Archives
Ancient History StartupSecond try
April
Jeff's archives August
September
October
November
December
January
DC Home
Back to HBII
I'm posting this for three reasons: one, this is an affirmative case I wrote for the West Coast Handbook, and I know at least a few teams are running it; two, I wrote a lot of the original articles on it; and three, my homies were the ones that filed the lawsuit. Also, though, I want you to read the rationale for the decision. The Navy wants to upgrade it's Bangor submarine base to house larger nuclear weapons ... but the judge says, even though that would destroy an endangered salmon stream, he can't rule on it -- the allegation is "beyond judicial scrutiny" because of the Navy's policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons at Bangor or other installations. WHAT? This effectively exempts the American nuclear establishment from federal laws like the Endangered Species Act.Bush's performance in year one: if you got the Washington Post version of this article, you didn't get the whole thing.
The long-awaited transcript from the Brookings forum on Bush's legislative prospects for next year.
Bush's high approval ratings increase his party's chances in the midterm elections. I still haven't heard anyone in western Washington run the 2002 elections disad. Pity. Cheap plug: the 2002 Women's Debate Institute will have the ultimate "How to Debate Political Disads" workshop. No, I haven't updated the WDI site yet. Sigh. Been trapped in my house, first sick, then snowed in.I have, however, created a thread about our new Bellingham Debate Cooperative idea, a low cost community debate camp. Check it out.
Did I TELL you the politics cards would fly like locusts after the State of the Union? Brookings hasn't even transcribed their analysis forum yet, and already we have The Business of Congress After September 11: A Look Back and at What's Ahead for 2002, the Bush doctrine's effect on conservatism, and a sweet new take on the budget and deficits.
posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, January 29, 2002(comment)This is all about expanding the war on terrorism to Southeast Asia, including Indonesia and the Phillipines. It's hard to imagine an idea this bad getting through unbeknownst to the public, but it seems like that's what's happening.Some folks up here are starting to run No First Use, which I think is a very good case. David C. Gompert, vice president of the Rand Corporation, doesn't agree with me. This is a fine Bulletin of the Atomic Scientits article about how NFU has ceased to be a viable option with the end of the Cold War. He proposes an alternative policy that might interest some of you. Of course, not everyone agrees with his defense of realist deterrence: Bulletin readers ripped him.
Budget trade-offs are a reality in policy-making. Lots of folks fear with Bush's request for billions in defense dollars, many budget items will get the axe. Interesting stuff, and the basis for a spending tradeoff disadvantage. And how about a balanced budget disadvantage? If we're ever to get back in the black, spending will have to stop. And hey, there's always Coast Guard trade-off. Heh heh.
Don't forget the Brookings Institution National Issues forum on Wednesday! The night after the State of the Union, the politics cards will be flying onto the web.
posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, January 24, 2002(comment)I was on the radio this morning and thought it went pretty well discussing my article about the Indian trust accounts lawsuit. (That link is to Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff's site.) Dean and my mom listened for sure, and probably at least some Californians (the station's in L.A.).The Brookings Institution is holding an online forum entitled: Assessment of President Bush's First Year and Future:
A Brookings National Issues Forum on Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2pm-3:30 p.m. If you debate politics, get the transcript. You can also watch the webcast. This looks to be a fantastic event, just in time for the Mt. Vernon High School tournament, run by the inimitable Mr. Charlie Potter.The U.S. Army is worried about China invading Taiwan in a new scenario. That's published in Parameters, the journal of the Army War College. The new issue of Parameters is CHOCK FULL of fascinating articles related to debate: Is "stability" America's ENEMY? That article says so. Are Russia, China and India forming a new strategic triangle? How about U.S. and U.N. policy towards Iraq? Or Colombia? It's all here.
A video I helped produce is online in both script format and Real Video format. It's about the Tulalip Tribes and salmon recovery. More shameless self-promotion.There's a new CTBT solvency article that emphasizes how CTBT can still preserve deterrence in many ways.
A Congressman says thatnuclear weapons are very vulnerable to being stolen by terrorist groups.
Our Idiot President has proposed an extra $48 billion in military spending. spending disadvantages are non-unique, and the poor are screwed.
Hey, the economic stimulus plan is back! Even though about half of Americas could care less, since it only benefits rich corporations and individuals.
posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, January 23, 2002(comment)Whew! After a disastrous failed login, I've managed to get back in to the blog. Good to be back.My friend Glen Milner, a commited peace and disarmament activist, has recently published Nonviolence or Nonexistence, a good article for those of you running nonviolence critiques.
Now that everyone's heard the Cyprus disad, the primary source is Phillip Gordon of Brookings. His latest piece (1/16 in the Washington Times) is an expansion of the in-depth article in The National Interest from Winter. I don't know if Sehome will be running this any more, but it's fascinating reading from an international affairs perspective. IMO, anyway.
After the ABM treaty withdrawal and the bugging of Jiang Zemin's plane, now is a critical window of opportunity for U.S.-Sino-relations.
The slightest displeasure between U.S. and NATO leads to a break in relations. From Jan. 18, 2002! Good stuff for NATO CPs, DAs, etc.
Putin's credibility is high right now. He woulda won an election held this week. FYI.
The new In These Times is out, and has an article about India and Pakistan entitled On the Brink. Gotta love it when people use debate terms. Scary situation over there, though.
Speaking of In These Times and shameless self-promotion: A southern California radio station, KPFK, wants to interview me about my latest story for ITT. The Indian trust story, unfortunately, isn't available on-line except via Lexis-Nexis. KPFK is a branch of Pacifica Radio, and it'll be available live on the Internet here at 8:15 a.m. PST on Thursday, Jan. 24. I'll see if I can get a transcript to put up here, too.
posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, January 22, 2002(comment)Something I haven't seen enough teams exploit on the negative are multilateral counterplans. Here's a new article about how unilateral action on the part of the U.S. worries Russia especially.Someone asked me if there were cards against the "attack Iraq" scenario that said military action stops alternatives. This article, from the excellent CounterPunch, says just that. Dig it.
Speaking of CounterPunch, this special report "Empire and Terrorism" looks really interesting. No, it's not the "Empire" that those wankers Hardt and Negri talk about -- it's something with actual analysis which could lead to political action.
Do you talk about Feminist International Relations in your debates? Check out the voices of Muslim feminists and their right-on viewpoints. If you want to talk about brave people, the discussion starts with the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women. Struggle on, sisters!
Politically, it's still the economy, stupid. I wonder what this says about Americans -- that as long as we're safe and well-fed, nothing else matters. I suppose that makes us not much different from anyone else, except that most everyone else is neither safe nor well-fed.
posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, January 17, 2002(comment)Noooo!!! Rita Dove, one of my favorite poets, has stopped writing her "Poet's Choice" column for the Washington Post. Here is her last column. She has been succeeded by the vastly less interesting Edward Hirsch. Another bright light of my day snuffed out.Now THIS is funny. Democratic Congressman wants to ban mind control from space. Second item.
In other news, I have told the Sehome team, so I might as well tell anyone who reads this 'blog: I won't be travelling at all next year to high school debate tournaments. I regret this, but it's necessary to give some attention to the other aspects of my life. Some folks know the details already. Best of luck to those of you who will be debating.
I'll still be available via email (jshaw@nwifc.org, jeffmshaw@hotmail.com) to answer any debate theory related questions. I'll still write this 'blog. And I'll ALWAYS cut cards, pathetic as that is. So the circuit isn't losing me except for tournaments.
Anyhow, keep reading. I'll keep posting.
posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, January 14, 2002(comment)Holy Snapple bottles! It's a flaming turn/imperial overreach link to the Caspian Oil scenario that Bainbridge runs.Multiple choice: the fact that there is a debate about whether we shoud attack Iraq is: A) Good, because it provides good debate evidence; B) Bad, because more people might run it as a Bush scenario; or C) Frightening, because it shows that bombing an impoverished and oppressed nation of innocent people is regarded not only as an option, but the FIRST option in response to a tragedy caused by a few dozen non-Iraqis. At least they quote Scott Ritter, the only sane thinker on the issue, it seems. Ivo Daalder, why hast thou forsaken me?
Bush can't even eat pretzels right. What is wrong with this guy?
I saw a terrific affirmative this weekend -- Virtual Nuclear Arsenals. Mark Morris ran it. I think it has great potential. The evidence is great, but this article calls VNAs a "mirage of disarmament" and this article says real and total disarmament is better. (PDF File)
posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, January 14, 2002(comment)Those of you running disarm disarm or deep cuts have probably heard a lot of arguments about Bush and Putin's "deep cuts." The fact is, they're a joke. Thousands of the warheads will go into reserve and be available for redeployment, which means the arms control value of them is nothing.A month or so ago, I blogged a conference that was set to take place at NYU on WMD. Well, it happened, and they have the transcripts up on the web here. Among the luminaries are Jonathan Schell (with an OUTSTANDING piece), Michael Klare and many others. The issues covered include disarm, NMD, US Hegemony, etc. Check it out.
On the up side, Bush is pushing for increased funding to dismantle nuclear weapons in other countries. That's pretty good.
Bush doctrine leads to inevitable war in South Asia. This is to turn Puyallup's India-Pakistan war disad, and the one in Phil Kerpen's "Thursday file."
The Brookings Institution's 2002 nuclear weapons recommednations include solvency for the CTBT.
posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, January 09, 2002(comment)Jeffy's back in effect, with lots and lots o' great links found over the break.I have to plug the new issue of In These Times. Not only is my latest article out now (about Indian trust accounts, not on the web though), but they have Jeff St. Clair's piece about Bush junking the ABM treaty and a GREAT new slam at the Empire kritik. Just check out the last paragraph.
The teaser for this article says it all: "More Than Bush Bargained For? American Involvement Has South Asia on the Brink of Nuclear War." It's from January 6. Given that people are now running the India-Pakistan scenario off of Bush (like Puyallup), this is a sweet turn to that.
Again, the teaser for this article says it all: "Nuclear Weapons: Abolish or Perish." From Jan. 6, 2002.
This isn't online, but if you run the Feminist International Relations kritik, you MUST get the new issue of Z Magazine. If has an article that is a feminist analysis of the current war.
Some people are running a "Bush should attack Iraq" scenario off their politics disad. Here are some links against that horrible and vicious idea. Leon Feurth rages against the attack, saying that an Iraq attack would distract us from the real sources of terrorism and just inflame future conflict. Phillip Gordon of Brookings concurs. In anohter article, Gordon takes a more balanced view, but reasons the costs outweigh the benefits. This is just a letter to the editor, but it's a specific indictment of Richard Perle, who is a primary advocate of bombing Iraq.
Finally, Benjamin Barber, author of "Jihad vs. McWorld," has a new article that addresses the world after Sept. 11. Worth reading for Barber's prescient analysis.
posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, January 07, 2002(comment)
