Debater's Corner

All you disarmers out there: Future terrorist attacks with WMD can be prevented by disarm. You should also try wagingpeace.org, of course ...

Run Russian EWS? Well, this article is short, but it explains how the situation as become even worse with Russian early warning radar.

It’s a critique of poll data! This should mess with their Presidential popularity disad.

Noam Chomsky feels the same way I do about Postmodernists.

Happy Holidays!

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Saturday, December 15, 2001(comment)}

Michael Klare has a fantastic new article entitled -- get this -- "U.S. Supremacism and Weapons of Mass Destruction." Get your Hegemony Bad cards here!

Looking for a disad to No First Use or Calculated Ambiguity? This is a specific scenario for how an explicit nuclear threat could prevent war between China, the U.S. and Taiwan. It’s from Sept. 12, 2001.

Our Idiot President has decided to withdraw from the ABM Treaty to build a defense system that won’t work. That’s rocket science, pun intended. If you run ,the Boost-Phase NMD case, good news: joint NMD with Russia is the ONLY way to solve the relations problems caused by withdrawal from the ABM treaty. That article also hints at what this next article explicitly states -- that Putin's credibility will suffer if he appears to be a patsy for the west. This is a link to a Putin Credibility disad. Potentially very effective.

Bombing nations may be more humane than sanctioning them. An interesting article, but it seems like a contrived choice: getting kicked in the ‘nads is probably worse than getting kicked in the shins, but I’m still not lining up in front of Shinkickers R Us.

Speaking of the choice between bombing and sanctioning, Bush is starting to beat the war drum against Iraq. This is a good article from Brookings weighing the risks and benefits of acting against Iraq.

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Friday, December 14, 2001(comment)}

Random stuff

I have a bunch of useful/interesting random links that I need to get out before returning to my recent theme-based bloggage. All of these links, I think, are VERY good articles -- but they don't really relate to each other.

The U.S. has just now admitted that it produced weapons-grade anthrax recently, the first admission since we lied about banning our biological weapons program in 1969. The gall of the people in power amazes me. In a related story, everyone’s favorite club-wielding cave-dweller, Kathleen Bailey, has some arguments about the bioweapon threat the to U.S. More on Bailey down below.

This could be way useful: impact takeouts to any India-Pakistan war scenario. You’ve gotta love any article that includes the term “not on the brink.”

We could use a new article for the European relations disadvantage. How about you?

Finally, Kathleen Bailey attacks the CTBT.
If you want the world’s best Bailey indictments, though, check this out.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, December 13, 2001(comment)}

THE PRICE OF EMPIRE…

… is bad debate.

Kidding, sort of. The header is a reference to late Senator J. William Fulbright’s classic work. The topic of today’s blog is the bad book by Michael Hardt and Antonio 'Toni' Negri, “Empire,” which has spawned a bad debate position. I may be writing a review of "Empire" for SAIS Review.

This is from the conservative Weekly Standard, from 11/12/2001. The right doesn't like Empire for obvious reasons.

The New Republic doesn't like it either, but for somewhat different reasons. I think this review is one of the most reasoned critiques.

FindLaw.com, in an otherwsie positive review, focuses on Hardt and Negri's endorsement of Islamic fundamentalism as an alternative to Empire. Their defense of terrorism and the Islamic revolution in Iran as the world's first post-modern revolution is unsettling.

My favorite, though, is this review from the New Criterion: “It is a poisonous book whose ultimate goal is not to understand but to destroy society. Harvard University Press should be ashamed of publishing it.” Fuck yeah!
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, December 12, 2001(comment)}

BUSH: The Internal Links

On most political disadvantages, the internal links are the weakest parts and the most underexplored. Let me play "The Weakest Link" with a few of those ...

1. Why does the President get credit for the plan?
This is actually the strongest internal link of the bunch. But it's a logical argument for affirmatives to make: why would Bush get credit for, say, CTBT, which he's on the record as opposing? Well, as many scholars note, the President is the most easily perceived leader, and the public blames/credits the Prez for everything. Examples: Clinton claimed (and GOT) credit for the Republican agenda he passed; every President gets credit or blame for the economy under their administration.

2. Why would a popular President get to pass his or her (hopefully) agenda?
This also seems logical at first, but you'ld be surprised. NO STUDY finds a strong relationship between public approval and agenda-passing.

This short essay summarizes the research showing public support doesn't lead to agenda-passing. Most studies find a "weak relationship" between agenda-passing and approval ratings. One possible reason for this might be Congressional stubbornness, and that's important because ...

Two studies have found an INVERSE RELATIONSHIP between the President's approval ratings and ability to pass his agenda. The reason, it's speculated, is that Congress digs in their heels deeper and refuses to let the agenda pass -- and Congress' role in policy-making is more immediate and direct than the public's. That article above, a PDF file, is from December 2001. Very valuable for debaters. The other study is Shull, Steven A. and Thomas C. Shaw. 1999. Explaining Congressional-Presidential Relations. Albany: SUNY Press.

3. Why would the President's popularity on one issue spill over to another?
You got me.

Seriously, there's little reason to believe that because Bush is popular (due to the war), he'll be able to pass legislation that most Americans hate -- i.e., drilling in ANWR. The only argument negative's can make is that popularity gives the President mad power, but there are good specific examples of where Bush's popularity hasn't helped him push things through.

Hope that's a good starting point for you.

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, December 11, 2001(comment)}

(Not really the) President Bush wants to demolish the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. Good job, Our Idiot President.

Running up against the realism critique? Hundreds of Nobel laureates say idealism is the highest form of realism.

Interesting article on America three months after 9/11. HAs some good Bush cards, but more it's valuable for perspective.

Speaking of Bush, I don't think enough debaters get into the political theory associated with the internal links to the disad. Does popularity REALLY increase a president's agenda-passing? Does "bipartisanship"? Do EITHER bipartisanship or popular policies "spill over" to the rest of the agenda (e.g., does passing a popular nuclear policy lead the public and Congress to suddenly support an ANWR drilling policy they've steadfastly opposed)? I'll be blogging some theory links over the next few days so you can investigate for yourself.

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, December 11, 2001(comment)}

Want to learn more about nanotechnology? Start with this Scientific American links page, then move on the The Foresight Institute website. You can read ENGINES OF CREATION, the ultimate nano book, on-line.

The India Pakistan region is the most likely scenario for nuclear war. We knew that already, but these cards are new.

New economic stimulus evidence is out. I can't believe more people aren't running this as a scenario, one way or another ...

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, December 10, 2001(comment)}

Rejecting fast track is a moral as well as a strategic imperative. Excellent arguments against Fast Track Trade from Kevin Danaher.

Nuclear plants will be terrorist targets for a "nuclear holocaust" at the public expense -- and the Bush administration wants you to pay for it. Could be an excellent politics scenario ...

A really interesting article by Barbara Ehrenreich about how globalization's effect on men in radical Islamic countries may fuel violent misogyny.

WMD proliferation of ALL KINDS is more prevalent than ever. Very recent link from the end of November IPS conference.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Friday, December 07, 2001(comment)}

I hate Congress. This story for the NYT, besides providing some great fast track cards, explains the shady tactics the Repubs used to woo spineless Democrats and others to the fast track cause. There's a bright side: That article contains a paragraph about how the thuggish behavior used to pass the bill will STOP meaningful free trade legislation. This article goes in more depth about why the fast track victory in the House isn't as significant as one might think. Here's more news analysis.

The BWC is on the brink! If the 144 countries that belong to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention don't find some common ground soon, the treaty may be "little more than an agreement on paper," Debora Mackenzie reports in THE NEW SCIENTIST.

Read the section about counterforce and countervalue targetting. Some interesting thoughts on each of those cases, and the beginning of an intersting argument about scenario debate.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Friday, December 07, 2001(comment)}

The House passed the Fast Track trade bill today, 215-214. Screw the House. None of them have real jobs -- like manufacturing -- that will be affected by this travesty.

The Fast Track vote in the Senate isn't supposed to come until next year. Be vigilant!

Want something fun to run against HAARP? Try this: It says HAARP consipracy theories just distract us from REAL conspiracies, like the "Education Industrial Complex", whatever that is.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, December 06, 2001(comment)}

Cut your first cards dated 2002! Phillip Gordon wrote this article in the Winter 2002 issue of the British defense journal SURVIVAL (PDF file) on the future of NATO. Welcome to next year already.

Attention people running fast track: this is the best fast track article out right now, a piece from the Brookings Institution. The fast track vote is scheduled for today -- as I wrote in In These Times a few weeks back, it isn't likely to pass. But the thing always comes up again, so keep your eyes on it.

Speaking of Bush scenarios, here's another article for the attack Iraq scenario.

I've been asked by a friend who is editor of SAIS Review, the international affairs journal at Johns Hopkins University, to do a book review on an international affairs book of my choice. Any suggestions? E-mail me recent books you'ld like to see reviewed. Maybe I'll do SPANOS' book, heh heh.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, December 06, 2001(comment)}

Russia and NATO are poised to get along just fine, reports the London Economist.

The BWC case has great aff evidence coming out right now. I think a great DA against this case would be that it helps biotech companies. There's plenty of evidence on both sides for that ...

Some compelling evidence says that Bush <"http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/0111hawk.html">is looking for a justification to attack Iraq. This could be a good politics scenario, especially because it could lead to (as Michael Klare says) open-ended war.

^{posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, December 05, 2001(comment)}

Hope everyone had fun at Auburn. I enjoyed watching the debates, and I got to see a bunch of you debate that I hadn't before.

You like to run a delay counterplan, you say? Well, here are specific delay counterplan solvency cards for CTBT and Puyallup's NATO case <--- that link's a PDF file.

Those who run mininukes/tactical nuclear weapons: we're developing non-nuclear weapons to bust bunkers. That's an answer to the bunker-busting DA.

The latest science shows NMD won't ever work.

Non-debate link: an interesting piece aboutthe science they use to catch the (alleged) Green River Killer.
^{posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, December 03, 2001(comment)}