? And so, folks could do a lot worse than to wager that a GOP victory in 2004 would mean a return to conscription. They would, however, run into trouble gambling on ways US citizens might successfully dodge the draft.
Many Americans, remembering the Vietnam-era loopholes, still erroneously believe that college and Canada are options, without understanding the differences between then and now.
GDI Scholars
116 Politics
Bush draft
Bush in 2004 means draft Black, 2004 (April 14, David, Editor of DavidBlackOnline.com, daveblackonline.com/will_the_draft_become_the_most_i.htm)
I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I even work for a non-prophet organization. Yet I will go out on a limb and make the following prediction: If Bush is reelected and our empirebuilding continues, and if reenlistment in the armed forces dries up, as seems likely following the fiasco in Iraq, more warm bodies will be needed in a hurry to fight the nations wars, and the call from Washington to resume the draft will become deafening. Our government has already taken the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages. True, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he will not ask Congress to authorize a draft, and officials at the Selective Service System (SSS), the federal agency that would organize any conscription, stress that the so-called special skills draft is remote. But the agency has begun the process of creating the procedures to conduct a draft in case our military leadership asks Congress to authorize it.
If Bush is re-elected, there will be a new Draft Goslin, 2003 (Goslin, December 15, 2003, HighSchool Teacher in Northern Arizona, www.strike-theroot.com/3/goslin/goslin7.html) Over the last two years, some have suggested the possibility of reinstating military conscription. No wonder. If President Bush is reelected in 2004, he will have no electoral restraints on his imperial ambitions. Given recent surveys indicating that a significant portion of active duty and reservist military personnel will not reenlist, the president will need to tap other sources for axis of evil guerrillas to shoot. Should these suggestions receive serious discussion among the ruling elite, prefaced on the demands of their masters in the worlds of finance, industry, and international Zionism, the American people can expect a barrage of patriotic propaganda the likes of which has not been seen since World War II. The evil forces standing against America will be rabidly demonized, like the Japs and krauts of yore, and the American people will be prodded along like a herd with never-ending terror alerts. Our national color will be orange.
Re-Election makes the draft inevitable TalkLeft.com, April 22, 2004 (talkleft.com/new_archives/006172.html)
The military has already wasted millions of dollars trying to boost recruitment through entertainment like NASCAR. Not surprisingly, recruitment goals have fallen far short of expectations. Current soldiers, meanwhile, have made it clear that they want out. Not even signing bonuses are coaxing them to re-enlist. Why go through this mess again? The draft is the only remaining option. Bush will start implementing a draft through reactivation of the Selective Service Boards, shortly after he is sworn in for a second term, if that nightmare scenario of his election should come to pass. But not to worry for the offspring of the Bush dynasty. The Bush loyalists will find a way to keep the twins and other Bush kin from serving. None of the Bush brothers, including George, have fought in a war. They don't plan on starting any new Bush traditions now with the "next generation."
GDI Scholars
117 Politics
Bush draft
President Bush would re-instate the Draft, Kerry wont Russell, 2004 (Chris, February 20, An Issue of Trust, Stop the Draft.com, An Issue of
technologyreports.net/firstcasualty/%3FarticleID%3D2979) What do a former fighter pilot in the National Guard and a former officer in the Navy have in common? Both have promised not to reinstate the military draft if elected president. Senator John Kerry has promised that if elected president he will not reinstate the military draft, but will increase troop numbers by 40,000. President Bush and his staff have also promised the American public that there are no plans to reinstate the military draft. Promises are great, but talk is cheap. As voters, we must look into these promises with eyes of skepticism. Reinstating the military draft would dramatically affect millions of young men and women and their families. Although President Bush ensures the public that he has no plans to reinstate the military draft, facts show otherwise. For all young men and women between the ages of 18 and 26, two bills introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives are quietly looming under the cloudy skies of our future. On January 7, 2003, two identical bills (S.89 Senate Bill and H.R.163 House of Representatives Bill) known as the Universal National Service Act of 2003 were drafted and are waiting to be ratified. The bills call for reinstating the draft declaring that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service . . . It is widely assumed by political analysts that President Bush is merely postponing the reinstatement of the military draft until after the presidential election is over because it would hinder his chances of becoming reelected.
GDI Scholars
118 Politics
Draft good
Reinstitution of the draft is key to prevent overstretch maintaining leadership Stanton, 2003 (Junios, B.A. Liberal Arts English from Cheyney State and Masters from Upenn in City Planning,
October 13th, , Reinstituting the Military Draft: Politically Activating America's Youth, www.nathanielturner.com/reinstitutingthedraft.htm) But the invasion and occupation of Iraq has changed all that. When former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress he stated it would take something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers to successfully invade, stabilize, and occupy Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz scoffed at Shinsekis figures then swiftly moved to marginalize him and hasten his retirement. As fate would have it, Shinsekis figures now seem to be on the mark. There are currently over 180,000 US soldiers in the region counting the Persian Gulf plus a substantial number of soldiers in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Where will the additional soldiers come from to occupy Iraq in the event Bush is unsuccessful getting more countries to join the occupation and reconstruction? In all probability, by the measure of some, a resurrected military draft would satisfy the need. The overextended US forces in addition suffer from sinking morale with soldiers being attacked and dying daily. Due to this unanticipated Iraqi resistance and sabotage taking a heavy toll on US forces and slowing reconstruction efforts, Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld are scrambling to bribe or coerce countries to participate in the occupation and share reconstruction costs. Ironically, it is not the rabid Neocons in the Bush administration who formulated and pushed the policy of pre-emptive military strikes and created the current military crisis, but rather it is the equally morally bankrupt Democrats who are calling for the revival of the draft! Recently, Congressman Rangel reiterated his call for a universal draft and legislators on both sides of the aisle starting to think it's a good idea. So rather than pressure the administration to rethink AmeriKKKa's foreign policy, go back to the table and work out a compromise with the UN or cut their losses in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops home, the Democrats are colluding to reinstitute the draft and conscript males and females to help Bush establish military hegemony all over the world.
Reinstituting the draft is key to solve military overstretch and prevent terrorism Moskos, 2003 (Charles, Prof. Of Sociology @ Northwestern, Should the Draft Be Reinstated?, Time Magazine
Online, http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/poyforum.html?cnn=yes, December 21st) Our country is facing new kinds of threats and needs a new kind of draft. Even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military was severely overstretched in fulfilling its missions. But more important, we have done nothing serious about homeland defense in the war against terrorism. We need guards for our nuclear power plants, dams and public facilities. We have done little to create the necessary border patrollers, customs agents and cargo-ship inspectors. Short-term draftees, under professional supervision, could perform these duties admirably. It takes less than four months to train a military police officerprecisely the kind of role most needed in peacekeeping missions and guard duties. This would free up professional soldiers, and it would stop the unprecedented activation of reservists. Their multiple tours have led to demoralization and impending recruitment shortfalls. We must institute a three-tiered draft system in America, with 15-to-24-month tours of duty for citizens ages 18 to 26. In the new-style draft, conscripts could serve in the military, in homeland security or in a civilian-service program like AmeriCorpsand there is no reason women could not be drafted for the latter categories.
GDI Scholars
119 Politics
Draft good
Draft is key to preventing Terrorism Gerber, 2001 (Robin, Senior Fellow at Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland, The Christian
Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/2001/1113/p11s1-coop.html) Sen. John McCain has gone full circle, from opposing AmeriCorps - the federal program that involves tens of thousands of young people in building houses, tutoring, assisting the elderly, and otherwise acting as a domestic Peace Corps - to becoming a true believer. Last week, he and Sen. Evan Bayh introduced new national service legislation to boost funding for AmeriCorps and "dramatically expand opportunities for public service." Unfortunately, it's a good idea that's masking a missed opportunity. Senator McCain wants to give every young person who's interested the opportunity for service. But in a time of war, he can and should call for more. Young Americans should be told they have an obligation to serve, a duty to actively support their democracy. National conscription for national service is what America needs to ensure that when we win the war on terrorism we have a civil society as mighty as our military. No one likes the idea of a draft, but we've never tried a draft that didn't have battle as the recruits' ultimate objective. Right now, the military appears to have enough volunteers willing to fight so that we don't need to force young people into harm's way. But our battlefront is not only in the barren reaches of Afghanistan. As President Bush said in his speech last Thursday calling for new opportunities within Americorps, our country needs "a commitment to service in our own communities." What better time to enlist young people to help their country than right now?
GDI Scholars
120 Politics
Draft bad
The draft is counter-productive and creates an inefficient military and funding cuts Slate Magazine, June 23, 2004
Bringing back the draft would lasso the social dregs along with the society elite. Would the net effect be a "more equitable representation of people making sacrifices," as Rangel put it? Maybe, maybe not. Even with a draft, not everyone would serve. About 11 million Americans are 20 to 26 years old. The military doesn't need 11 million people. A draft would have to involve some sort of lottery. If that's the way it goes, there should be no exemptions (except for the physically disabled, the mentally incompetent, convicted felons, and perhaps conscientious objectors). Still, unless a military draft was one component of a compulsory national-service program (the subject of another essay), only some would be called. It's a matter of chance whether the kids from the suburbs would be called more than the kids from the projects. There is a still more basic question: What is the purpose of a military? Is it to spread the social burdenor to fight and win wars? The U.S. active-duty armed forces are more professional and disciplined than at any time in decades, perhaps ever. This is so because they are composed of people who passed comparatively stringent entrance examsand, more important, people who want to be there or, if they no longer want to be there, know that they chose to be there in the first place. An Army of draftees would include many bright, capable, dedicated people; but it would also include many dumb, incompetent malcontents, who would wind up getting more of their fellow soldiers killed. It takes about six months to put a soldier through basic training. It takes a few months more to train one for a specialized skill. The kinds of conflicts American soldiers are likely to face in the coming decades will be the kinds of conflicts they are facing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia"security and stabilization operations," in military parlance. These kinds of operations require more trainingand more delicate trainingthan firing a rifle, driving a tank, or dropping a bomb. If conscription is revived, draftees are not likely to serve more than two years. Right now, the average volunteer in the U.S. armed forces has served five years. By most measures, an Army of draftees would be less experienced, less cohesivegenerally, less effectivethan an Army of volunteers. Their task is too vital to tolerate such a sacrifice for the cause of social justice, especially when that cause isn't so urgent to begin with. Would lawmakers be less likely to approve and fund wars if their children and the children of their friends might be drafted to fight?
GDI Scholars
121 Politics
Draft bad
Renewing the Draft would jack the USs military Bandow, 1999 (Doug, a Sr. Fellow at the Cato Institute and Special Assistant to President Reagan, Fixing What
Aint Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription, Cato Policy Analysis No. 351, www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa351es.html) The United States has relied on a volunteer military for most of its history. However, the Cold War transformed a number of American institutions, including the armed services. Washington retained conscription after World War II and did not abandon the practice until 1973. Despite a rocky start, the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) now works exceedingly well, providing America with the best military in its history and in the world today. Yet recruiting and retention problems have begun to appear; moreover, the war against Yugoslavia has heightened concerns about the fairness of a volunteer military. The result has been an increasing number of calls for a return to conscription. The draft was bad policy during the Cold War and would constitute amazing foolishness today. For instance, renewed conscription would reduce the quality of new service personnel. Returning to the draft would also increase the costs of raising a military force. Conscription is an expensive processfor individuals, government, and society. For the armed services, a draft would yield higher turnover, thus increasing training costs. Also, because few conscripts choose to make the military a career, the Pentagon would have to hike reenlistment benefits. A draft would not improve the retention rate of skilled personnel or inculcate civic virtue. The military does have some serious personnel problems; however, such problems could be solved by returning to a foreign policy that is proper for a republic. The Clinton administration's promiscuous use of military force in conflicts irrelevant to U.S. security drives many potential recruits away from and current career personnel out of the service. Furthermore, policymakers should adjust compensation and benefits to more successfully attract both new recruits and skilled personnel in the years ahead. A renewed draft would be bad for the military. But more important, conscription would be unfair and unjustsacrificing the very constitutional liberties that the military is charged to defend.
GDI Scholars
122 Politics
Draft bad
Voluntary forces are key to maintaining an effective military Bandow, 1999 (Doug, Senior Fellow at Cato and Special Assistant to President Reagan, Fixing What Aint
Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription, Cato Policy Analysis No. 351, www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-351es.html) First, the militarys problem is not an inadequate quantity of recruits but an inadequate quantity of quality recruits. The AVF is choosier than a draft militaryactually rejecting many bodies. Navy recruiter Petty Officer Benny Granillo
explains, Most of the people who walk into the office have something wrong with them.66 Of roughly 9 million males between the ages of 17 and 21, Maj. Gen. Evan Gaddis, commanding general of the Army, reports that only 14 percent are the high quality, fully qualified and available prospects all military services want to recruit.67 The Pentagon could solve its recruiting problems tomorrow if it simply lowered its standards. In fact, last year the Navy discussed a modest relaxation of standards that would help it meet its need for general detail sailors, who perform largely unskilled tasks.68 In January Navy Secretary Richard Danzig decided to increase from 5 to 10 percent the number of recruits who possess a GED instead of a high school diploma. In response to his services recruiting difficulties this year, Army Secretary Caldera has made a similar proposal. He complains that the strict high school graduation requirement has put us in a box that is really hurting our ability to recruit.69 Although no doubt exists that higher quality is desirablebrighter recruits with more education perform better and are more likely to finish their toursthe Pentagons specific goals are arbitrary. Two years ago the Army reduced its objective for high school diploma graduates from 95 to 90 percent. Lt. Gen. Frederick Vollrath, the Armys deputy chief of staff for personnel, acknowledged that the former standard was not based on any absolute analytical requirement in order to sustain the force.70 According to Vollrath, the recruiting command had set the higher goal because it thought that goal was achievable. As a result,
despite its current problems, the AVF remains a far higher quality force than the military of the draft era. On the important measures of high school graduation and scores on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), todays military is far superior. The percentage of high-quality enlisteesthat is, those with high school degrees and above-average scores on the AFQTjumped 50 percent between 1973 and 1997.71 Indeed, the AVF is providing the best military personnel that America has ever had. (See Appendix, Tables 24.) For that reason, few leaders in the armed services would like to return to conscription. Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff and current president of the Association of the United States Army, states, Military commanders prefer high-quality volunteers to mixed-quality draftees.72 Retired Lt. Gen. Al Lenhardt, formerly the Armys chief recruiter, emphasizes that conscription would yield a poorer-quality force.73 Retired Maj. Gen. Ted Stroup, former Army deputy chief of staff for personnel, says that a draft might deliver the required quantity, but you wouldnt get the quality or the staying power that you also need.74 The Pentagon observes: Periodically, there are laments from some outside the Defense establishment regarding the absence of the draft. If only the draft were operating again, the nostalgic arguments go, representation would be assured, declining propensity would be countered, women would not be needed to substitute for men, and all would be well. These assumptions turn out to be more wishful thinking than iron-clad reality.75 The AVF attracts superior personnel for two important reasons. First, the services can choose not to accept people who are not high school graduates and so-called Category Ivs and Vs, people who score well below average on the AFQT. As the Department of Defense puts it, Non-graduates and persons with lower aptitude scores would be more vulnerable to Uncle Sams draft call than they would be to todays invitation to enlist. Moreover, a volunteer military draws in people who want to be there instead of dragooning people who do not, thereby creating a dramatically more positive dynamic. Thus, the military can discharge soldiers who abuse drugs, perform poorly, or are not otherwise suited to service life.77 In contrast, the services must retain draftees at all cost, lest indiscipline become a means of escape.78 All phases of military life are transformed for the better when the armed forces are made up of people who join voluntarily and desire to succeed. Career retention has long been a Pentagon concern.79 However, conscription would actually exacerbate that problem. A draft brings in untrained first termers, not experienced pilots. And conscripts, who dont want to be in uniform, reenlist in far lower numbers than do volunteers. Only 10 percent of first termers stayed in the military when service was mandatory compared with about 50 percent today under the AVF. Moreover, the increased difficulties in working with recalcitrant soldiers who have been drafted means even experienced noncommissioned officers are less likely to remain. For instance, retention of those personnel in their fourth year of service doubled between FY71 and FY77.80 The mean length of service jumped from about 70 months in 1973 to 90 months in 1997.81 Thus, Francis Rush, acting assistant secretary of defense for force management policy, reports, A force composed of volunteers is more stable and career-oriented, thereby leading to improved experience and performance, with lower training and turnover costs than we would find with a draft.82 A return to conscription would yield a less-experienced, less-stable, and less-efficient military. Inducement, not coercion, is the answer to sagging retention. Studies consistently indicate that the most effective remedy is improved compensation.83
GDI Scholars
123 Politics
GDI Scholars
124 Politics
GDI Scholars
125 Politics
GDI Scholars
126 Politics
A fetus is no more life than sperm Foster Digby, professor of philosophy at New England College in New Hampshire, Summer 1996, Abortion is
the issue from hell, Free Inquiry, v16 n3 p24 And then there's the most common argument of all, embodied in the strident accusation that abortion is the killing of a new human life. This untutored, mystical view of reproductive biology assumes there is some sort of instantaneous event, like a pistol shot at a race, that starts human life. But the fact is the sperm, the egg, and the womb are all alive and very much human before the process of conception, which is just a continuation of life. Biologically, there simply is no isolable instant at which new life occurs; there is only the continual process of life, within which every identifiable phase is just as new as any other, and none is, strictly speaking, isolable from an ongoing process that has no fathomable beginning or end. Just as our labels for time - seconds, minutes, hours - don't represent discrete temporal segments, the label "conception" does not label a discrete event. None of the purportedly secular arguments against abortion rights that I've heard even approach being logically and scientifically cogent. Such attempts have attained occasional rhetorical effectiveness only when interlarded with words like "unborn children," "innocent babies," and "murder" (with utter disregard for the conventional meanings of these words).
GDI Scholars
127 Politics
Roe is key to blocking the oppression of women Foster Digby, professor of philosophy at New England College in New Hampshire, Abortion is the issue from hell, Free Inquiry, Summer 1996 v16 n3 p24
As someone who was raised one, I am familiar with the religious ideology that supports anti-choice zealotry among fundamentalists (and, to some extent, Catholics). Of course, functionally, abortion restrictions clearly contribute toward maintaining the definition of women as mothers, which facilitates their exclusion from roles that would give them political and economic power; thus, laws against abortion are part of the fabric of women's oppression. But even on the religious right, the oppression of women as ideology is no longer acceptable. Nor is it needed when religious ideology can do the same work - and more effectively, especially if a subterranean sympathy for crucial elements of that ideology deters abortion rights advocates from critically examining it.
GDI Scholars
128 Politics
GDI Scholars
129 Politics
GDI Scholars
130 Politics
GDI Scholars
131 Politics
GDI Scholars
132 Politics
GDI Scholars
133 Politics
for so many thousands of years, been dominated and victimized by men, whose hold on power was reinforced by the patriarchal structure of society. Thus, it is especially disorienting to hear the argument that the only road away from such victimization is to victimize, in turn, another group of human beings--their completely powerless and voiceless offspring. Their very powerlessness makes them the ideal victims: the question which all women must ask themselves is whether the path away
from victimization really lies in joining the victimizers, whether the road to freedom must really be littered with the dead bodies of their unborn children. In the "March on Washington" in the spring of 1989, women of all colors and walks of life forcefully proclaimed their commitment to the tenet that women will never be truly free or equal to men until they can walk away from their sexual encounters just as men have always been able to do. The feminists who were not marching that day wonder whether the March on Washington was not a march down the wrong road, a road fraught with danger. Men and women are different, not just in their biological characteristics, but in their sexual natures as well. There are exceptions, of course, but throughout history men have traditionally approached sex differently than women have. No one can deny that women have always had a higher biological investment in sexual union; abortion seeks to undo that tie. Is the ideal to be pursued a world wherein sex can (and often will be) commitment-free? Leaving abortion aside for just a moment, even most forms of contraception invade the woman's body, not the man's--and in more cases than we want to admit, scar and irrevocably damage those bodies. (Even condoms, the one "male" form of contraception, usually end up being the woman's responsibility--survey after survey shows that it is invariably women, not men, who are responsible for purchasing condoms.) One of the points on which all feminists agree is that women need to build their self-confidence and selfesteem. In a sexist culture, this can be hard to do. As Carol Heilbrun pointed out in a talk given to the Modern Language Association, a man's traditional experience of selfhood can be summed up in a line from the poet Walt Whitman: "I celebrate myself and sing myself, and what I assume you shall assume," whereas poet Emily Dickinson best sums up how women, for too long, experienced selfhood: "I'm nobody." Does abortion build a woman's self-esteem? The point is to question whether abortion on demand can ever bring about the feminine perspective being valued as much as the male, or whether, in fact, abortion ultimately robs women of their self-confidence and self-esteem. Those who
acquiesce to the conviction that pregnancy is a form of enslavement and child-bearing a burden, are adding weight to, not destroying, the yoke of patriarchy. They are letting men be the arbiters of what is valuable, and fighting hard for the "right" to have their own bodies invaded and their children destroyed so that they can get it. What feminists, all feminists, should be doing is working to achieve a world in which the power to bear children is viewed as a gift to be protected rather than a burden to be relieved. That means working for fundamental changes in the structure of society, including, but not limited to, far greater flexibility in the workplace for both mothers and fathers, better preand postnatal care for impoverished women, and much more stringent enforcement of male responsibility for child support. Such changes would be a true feminization of society. They will occur only when we insist upon them, however, and abortion on demand precludes such insistence. When abortion is easily accessible, society no longer has to take pregnancy seriously. Once a woman decides to continue her pregnancy, society is under no obligation to help her: it is, after all, her choice, her responsibility. In militating for the right to abortion on demand, abortion advocates are trying to win their game on the same old gameboard--the patriarchal worldview that denigrates what is unique to women as unimportant, trivial, not to be taken seriously. They are embracing a kind of freedom that uses the female body as an object to be invaded and, if need be, subdued. Feminists who are pro-life see that this can lead only to disaster for women and for their unborn children--yet our voices still go unheard and unheeded.
GDI Scholars
134 Politics
GDI Scholars
135 Politics
GDI Scholars
136 Politics
1,679 316 289 120 First State Legalized in 1967 128 39 Supreme Court Decision in 1973 21 8
Taken from U.S. Senate graph
GDI Scholars
137 Politics
GDI Scholars
138 Politics
GDI Scholars
139 Politics
Bush ANWR
Bush re-election causes ANWR drilling Magnani, 2004 (Meica Magnani. February 13, 2004. The John Hopkins News Letter.
http://www.jhunewsletter.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/13/402c1fad0ffa9.) Long standing in headlines, it sits in the middle of a very lengthy dispute. Against the public's wishes and ignoring the failure of bills to drill, Bush has already has budget projections that include 2.4 billion dollars in revenues from oil lease sales in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in the year 2006. Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman all have been strong leaders in working to secure the wilderness as a refuge while the other Democratic candidates state opposition to the drilling.
Bush winning means we drill ANWR Garnett News Service, May 30, 2004
But Bush's focus is on increasing U.S. energy supplies by opening more federal lands to oil and gas drilling. That would create more energy jobs and help U.S. manufacturers by lowering their fuel bills, according to the Bush campaign. His administration already has opened up federal lands in the West for more oil and natural gas drilling and supports opening up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. ``It would certainly send a strong signal to OPEC,'' Catanzaro said. Experts estimate the refuge could produce enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand for six months to two years. Kerry last year vowed to block the proposal because of the environmental harm drilling would cause.
Bush would push to Drill ANWR Kerry Wont Christian Science Monitor, March 25, 2004
He's not hard-core about it. He favors oil drilling in some areas, just not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He's pushed for stiffer fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles, but he welcomes some market-based solutions. He notes flaws in the Kyoto Protocol. But the League of Conservation Voters gives Kerry a 96 percent lifetime voting record on the environment, one of the highest in Congress. And his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is very involved in the environmental movement, giving large sums to green groups. Among activists, there's no doubt who's the greener candidate. They point to what they say is a long list of industry representatives holding senior positions in the Agriculture and Interior Departments - the two federal agencies that oversee hundreds of millions of acres of public land. They note that Bush reversed a campaign pledge to regulate industrial carbon dioxide, pushed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and favors a "Healthy Forest Initiative" that critics say is a giveaway to the timber industry in the name of wildfire prevention.
Bush will push ANWR in 2005 The Oil Daily, February 3, 2004 (p. Lexis Nexis)
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's fiscal 2005 budget offers no new initiatives for tackling domestic energy production and conservation in significant way, as a looming deficit forced the White House to recommend to Congress small or zero increases in funding for oil and gas programs. Despite opposition and repeated rejection of its budget proposal in Congress, however, the administration maintains its unswerving faith in opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and assumes $ 2.4 billion in revenue through leasing in 2006.