Debater's Corner

The Washington Post's Charles Babington is already beginning to follow the upcoming 2002 midterm elections, highlighting key issues and analyzing prospects for each party.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, October 30, 2001(comment)}

We're going to the Whitman College debate tournament this weekend -- as I'm sure many others are. It's time to update that Politics file!

Bush's approval rating is still high -- but what's most interesting about this link is that it says Americans still feel the US isn't doing enough about terrorism, especially biological warfare. If someone were to pass a policy to remedy that, Bush's popularity would surely skyrocket.

Those of you that like running Tax Cuts Bad might enjoy this article for impacts, this one for internal links.

On the ANWR/energy policy debate, drilling will also kill the polar bear, in addition to its documented effects on the caribou and the indigenous peoples of the area.

Useful for many debate cases, including PALs: We are closer to nuclear war than anyone thinks, especially in India and Pakistan.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, October 30, 2001(comment)}

A few days back, I wrote that I wanted to be Arundhati Roy. Well, guess what: according to In These Times, I am. Heh heh. That link is to my article about fast track trade this week. By mistake, they put HER name on the top of it. I'm flattered, honestly. The incomparable Ms. Roy had the cover story in the issue, excellent as usual, which is available here.

This is a great new article from Foreign Policy In Focus about de-alerting nuclear weapons and Russia's early warning systems that says the risks are now higher than ever. It's useful in a variety of different ways, including this tight new brink card:

"For example, Russia's troubled economy has led to the profound decay of their early warning satellite system. A fire last May that destroyed a critical facility used to control Russian warning satellites has made things even worse. Dr. Bruce Blair, President of the Center for Defense Information, has concluded, "Russia has completely lost its space-based early warning capabilities. In essence, their ability to tell a false alarm from a real warning has been nearly crippled." False alarms on both sides have already brought us to the brink of nuclear war. What will happen now if there is a war in the volatile neighborhood of Central Asia--a region that includes nuclear powers India, Pakistan … and Russia?"

The American Spectator, long a voice for the rabid right-wing, is dead. Rest in peace, chumps.

(Not really the) President Bush has lifted the ban on political assassinations. Remember when Clinton bombed Iraq because he had heard of some plan that Iraq had to kill Bush the Elder (for which no evidence was ever produced)? By Bush the Younger's logic, many nations should feel justified in bombing the U.S. Oh wait, they already do. Say it with me now: "cycle of violence."

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, October 29, 2001(comment)}

NAME THE SOURCE OF THIS QUOTATION REGARDING BIN LADEN: "No one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be eradicated regardless of its deep origins, the economic and political factors that brought it to life."

George W. Bush? Colin Powell? Mort Kondracke?

Nope. Go here for the answer.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, October 25, 2001(comment)}

I saw this article on the excellent Common Dreams. The article provides an insightful analysis into the cultural aspects of the conflict in Afghanistan.

Many articles, like this one from Salon, say that government spending as a result of the "war" on terrorism will stimulate the economy. This can help debaters answer "spending is bad" positions. I always find it curious how free-market types quickly become military Keynesians when it's time to drop bombs.

A really interesting article about how the home front is where Bush's approval will be won or lost. To quote: "It is hardly as if the air war in Afghanistan has been error-free. In the 18 days since the bombing started, American forces have mistakenly hit a residential area in Kabul, damaged a military hospital or a senior citizens' home (the United Nations and the Pentagon disagree) in Herat and a United Nations demining center, killing several employees. Yet the criticism has been relatively minor, especially compared with the reaction after civilians were killed in the bombing of a bunker in Baghdad in the Persian Gulf war.

Why the difference? "We've been lucky that civilian casualties have been light," one senior administration official said today. But the White House has also been lucky that there are virtually no reporters or even independent observers in the Taliban-controlled sections of Afghanistan. That means no pictures of wounded or dead children, and it means the Pentagon's account of events trumps the Taliban's."

And then there's the dog that ran for mayor. This is happening about 20 minutes from where I sit.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, October 25, 2001(comment)}

Hey, it's a sweet fast track article that answers all the scenarios saying fast track is good. Cheap plug: watch for my article about fast track in the next issue of In These Times.

The more articles I see on the subject, the more a "ban nuclear power" affirmative might be a great case. Many articles are arguing that nuclear plants are the central target for terrorists. You would have to get around foreign policy topicality, but hey ...
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, October 24, 2001(comment)}

When I grow up, I want to be Arundhati Roy. The Indian novelist, essayist and general kick-ass individual has led and is leading a fascinating life, saying important and uncomfortable things.

This is a terrific article about the strategic importance of Afghanistan. It provides insight into broader American motives in prosecuting the war.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, October 23, 2001(comment)}

The 2002 elections are called "midterm elections" because they mark the midpoint of (not really the) President Bush's hopefully last term. This gives rise to a new and exciting politics scenario, the midterm elections scenario.

Basically, the argument goes like this: the plan either makes Bush more or less popular. If it makes him more popular, Republicans will ride his coattails to victory and sweep the midterm elections. If it makes him less popular, the Dems will sweep the midterm elections. There are plenty of impact scenarios for either.

Here is the first article I've found on the topic of midterm elections so far. There will be many more to come. Be on the lookout.

The Cato Institute weighs in on the anthrax scare. Most scholars say that the use of anthrax as a weapon of mass terror isn't likely to be effective.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, October 22, 2001(comment)}

It's the ultimate new Russia disadvantage article. Stephen F. Cohen is the man as far as progressive analysis of that area goes.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Friday, October 19, 2001(comment)}

This is a great new article from Arms Control Today.

And here's another article for the Ban Nuclear Power affirmative case.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, October 16, 2001(comment)}

Just what is the "Bush Doctrine?" Nobody really knows, probably including the man who did not win the election and yet occupies the White House. This article provides good brinks for Hegemony disadvantages.

Most Americans (who ARE these people?) continue to approve of Bush, and approve of the way he's handling WMD terrorist threats like Anthrax. Uniqueness for the Politics DA!

This energy policy article is good for both A) The Bush DA's energy scenario, and B) The nuclear power affirmative case I suggested an entry ago. Here is another good article suggesting that banning nuclear power might diminish terrorist taregts.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, October 16, 2001(comment)}

The fast track trade bill is out of committee. Debaters: this means your scenario brink is THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. People: this means you should call your congressperson and say "this is a really bad idea, especially now."


A great case idea and impact story. Harvey Wasserman says that allowing nuclear power to continue to exist, we are giving terrorists "the weapons of our own mass destruction." Yowza.

Paul Krugman has a good new article emphasizing the folly of privatization, especially as regards essential public services.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, October 10, 2001(comment)}

Bush scenario update time:

Bush's energy policy is bad, bad, bad, and they're trying to push it through now.

Numerous scheming congresspeople are trying to push through the evil Fast Track Trade authority under the cover of war.

Currently, congress will give Bush anything he wants to fight terror. This will be very bad -- it will increase militarism, and won't fight terror.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, October 09, 2001(comment)}

People will undoubtedly run terrorism scenarios and war scenarios with the "Islam v. the West" theme. Edward Said claims that these labels are misleading and problematic. Good read.

The best Bush scenario out there? As of Oct. 8, it's fast track.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, October 08, 2001(comment)}

My interview with Chalmers Johnson is out now in In These Times. (Thumbs up, cheap pop).

Answers to the Russia relations disad: an alliance with Russia could have severe unintended consequences. This turns the relations impact of most Russia DAs.

On a totally unrelated note, Bremerton chicks dig sailors.

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Friday, October 05, 2001(comment)}

You may have heard a lot of things about the "Northern Alliance." Meet the new terrorist thugs that the US will support against the old terrorist thugs. Remember, to deal with your rat problem, you should bring in feral cats.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, October 04, 2001(comment)}

Want to see the reason we should drop food aid on Afghanistan instead of bombs? This is a compelling and well-argued piece entitled "Genocide or Peace: We Can Feed the Starving Afghan Millions or Mount a Military Campaign. We Can't Do Both..."

A cool affirmative idea? Why not stop Congress from making exceptions to the Arms Control Export Act? It's a good idea, is timely, and flips the normal status quo burdens.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, October 03, 2001(comment)}

The Bush disad's energy scenario is hot right now. So is bipartisanship. Look here for a good new article.

Chalmers Johnson is a scholar with some foresight. His article in the LA Times should be required reading. As should my interview with him in next week's In These Times (cheap plug.)
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, October 01, 2001(comment)}