Datasets:

Yusuf5

/

OpenCaselist

like 4

Deal will succeed now -- momentum is building

Nasseri 11-9

Ladane Nasseri 11-9-2014, "Iran Optimistic About Outcome of Nuclear Talks, Official Says," Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-09/u-s-eu-begin-nuclear-talks-with-iran-as-nov-24-deadline-looms.html, [AB]

envoys from the U.S E U and Iran sat down in Oman to try to build momentum for a final nuclear accord the Nov. 24 deadline for a pact drew near. Kerry and Ashton met with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif today A deputy cabinet minister said he’s optimistic about the newest round of talks and thinks Obama would welcome a deal. Under a final agreement Iran would submit to limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. this round will be the start of a new dynamic in the talks with each side interested in seeing the conflict resolved former Iranian ambassador Noushabadi said Americans want these talks after years of efforts to have an outcome so that they are not empty-handed They, too, have to answer to public opinion now is a good time to set the framework of the agreement

envoys sat down to try to build momentum for a final nuclear accord A deputy minister said he’s optimistic about the newest round of talks and thinks Obama would welcome a deal this round will be the start of a new dynamic with each side interested in seeing the conflict resolved Americans want these talks to have an outcome so that they are not empty-handed now is a good time to set the framework of the agreement

Top envoys from the U.S., European Union and Iran sat down in Oman to try to build momentum for a final nuclear accord as the Nov. 24 deadline for a pact drew near. Secretary of State John Kerry and former European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in the Omani capital, Muscat, today. A former Iranian envoy to Oman, now a deputy cabinet minister, said he’s optimistic about the newest round of talks and thinks the Obama administration would welcome a deal. Under a final agreement, Iran would have to submit to limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Kerry has said “big gaps” remain between the sides, including the scope of the country’s uranium enrichment program, how and when to lift economic sanctions, and how long Iran’s nuclear program must remain under international inspections and safeguards. Today’s talks are a prelude to formal negotiations between Iranian officials and diplomats from the group known as the P5+1 -- the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China -- scheduled to begin Nov. 18 in Vienna. An interim agreement signed a year ago traded limited sanctions relief for limitations on Iran’s nuclear work. “We hope this round will be the start of a new dynamic in the talks,” with each side interested in seeing the conflict resolved, former Iranian ambassador to Oman Hossein Noushabadi said in a phone interview from Tehran. ‘Empty-Handed’ “Deep down the Americans also want these talks after years of efforts to have an outcome so that they are not empty-handed,” said Noushabadi, now his country’s deputy culture minister. “That would be unpleasant for them. They, too, have to answer to public opinion.” Zarif told state-run Iranian Students News Agency yesterday that “if the Western side can trust that our aim is peaceful and they don’t have political motives, now is a good time to set the framework of the agreement.” A recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran isn’t abiding by a May agreement to provide information about two areas that have raised suspicions. The agency has sought access to the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran amid suspicions it was used to test explosives linked to nuclear detonations. Iran has denied the nuclear watchdog access to the site, saying it is a military compound, not a nuclear facility. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for energy and medical purposes and rejects allegations that its nuclear work is a cover to build weapons. Iran deal likely by the deadline World Bulletin, 11-13, 14, http://www.worldbulletin.net/todays-news/148222/russia-sees-chance-of-deal-at-nuclear-talks-with-iran A senior Russian diplomat expressed optimism on Wednesday that a deal could be reached this month between world powers and Tehran on curbing Iran's nuclear programme despite "deep gaps" on some issues. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia, which agreed on Tuesday to build up to eight new nuclear reactor units in Iran, was doing all it could to help secure the agrement which would provide assurances to the West that Tehran's programme was not intended to build weapons. The six powers - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany - and Iran face a Nov. 24 deadline for agreement that could also allow an easing of Western economic sanctions on Iran. "We aren't looking at the possibility of not reaching a deal by Nov. 24," Ryabkov, who was present at the latest talks in Muscat this week, was quoted as saying by the Russian news agency Interfax. "We are focused completely on the task before us, in so far as we have a chance, and it's not small. We can't miss (the opportunity)." Russia has traditionally warmer relations than other powers leading the talks with Tehran, which says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes. It is closely involved in developing Iran's nuclear energy programme, having already opened one generator in Bushehr. One of the chief Western concerns is Tehran's capacity to refine uranium quickly that could open the way to arms production. Iran confirmed it had tested a new centrifuge that could speed uranium enrichment, but dismissed suggestions this may have breached last year's interim deal with world powers. That deal said Tehran could continue its "current enrichment R&D (research and development) practices", language that implies it should not expand them.

<h4>Deal will succeed now -- momentum is building </h4><p>Ladane <strong>Nasseri 11-9</strong>-2014, "Iran Optimistic About Outcome of Nuclear Talks, Official Says," Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-09/u-s-eu-begin-nuclear-talks-with-iran-as-nov-24-deadline-looms.html, [AB]</p><p>Top <u><strong><mark>envoys</mark> from the U.S</u></strong>., <u><strong>E</u></strong>uropean <u><strong>U</u></strong>nion <u><strong>and Iran <mark>sat down</mark> in Oman <mark>to try to build momentum</u></strong> <u><strong>for a final nuclear accord</u></strong></mark> as <u><strong>the Nov. 24 deadline for a pact drew near. </u></strong>Secretary of State John <u><strong>Kerry and</u></strong> former European Union foreign policy chief Catherine <u><strong>Ashton met with Iranian Foreign Minister</u></strong> Mohammad Javad <u><strong>Zarif</u></strong> in the Omani capital, Muscat, <u><strong>today</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark> former Iranian envoy to Oman, now a <u><strong><mark>deputy</mark> cabinet <mark>minister</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>said he’s optimistic about the newest round of talks and thinks</mark> </u></strong>the<u><strong> <mark>Obama</mark> </u></strong>administration<u><strong> <mark>would welcome a deal</mark>. Under a final agreement</u></strong>, <u><strong>Iran would</u></strong> have to <u><strong>submit to limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.</u></strong> Kerry has said “big gaps” remain between the sides, including the scope of the country’s uranium enrichment program, how and when to lift economic sanctions, and how long Iran’s nuclear program must remain under international inspections and safeguards. Today’s talks are a prelude to formal negotiations between Iranian officials and diplomats from the group known as the P5+1 -- the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China -- scheduled to begin Nov. 18 in Vienna. An interim agreement signed a year ago traded limited sanctions relief for limitations on Iran’s nuclear work. “We hope <u><strong><mark>this round will be the start of a new dynamic</mark> in the talks</u></strong>,” <u><strong><mark>with each side interested in seeing the conflict resolved</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>former Iranian ambassador </u></strong>to Oman Hossein <u><strong>Noushabadi said</u></strong> in a phone interview from Tehran. ‘Empty-Handed’ “Deep down the <u><strong><mark>Americans</u></strong></mark> also <u><strong><mark>want these talks</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>after years of efforts <mark>to have an outcome so that they are not empty-handed</u></strong></mark>,” said Noushabadi, now his country’s deputy culture minister. “That would be unpleasant for them. <u><strong>They, too, have to answer to public opinion</u></strong>.” Zarif told state-run Iranian Students News Agency yesterday that “if the Western side can trust that our aim is peaceful and they don’t have political motives, <u><strong><mark>now is a good time to set the framework of the agreement</u></strong></mark>.” A recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran isn’t abiding by a May agreement to provide information about two areas that have raised suspicions. The agency has sought access to the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran amid suspicions it was used to test explosives linked to nuclear detonations. Iran has denied the nuclear watchdog access to the site, saying it is a military compound, not a nuclear facility. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for energy and medical purposes and rejects allegations that its nuclear work is a cover to build weapons. Iran deal likely by the deadline World Bulletin, 11-13, 14, http://www.worldbulletin.net/todays-news/148222/russia-sees-chance-of-deal-at-nuclear-talks-with-iran A senior Russian diplomat expressed optimism on Wednesday that a deal could be reached this month between world powers and Tehran on curbing Iran's nuclear programme despite "deep gaps" on some issues. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia, which agreed on Tuesday to build up to eight new nuclear reactor units in Iran, was doing all it could to help secure the agrement which would provide assurances to the West that Tehran's programme was not intended to build weapons. The six powers - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany - and Iran face a Nov. 24 deadline for agreement that could also allow an easing of Western economic sanctions on Iran. "We aren't looking at the possibility of not reaching a deal by Nov. 24," Ryabkov, who was present at the latest talks in Muscat this week, was quoted as saying by the Russian news agency Interfax. "We are focused completely on the task before us, in so far as we have a chance, and it's not small. We can't miss (the opportunity)." Russia has traditionally warmer relations than other powers leading the talks with Tehran, which says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes. It is closely involved in developing Iran's nuclear energy programme, having already opened one generator in Bushehr. One of the chief Western concerns is Tehran's capacity to refine uranium quickly that could open the way to arms production. Iran confirmed it had tested a new centrifuge that could speed uranium enrichment, but dismissed suggestions this may have breached last year's interim deal with world powers. That deal said Tehran could continue its "current enrichment R&D (research and development) practices", language that implies it should not expand them.</p>

1NR

Internal Link Debate

2NC UQ -- Deal Now

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The legalization of prostitution does nothing to change the material conditions that make exploitation possible -- the aff only plays into the patriarchal capitalist system that demand bodies be sold as commodities in the neoliberal market

Pateman 99

Pateman 99

marriage is now only one of the socially acceptable way for men to gain access to women’s bodies Casual sexual liasons no longer carry the social sanctions of thirty years ago there is a huge, multimillion dollar trade in women’s bodies Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism men can buy sexual access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.” Prostitutes are available at all levels of the market as part of business, political, and diplomatic transactions Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is seen a private enterprise and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as private enterprise Prostitution was seen as a necessary evil that protected young women from rape and shielded the family from the ravages of men’s sexual appetites As prostitutes, women openly trade their bodies and, like workers are paid in return the prostitute has clients who pay her by the piece feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker like any other wage laborer Prostitutes should have trade union rights, and feminists often put forward proposals for workers’ control of the industry - one can argue for trade union rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist wage labor - but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in many feminist discussions is that the appropriate conclusion might be that there is nothing wrong with prostitution Contract theorists argue that a prostitute contracts out a certain form of labor power for a given period in exchange for money From the standpoint of contract, the prostitute is an owner of property who contracts out part of that property in her market A prostitute does not sell herself but contracts out the use of sexual services Defenders of prostitution insist that “sound prostitution” is possible Prostitution is defended as a trade fit for anyone to enter. Freedom of contract and equality of opportunity require prostitution be open to everyone and that any individual should be able to buy or sell services The perception of prostitution as a problem about women is deep-seated that any criticism of prostitution is likely to provoke the accusation that criticism of prostitution shows contempt for prostitutes To argue that there is something wrong with prostitution does not necessarily imply any adverse judgment on the women who engage in the work. When socialists criticize capitalism they do not do so because they are contemptuous of workers but because they are the worker champions To reduce the question of capitalism to deficiencies in workers’ consciousness diverts attention from the capitalist, the other participant in the employment contract prostitution can be seen as a problem about men prostitution becomes encapsulated in the question why men demand that women’s bodies are sold as commodities in the capitalist market prostitution is part of the exercise of the law of male sex right one of the ways in which men are ensured access to women’s bodies. There is nothing universal about prostitutes as a group of wage laborers who specialize in work The claim that prostitution is a universal feature of human society relies not only on the cliché of the "oldest profession" but on the widely held assumption that prostitution originates in men's natural sexual urge There is a universal natural (masculine) impulse that requires the outlet provided by prostitution Prostitution is not a mutual, pleasurable exchange of the use of bodies, but the unilateral use of a woman’s body by a man in exchange for money That the institution of prostitution can be presented by a natural extension of a human impulse and sex ” can be equated with the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because an important question is begged: why do men demand that satisfaction must take the form of public access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market in exchange for money

marriage is now the socially acceptable way to access women’s bodies Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism men buy access to bodies in the capitalist market. Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.” Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is a private enterprise Prostitution was seen as a necessary evil that protected women from rape and the family from men’s sexual appetites one can argue for rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist labor but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in feminist discussions is that the conclusion might be there is nothing wrong with prostitution To argue there is something wrong with prostitution does not imply judgment on women To reduce capitalism to workers’ consciousness diverts attention from the capitalist prostitution becomes encapsulated in the question why men demand bodies are sold as commodities prostitution is part of the exercise of the law of male sex right, one of the ways men are ensured access to women’s bodies. There is a universal masculine) impulse that requires prostitution Prostitution is the use of a body for money the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because men demand access to women’s bodies in exchange for money

Carole, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science @ University of California Los Angeles and Honorary Professor @ Cardiff University, “What's Wrong with Prostitution?”, Women's Studies Quarterly, Volume 27, Number 1/2, Spring - Summer, pp. 53-64, AB In modern patriarchy, a variety of means are available through which men can uphold the terms of the sexual contract. The marriage contract is still fundamental to patriarchal right, but marriage is now only one of the socially acceptable ways for men to gain access to women’s bodies. Casual sexual liasons and “living together” no longer carry the social sanctions of twenty or thirty years ago, and, in addition to private arrangements, there is a huge, multimillion dollar trade in women’s bodies. Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism. Wives are no longer put up for public auction (although in Australia, the United States, and Britain, they can be bought by mail order from the Philippines), but men can buy sexual access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market. Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.” Prostitutes are readily available at all levels of the market for any man who can afford one, and they are frequently provide as part of business, political, and diplomatic transactions. Yet the public character of prostitution is less obvious than it might be. Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is seen as private enterprise, and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as private enterprise, and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as a private arrangement between a buyer and a seller. Moreover, prostitution is shrouded in secrecy despite the scale of the industry. In Birmingham, a British city of about 1 million people, some eight hundred women work either as street prostitutes or from their homes or hotels, from “saunas,” “massage parlors,” or “escort agencies.” Nearly 14 thousand men each week buy their services, that is, about seventeen men for each prostitute. A similar level of demand has been recorded in the United States and the total number of customers each week across the country has been conservatively estimated at 1.5 million. The sexual subjection of wives has never lacked defenders, but until very recently an unqualified defense of prostitution has been hard to find. Prostitution was seen, for example, as a necessary evil that protected young women from rape and shielded marriage and the family from the ravages of men’s sexual appetites; or as an unfortunate outcome of poverty and the economic constraints facing women who had to support themselves; or prostitution was seen as no worse, and as more honest, than "legal prostitution," as Mary Wollstonecraft called marriage in 1790. As prostitutes, women openly trade their bodies and, like workers (but unlike a wife), are paid in return. So, for Emma Goldman, "it is merely a question of degree whether [a woman] sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men." Simone de Beauvoir sees the wife as "hired for life by one man; the prostitute has several clients who pay her by the piece. The one is protected by one male against all the others; the other is defended by all against the exclusive tyranny of each."4 Cicely Hamilton noted in 1909 that although women were prevented from bargaining freely in the only trade, marriage, legitimately open to them, they could exercise this freedom in their illegitimate trade; "the prostitute class . . . has pushed to its logical conclusion the principle that woman exists by virtue of a wage paid her in return for the possession of her person. A radical change has now taken place in arguments about prostitution. Many recent feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker like any other wage laborer. Prostitutes should, therefore, have trade union rights, and feminists often put forward proposals for workers’ control of the industry. To argue in this fashion is not necessarily to defend prostitution - one can argue for trade union rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist wage labor - but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in many feminist discussions is that, if the prostitute is merely one worker among others, the appropriate conclusion might be that there is nothing wrong with prostitution. At the very least, the argument implies that there is nothing wrong with prostitution that is not also wrong with other forms of work. This conclusion depends on the same assumptions as another defense of prostitution. Contract theorists argue that a prostitute contracts out a certain form of labor power for a given period in exchange for money. There is a free exchange between prostitute and customer, and the prostitution contract is exactly like - or is one example of - the employment contact. From the standpoint of contract, the prostitute is an owner of property in her person who contracts out part of that property in her market. A prostitute does not sell herself, as is commonly alleged, or even sell her sexual parts, but contracts out the use of sexual services. There is no difference between a prostitute and any other worker or seller of services. The prostitute, like other “individuals,” stands in an external relation to the property in her person. Contract theory thus appears to offer a convincing reply to well-known criticism of and objections to prostitution. For example, for contractarians, the objection that the prostitute is harmed or degraded by her trade misunderstands the nature of what is traded. The body and the self of the prostitute are not offered in the market; she can contact out the use of her services without detriment to herself. Feminists who argue that the prostitute epitomizes women’s subjection to men can now also be told that such a view is a reflection of outmoded attitudes to sex, fostered by men’s propaganda and the old world of women’s subordination. Defenders of prostitution admit that some reforms are necessary in the industry as it exists at present in order for a properly free market in sexual services to operate. Nevertheless, they insist that “sound prostitution” is possible. The idea of sound prostitution illustrates the dramatic shift that has taken place in arguments over prostitution. The new, contractarian defense is a universal argument. Prostitution is defended as a trade fit for anyone to enter. Freedom of contract and equality of opportunity require that prostitution should be open to everyone and that any individual should be able to buy or sell services in the market. Anyone who needs a sexual service should have access to the market, whether male or female, young or old, black or white, ugly or beautiful, deformed or handicapped. Prostitution will then come into its own as a form of therapy - “the role of a prostitute as a kind of therapist is a natural one” - or as a form of social work or nursing (taking care “of the intimate hygiene of disabled patients”). No one will be left out because of inappropriate attitudes to sex. The female hunchback as well as the male hunchback will be able to find a seller of services. Any discussion of prostitution is replete with difficulties. Although contractarians now deny any political significance to the fact that (most) prostitutes are women, one major difficulty is that, in other discussions, prostitution is invariably seen as a problem about the prostitute, as a problem about women. The perception of prostitution as a problem about women is so deep-seated that any criticism of prostitution is likely to provoke the accusation that contemporary contractarians bring against feminists, that criticism of prostitution shows contempt for prostitutes. To argue that there is something wrong with prostitution does not necessarily imply any adverse judgment on the women who engage in the work. When socialists criticize capitalism and the employment contract, they do not do so because they are contemptuous of workers but because they are the worker champions. Nevertheless, appeals to the idea of false consciousness, popular a few years ago, suggested that the problem about capitalism was a problem about workers. To reduce the question of capitalism to deficiencies in workers’ consciousness diverts attention from the capitalist, the other participant in the employment contract. Similarly, the patriarchal assumption that prostitution is a problem about women ensures that the other participant in the prostitution contract escapes scrutiny. Once the story of the sexual contract has been told, prostitution can be seen as a problem about men. The problem of prostitution then becomes encapsulated in the question why men demand that women’s bodies are sold as commodities in the capitalist market. The story of the sexual contract also supplies the answer; prostitution is part of the exercise of the law of male sex right, one of the ways in which men are ensured access to women’s bodies. Feminist criticism of prostitution is now sometimes rejected on the grounds that prostitutes exploit or cheat their male clients; men are presented as the injured parties, not women. To be sure, prostitutes are often able to obtain control over the transaction with their customers by various stratagems and tricks of the trade. However, just as arguments about marriage that appeal to the example of benevolent husbands fail to distinguish between the relation of one particular husband and wife and the structure of the institution of marriage, so particular instances of the prostitution contract, in which a prostitute exploits a male customers, should be distinguished from prostitution as a social institution. Within the structure of the institution of prostitution, “prostitutes” are subject to “clients,” just as “wives” are subordinate to “husbands” within the structure of marriage. There is nothing universal about prostitutes as a discrete group of wage laborers who specialize in a particular line of work, or about prostitution as a specialized occupation or profession within the patriarchal capitalist division of labor. The claim that prostitution is a universal feature of human society relies not only on the cliché of the "oldest profession" but also on the widely held assumption that prostitution originates in men's natural sexual urge. There is a universal natural (masculine) impulse that, it is assumed, requires, and always require, the outlet provided by prostitution. Now that arguments that extramarital sex is immoral have lost their social force, defenders of prostitution often present prostitution as one example of "sex without love," as an example of the satisfaction of natural appetites. 12 The argument, however, is a non sequitur. Defenders of sex without love and advocates of what once was called free love always supposed that the relationship was based on mutual sexual attraction between a man and a woman and involved mutual physical satisfaction. There is no desire or satisfaction on the part of the prostitute. Prostitution is not a mutual, pleasurable exchange of the use of bodies, but the unilateral use of a woman’s body by a man in exchange for money. That the institution of prostitution can be presented by a natural extension of a human impulse, and that “sex without love” can be equated with the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because an important question is begged: why do men demand that satisfaction of a natural appetite must take the form of public access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market in exchange for money?

<h4><strong>The legalization of prostitution does nothing to change the material conditions that make exploitation possible -- the aff only plays into the patriarchal capitalist system that demand bodies be sold as commodities in the neoliberal market </h4><p>Pateman 99</p><p></strong>Carole, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science @ University of California Los Angeles and Honorary Professor @ Cardiff University, “What's Wrong with Prostitution?”, Women's Studies Quarterly, Volume 27, Number 1/2, Spring - Summer, pp. 53-64, AB </p><p>In modern patriarchy, a variety of means are available through which men can uphold the terms of the sexual contract. The marriage contract is still fundamental to patriarchal right, but <u><strong><mark>marriage is now</mark> only one of <mark>the</mark> <mark>socially acceptable way</u></strong></mark>s<u><strong> for men <mark>to</mark> gain <mark>access</mark> to <mark>women’s bodies</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Casual sexual liasons</u></strong> and “living together” <u><strong>no longer carry the social sanctions of</u></strong> twenty or <u><strong>thirty years ago</u></strong>, and, in addition to private arrangements, <u><strong>there is a huge, multimillion dollar trade in women’s bodies</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism</u></strong></mark>. Wives are no longer put up for public auction (although in Australia, the United States, and Britain, they can be bought by mail order from the Philippines), but <u><strong><mark>men</mark> can <mark>buy</mark> sexual <mark>access to</mark> women’s <mark>bodies</mark> <mark>in the capitalist market</u></strong>. <u><strong>Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.”</mark> Prostitutes are</u></strong> readily <u><strong>available at all levels of the market</u></strong> for any man who can afford one, and they are frequently provide <u><strong>as part of business, political, and diplomatic transactions</u></strong>. Yet the public character of prostitution is less obvious than it might be. <u><strong><mark>Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is</mark> seen <mark>a</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong><mark>private enterprise</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as private enterprise</u></strong>, and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as a private arrangement between a buyer and a seller. Moreover, prostitution is shrouded in secrecy despite the scale of the industry. In Birmingham, a British city of about 1 million people, some eight hundred women work either as street prostitutes or from their homes or hotels, from “saunas,” “massage parlors,” or “escort agencies.” Nearly 14 thousand men each week buy their services, that is, about seventeen men for each prostitute. A similar level of demand has been recorded in the United States and the total number of customers each week across the country has been conservatively estimated at 1.5 million. The sexual subjection of wives has never lacked defenders, but until very recently an unqualified defense of prostitution has been hard to find. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution was seen</u></strong></mark>, for example, <u><strong><mark>as a necessary evil that protected</mark> young <mark>women from rape and</mark> shielded</u></strong> marriage and <u><strong><mark>the family from</mark> the ravages of <mark>men’s sexual appetites</u></strong></mark>; or as an unfortunate outcome of poverty and the economic constraints facing women who had to support themselves; or prostitution was seen as no worse, and as more honest, than "legal prostitution," as Mary Wollstonecraft called marriage in 1790. <u><strong>As prostitutes, women openly trade their bodies and, like workers</u></strong> (but unlike a wife), <u><strong>are paid in return</u></strong>. So, for Emma Goldman, "it is merely a question of degree whether [a woman] sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men." Simone de Beauvoir sees the wife as "hired for life by one man; <u><strong>the prostitute has</u></strong> several <u><strong>clients who pay her by the piece</u></strong>. The one is protected by one male against all the others; the other is defended by all against the exclusive tyranny of each."4 Cicely Hamilton noted in 1909 that although women were prevented from bargaining freely in the only trade, marriage, legitimately open to them, they could exercise this freedom in their illegitimate trade; "the prostitute class . . . has pushed to its logical conclusion the principle that woman exists by virtue of a wage paid her in return for the possession of her person. A radical change has now taken place in arguments about prostitution. Many recent <u><strong>feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker like any other wage laborer</u></strong>. <u><strong>Prostitutes should</u></strong>, therefore, <u><strong>have trade union rights, and feminists often put forward proposals for workers’ control of the industry</u></strong>. To argue in this fashion is not necessarily to defend prostitution <u><strong>- <mark>one can argue for</mark> trade union <mark>rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist</mark> wage <mark>labor</mark> - <mark>but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in</mark> many <mark>feminist discussions is that</u></strong></mark>, if the prostitute is merely one worker among others, <u><strong><mark>the</mark> appropriate <mark>conclusion might be</mark> that <mark>there is nothing wrong with prostitution</u></strong></mark>. At the very least, the argument implies that there is nothing wrong with prostitution that is not also wrong with other forms of work. This conclusion depends on the same assumptions as another defense of prostitution. <u><strong>Contract theorists argue that a prostitute contracts out a certain form of labor power for a given period in exchange for money</u></strong>. There is a free exchange between prostitute and customer, and the prostitution contract is exactly like - or is one example of - the employment contact. <u><strong>From the standpoint of contract, the prostitute is an owner of property</u></strong> in her person <u><strong>who contracts out part of that property in her market</u></strong>. <u><strong>A prostitute does not sell herself</u></strong>, as is commonly alleged, or even sell her sexual parts, <u><strong>but contracts out the use of sexual services</u></strong>. There is no difference between a prostitute and any other worker or seller of services. The prostitute, like other “individuals,” stands in an external relation to the property in her person. Contract theory thus appears to offer a convincing reply to well-known criticism of and objections to prostitution. For example, for contractarians, the objection that the prostitute is harmed or degraded by her trade misunderstands the nature of what is traded. The body and the self of the prostitute are not offered in the market; she can contact out the use of her services without detriment to herself. Feminists who argue that the prostitute epitomizes women’s subjection to men can now also be told that such a view is a reflection of outmoded attitudes to sex, fostered by men’s propaganda and the old world of women’s subordination. <u><strong>Defenders of prostitution</u></strong> admit that some reforms are necessary in the industry as it exists at present in order for a properly free market in sexual services to operate. Nevertheless, they<u><strong> insist that “sound prostitution” is possible</u></strong>. The idea of sound prostitution illustrates the dramatic shift that has taken place in arguments over prostitution. The new, contractarian defense is a universal argument. <u><strong>Prostitution is defended as a trade fit for anyone to enter. Freedom of contract and equality of opportunity require</u></strong> that <u><strong>prostitution</u></strong> should <u><strong>be open to everyone and that any individual should be able to buy or sell services</u></strong> in the market. Anyone who needs a sexual service should have access to the market, whether male or female, young or old, black or white, ugly or beautiful, deformed or handicapped. Prostitution will then come into its own as a form of therapy - “the role of a prostitute as a kind of therapist is a natural one” - or as a form of social work or nursing (taking care “of the intimate hygiene of disabled patients”). No one will be left out because of inappropriate attitudes to sex. The female hunchback as well as the male hunchback will be able to find a seller of services. Any discussion of prostitution is replete with difficulties. Although contractarians now deny any political significance to the fact that (most) prostitutes are women, one major difficulty is that, in other discussions, prostitution is invariably seen as a problem about the prostitute, as a problem about women. <u><strong>The perception of prostitution as a problem about women is</u></strong> so <u><strong>deep-seated that any criticism of prostitution is likely to provoke the accusation </u></strong>that contemporary contractarians bring against feminists,<u><strong> that criticism of prostitution shows contempt for prostitutes</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>To argue</mark> that <mark>there is something wrong with prostitution does not</mark> necessarily <mark>imply</mark> any adverse <mark>judgment on</mark> the <mark>women</mark> who engage in the work.</u></strong> <u><strong>When socialists criticize capitalism</u></strong> and the employment contract, <u><strong>they do not do so because they are contemptuous of workers but because they are the worker champions</u></strong>. Nevertheless, appeals to the idea of false consciousness, popular a few years ago, suggested that the problem about capitalism was a problem about workers. <u><strong><mark>To reduce</mark> the question of <mark>capitalism to</mark> deficiencies in <mark>workers’</mark> <mark>consciousness</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>diverts attention from the capitalist</mark>, the other participant in the employment contract</u></strong>. Similarly, the patriarchal assumption that prostitution is a problem about women ensures that the other participant in the prostitution contract escapes scrutiny. Once the story of the sexual contract has been told, <u><strong>prostitution can be seen as a problem about men</u></strong>. The problem of <u><strong><mark>prostitution</u></strong></mark> then <u><strong><mark>becomes</u></strong> <u><strong>encapsulated in the question why men demand</mark> that women’s <mark>bodies are sold as commodities</mark> in the capitalist market</u></strong>. The story of the sexual contract also supplies the answer; <u><strong><mark>prostitution is part of</mark> <mark>the exercise of the law of male sex right</u></strong>,</mark> <u><strong><mark>one of the ways</mark> in which <mark>men are ensured access to women’s bodies. </u></strong></mark>Feminist criticism of prostitution is now sometimes rejected on the grounds that prostitutes exploit or cheat their male clients; men are presented as the injured parties, not women. To be sure, prostitutes are often able to obtain control over the transaction with their customers by various stratagems and tricks of the trade. However, just as arguments about marriage that appeal to the example of benevolent husbands fail to distinguish between the relation of one particular husband and wife and the structure of the institution of marriage, so particular instances of the prostitution contract, in which a prostitute exploits a male customers, should be distinguished from prostitution as a social institution. Within the structure of the institution of prostitution, “prostitutes” are subject to “clients,” just as “wives” are subordinate to “husbands” within the structure of marriage. <u><strong>There is nothing universal about prostitutes as a</u></strong> discrete <u><strong>group of wage laborers who specialize in</u></strong> a particular line of <u><strong>work</u></strong>, or about prostitution as a specialized occupation or profession within the patriarchal capitalist division of labor. <u><strong>The claim that prostitution is a universal feature of human society relies not only on the cliché of the "oldest profession"</u></strong> <u><strong>but</u></strong> also <u><strong>on the widely held assumption that prostitution originates in men's natural sexual urge</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>There is a</mark> <mark>universal</mark> natural (<mark>masculine) impulse that</u></strong></mark>, it is assumed, <u><strong><mark>requires</u></strong></mark>, and always require, <u><strong>the outlet provided by <mark>prostitution</u></strong></mark>. Now that arguments that extramarital sex is immoral have lost their social force, defenders of prostitution often present prostitution as one example of "sex without love," as an example of the satisfaction of natural appetites. 12 The argument, however, is a non sequitur. Defenders of sex without love and advocates of what once was called free love always supposed that the relationship was based on mutual sexual attraction between a man and a woman and involved mutual physical satisfaction. There is no desire or satisfaction on the part of the prostitute. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution is</mark> not a mutual, pleasurable exchange of the use of bodies, but <mark>the</mark> unilateral <mark>use</mark> <mark>of a</mark> woman’s <mark>body</mark> by a man in exchange <mark>for</mark> <mark>money</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>That the institution of prostitution can be presented by a natural extension of a human impulse</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> that “<u><strong>sex</u></strong> without love<u><strong>” can be equated with <mark>the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because</mark> an important question is begged:</u></strong> <u><strong>why do <mark>men demand </mark>that satisfaction</u></strong> of a natural appetite <u><strong>must take the form of public <mark>access to women’s bodies</mark> in the capitalist market <mark>in exchange for money</u></strong></mark>? </p>

1NC

1NC K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Mexico’s economy is recovering but is fragile

Montes 6-25

Montes 6-25

upbeat April data buoyed hopes that the economy is finally on the path toward improved growth. economists welcomed the broad 1.3% expansion in the global index of economic activity in April, which marked the best monthly performance since November 2012 "The frequency of the positive data over the negative data is increasing. There are a whole range of indicators that show that we're in a recovery cycle Aportela cited recent improvements in retail sales and industrial production as encouraging The finance ministry is keeping its 2.7% growth forecast for now. Some analysts argue that this guidance could be too pessimistic. "Markets might be surprised to the upside Capistrán chief economist said the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period" the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year government spending jumped 13% compared with the same period a year earlier the Bank of Mexico is sounding a note of discord. In its most recent policy decision in June, the central bank cut interest rates to support economic growth and said that it will likely lower its 2.3% to 3.3% growth estimate for the year, suggesting that the economic recovery in the coming months will be more moderate. unemployment is relatively high and that the slack in the economy is widening economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm. indicators are still showing weakness in domestic demand nonmanufacturing index fell the urban unemployment rate was close to 6% in May Inflation was subdued until early June, indicating that there is no significant demand pressure on prices. consumer credit growth has been weak.

April data buoyed hopes that the economy is on the path toward growth economists welcomed the 1.3% expansion in activity "The frequency of the positive data is increasing we're in a recovery cycle the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period" the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year government spending jumped 13% central bank cut interest rates and will lower its growth estimate suggesting that the recovery will be moderate unemployment is high and the slack is widening economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm.

(JUAN MONTES, reporter, “Mexican Economy Sees Glimpse of Recovery” June 25, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/mexican-economy-sees-glimpse-of-recovery-1403719934, KB) After many months of dreary economic news from Mexico, upbeat April data buoyed hopes that the economy is finally on the path toward improved growth. The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto and some economists welcomed the broad 1.3% expansion in the global index of economic activity in April, which marked the best monthly performance since November 2012, bolstered by growth in services, construction and industry. "The frequency of the positive data over the negative data is increasing. There are a whole range of indicators that show that we're in a recovery cycle," said Fernando Aportela, Mexico's deputy finance minister. In an interview, Mr. Aportela cited recent improvements in retail sales and industrial production as encouraging. The data, released Tuesday, surprised a market that had been discounting another disappointing year for growth. In 2013, Mexico expanded just 1.1%, the lowest rate since the recession of 2009. Prospects for this year worsened quickly after a sluggish first quarter that prompted the government to cut its growth estimates to 2.7%, well below the 5% growth target sought by Mr. Peña Nieto. The finance ministry is confident that the effect of new taxes on consumption is dissipating, that a battered construction sector is picking up and that Mexico's export engine is gaining pace. Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the U.S., where economic activity is recovering after an unusually harsh winter knocked down demand. The finance ministry is keeping its 2.7% growth forecast for now. Some analysts argue that this guidance could be too pessimistic. "Markets might be surprised to the upside (in coming months) as there are still unjustified bearish views regarding the economy's performance in 2014," said Marco Oviedo, an economist with Barclays, reaffirming his 3% growth forecast. Carlos Capistrán, chief economist of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period" that began in mid-2012, when the country's export engine started to slow and delays in government spending dented investments. "We're very confident that the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year," Mr. Capistrán said, adding that the government is now spending at a much faster pace. In the January-April period, government spending jumped 13% compared with the same period a year earlier. Among the chorus of optimism, however, the Bank of Mexico is sounding a note of discord. In its most recent policy decision in early June, the central bank cut interest rates to support economic growth and said that it will likely lower its 2.3% to 3.3% growth estimate for the year, suggesting that the economic recovery in the coming months will be more moderate. Mexico's central bank has said unemployment is relatively high and that the slack in the economy is widening. The bank is expecting the output gap—the difference between actual output and its potential—to close only in late 2015. Some economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm. "It's premature to say that this is the beginning of a strong recovery. The April data could just be a one-time rebound, given the huge contraction seen in March," said Jonathan Heath, an independent economist. In March, Mexico's economy shrank 0.6% versus February. Mr. Heath said some indicators are still showing weakness in domestic demand. The Mexican Institute of Finance Executives' nonmanufacturing index fell for a fourth straight month in May, and the urban unemployment rate was close to 6% in May, giving no clues of improvement. Inflation was also subdued until early June, indicating that there is no significant demand pressure on prices. And consumer credit growth has been weak. "We should wait to see the economic growth in May and June to be sure that this is a long-lasting recovery and not something temporary," said Mr. Heath. Gross domestic product data for the second quarter of the year will be released on August 21.

<h4>Mexico’s economy is recovering but is fragile</h4><p><strong>Montes 6-25</p><p></strong>(JUAN MONTES, reporter, “Mexican Economy Sees Glimpse of Recovery” June 25, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/mexican-economy-sees-glimpse-of-recovery-1403719934, KB)</p><p>After many months of dreary economic news from Mexico, <u><strong>upbeat <mark>April data buoyed hopes that the economy is</mark> finally <mark>on the path toward</mark> improved <mark>growth</mark>.</u></strong> The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto and some <u><strong><mark>economists welcomed the</mark> broad <mark>1.3% expansion in</mark> the global index of economic <mark>activity</mark> in April, which marked the best monthly performance since November 2012</u></strong>, bolstered by growth in services, construction and industry. <u><strong><mark>"The frequency of the positive data </mark>over the negative data <mark>is increasing</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>There are a whole range of indicators that show that</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>we're in a recovery cycle</u></strong></mark>," said Fernando Aportela, Mexico's deputy finance minister. In an interview, Mr. <u><strong>Aportela cited recent improvements in retail sales and industrial production as encouraging</u></strong>. The data, released Tuesday, surprised a market that had been discounting another disappointing year for growth. In 2013, Mexico expanded just 1.1%, the lowest rate since the recession of 2009. Prospects for this year worsened quickly after a sluggish first quarter that prompted the government to cut its growth estimates to 2.7%, well below the 5% growth target sought by Mr. Peña Nieto. The finance ministry is confident that the effect of new taxes on consumption is dissipating, that a battered construction sector is picking up and that Mexico's export engine is gaining pace. Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the U.S., where economic activity is recovering after an unusually harsh winter knocked down demand. <u><strong>The finance ministry is keeping its 2.7% growth forecast for now. Some analysts argue that this guidance could be too pessimistic. "Markets might be surprised to the upside</u></strong> (in coming months) as there are still unjustified bearish views regarding the economy's performance in 2014," said Marco Oviedo, an economist with Barclays, reaffirming his 3% growth forecast. Carlos <u><strong>Capistrán</u></strong>, <u><strong>chief economist</u></strong> of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, <u><strong>said <mark>the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period"</u></strong></mark> that began in mid-2012, when the country's export engine started to slow and delays in government spending dented investments. "We're very confident that <u><strong><mark>the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year</u></strong></mark>," Mr. Capistrán said, adding that the government is now spending at a much faster pace. In the January-April period, <u><strong><mark>government spending jumped 13%</mark> compared with the same period a year earlier</u></strong>. Among the chorus of optimism, however, <u><strong>the Bank of Mexico is sounding a note of discord. In its most recent policy decision in</u></strong> early <u><strong>June, the <mark>central bank cut interest rates</mark> to support economic growth <mark>and</mark> said that it <mark>will</mark> likely <mark>lower its</mark> 2.3% to 3.3% <mark>growth estimate</mark> for the year, <mark>suggesting that</u></strong> <u><strong>the</mark> economic <mark>recovery</mark> in the coming months <mark>will be</mark> more <mark>moderate</mark>. </u></strong>Mexico's central bank has said <u><strong><mark>unemployment is </mark>relatively <mark>high and</mark> that <mark>the slack</mark> in the economy <mark>is widening</u></strong></mark>. The bank is expecting the output gap—the difference between actual output and its potential—to close only in late 2015. Some <u><strong><mark>economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm.</mark> </u></strong>"It's premature to say that this is the beginning of a strong recovery. The April data could just be a one-time rebound, given the huge contraction seen in March," said Jonathan Heath, an independent economist. In March, Mexico's economy shrank 0.6% versus February. Mr. Heath said some <u><strong>indicators are still showing weakness in domestic demand</u></strong>. The Mexican Institute of Finance Executives' <u><strong>nonmanufacturing index fell</u></strong> for a fourth straight month in May, and <u><strong>the urban unemployment rate was close to 6% in May</u></strong>, giving no clues of improvement. <u><strong>Inflation was</u></strong> also <u><strong>subdued until early June, indicating that there is no significant demand pressure on prices.</u></strong> And <u><strong>consumer credit growth has been weak.</u></strong> "We should wait to see the economic growth in May and June to be sure that this is a long-lasting recovery and not something temporary," said Mr. Heath. Gross domestic product data for the second quarter of the year will be released on August 21.</p>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

We need to learn how to speak the language of policy makers as a precursor to critical and activist research and advocacy. They have no offense against our interp.

Diem et al 2014

Diem et al 2014 (Sarah Diem, Michelle D. Young, Anjalé D. Welton, Katherine Cumings Mansfield & Pei-Ling Lee (2014) The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27:9, 1068-1090, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2014.916007)

scholars found critical policy analysis an indispensable tool for questioning the roots of policy work. critical policy analysis enabled a deeper critique of the contextual nuances and complexities of the policy process critical policy analysis was “focused on the questions of epistemology,” and recognizes the complexities of policy contexts and how these complexities impact what we know to be real and true. scholars found it important to carefully examine policies and interrogate the policy process because policies are “subjective,” “value laden,” “complex,” and “messy.” Through critical policy analyses researchers can decipher multiple arguments or viewpoints, question and discover how nebulous concepts become reality, and explore how ideas become normalized. critical policy analysis is a tool for questioning structures and systems within the policy field. critical policy analysis reveals critical imperfections in the way traditional scholars think about the policy process Within the policy field, this scholar explained, deeply held beliefs about reality and agency are palpable. critical policy analysis enabled them to explore the role of power in making knowledge … which is always shaped by power relationships” as well as, “to investigate the kinds of questions that fundamentally have to do with power and access to the policy process … about what and who has informed this definition over time.” deep investigations of individual policies enabled a better understanding of the way power and voice operated within the policy process. analysis involved exploring the power imbalances among discourse within communities, interest groups, or policy-makers vis-à-vis those impacted by policy “Who is sitting around the decision-making table, and more importantly, who’s not sitting around the decision-making table?” to identify who has a voice in the policy process. Researchers also described the examination of inequities in power as exploring questions of “Who’s winning and who’s not winning?” or “Who’s benefiting and who’s not benefiting?” critical policy analysis allowed him to, “ask important questions about the role of race and racism, of inequity, of issues of social justice and oppression.” Scholars also stressed the importance of exploring silences by looking at, “what policy says and doesn’t say, looking at how problems and solutions are defined and not defined, what voices are included and not included, and looking for voices on the margin.” This idea of distinguishing not only what is centered in policy and policy conversations but also what is marginalized or absent was a common concern among the scholars we interviewed. One scholar explained: We don’t just look at how the problems and solutions are defined …. [We also examine] how they’re not defined. We don’t just look at whose voices were included, but silenced voices using a critical framework when analyzing policy enables the exploration of the voices of those typically not heard in traditional policy contexts and processes. Conducting comprehensive examinations of specific policies involving detailed analyses of each policy-making and implementation stage was the crux of critical policy work “unpacking the assumptions,” exploring the foundational ideas “underpinning the policy,” or “unpacking the sense making” of policy discourse critical policy analysis as a method for critiquing/questioning various stages of policy enactment You’re going in very well aware that there are societal structures that oppress. And policy is then the vehicle through which these things are cemented or not. And so that’s a very different perspective than going in with that kind of an ahistorical, non-historical view. researchers engaged in this project considered analyses an essential precursor to engaged and activist research , “critical policy analysis opens up a space for activism.” Engaged and activist research participants identified informing the work of policy-makers as a key purpose for conducting critical policy analysis. Expressing dissatisfaction with the way the policy process has traditionally worked, they have sought ways to bring different perspectives to bear on policy. critical perspectives enable not only critique, but also indications of what might work in the best interest of certain populations. … We need to learn to speak the language of those who draft and approve policy.” critical policy work is more than an intellectual exercise – that it influences practice and policy critical policy analysis is focused not only on theoretical change but on real change as well: A lot of times we do research and we propose … what we think may be some practices that are worthy of consideration at the policy level. Some real pieces that we’ve done for legislators have actually become part of the state directives. We feel pretty good about that. critical policy analysis fosters a: perspective and the methodological approaches to be able to be more of an activist … it allows me to center the stories and the perspective of students and of families and of communities that have for very much [of the time] been silenced in this. purpose for conducting critical policy analysis to bridging the gap between policy and practice, grounding this bridging activity in the field. Participants shared that their use of critical perspectives that emphasized context and collaboration enabled them to communicate authentically with and be useful to a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, principals, and regional or district leadership personnel. However, making research findings and policy analyses accessible to local educators and educational leaders appeared to be of utmost importance to this group. For example, one researcher stated: practitioners try to show how they can use the policy – any policy. It’s a leverage agency how can you subvert it, how can you move it, how can you use the discourses to mobilize them in ways that actually make it a value meaningful to them as practitioners? build educators’ capacity and then assist them in advocating for or making needed changes part of understanding how to leverage state or federal policy to support typically underserved populations involves challenging wrong-headed beliefs with data, introducing alternate ways of thinking and practicing, and then setting up systems to support them as they change their practice. the key value of critical policy analysis was how it enabled a “revolutionary stance … looking at: What does this policy do within this grid that privileges some and marginalizes and oppresses others?

scholars found critical policy analysis an indispensable tool for questioning the roots of policy work. enabled deeper critique of contextual nuances and complexities of the policy process critical policy analysis “focused on epistemology,” and recognizes scholars found it important to carefully examine policies and interrogate the policy process because policies are “subjective,” researchers can decipher multiple arguments or viewpoints, question and discover how concepts become reality, and critical policy analysis is a tool for questioning structures and systems within the policy field. analysis reveals critical imperfections in the way traditional scholars think about the policy process: analysis enabled them to explore the role of power in making knowledge always shaped by power relationships” “to investigate questions that fundamentally have to do with power and access to the policy process … deep investigations of individual policies enabled a better understanding of the way power and voice operated within the policy process. exploring power imbalances among discourse within communities, policy-makers vis-à-vis those impacted by policy to, “ask important questions about the role of race and racism, of inequity, of issues of social justice and oppression.” exploring silences by looking at, “what policy says and doesn’t say, looking at how problems and solutions are defined and not defined, what voices are included and not included, and looking for voices on the margin.” examine] how they’re not defined silenced voices analyzing policy enables the exploration of the voices of those typically not heard in traditional policy contexts and processes. Conducting comprehensive examinations of specific policies involving detailed analyses of each policy-making and implementation stage was the crux of critical policy work unpacking assumptions foundational ideas “underpinning the policy,” or “unpacking the sense making” of policy discourse a method for critiquing/questioning various stages of policy enactment researchers considered analyses an essential precursor to engaged and activist research “critical policy analysis opens up a space for activism.” participants identified informing the work of policy-makers as Expressing dissatisfaction with policy process critical perspectives enable not only critique, but what might work critical policy work is more than an intellectual exercise – that it influences practice and policy. focused not only on theoretical change but on real change critical policy analysis fosters a: perspective and the methodological approaches to be able to be more of an activist practitioners show how they can use policy It’s a leverage agency how you subvert it move it how you use the discourses to mobilize in ways that actually make it meaningful to them : build educators’ capacity and assist them in advocating for or making needed changes how to leverage federal policy to support typically underserved populations challenging wrong-headed beliefs with data, introducing alternate ways of practicing then setting up systems to support them as they change their practice. critical policy analysis enabled a “revolutionary stance … looking at: What does this policy do within this grid that privileges some and marginalizes and oppresses others?

The scholars interviewed for this project found critical policy analysis an indispensable tool for questioning the roots of much policy work. Contrasting their work to traditional policy analyses, several scholars pointed out how critical policy analysis enabled a deeper critique of the contextual nuances and complexities of the policy process. One scholar explained how critical policy analysis was “focused on the questions of epistemology,” and, unlike traditional approaches to policy analysis, critical policy analysis recognizes the complexities of policy contexts and how these complexities impact what we know to be real and true. The scholars we interviewed found it important to carefully examine policies and interrogate the policy process because, as they pointed out, policies are “subjective,” “value laden,” “complex,” and “messy.” Through critical policy analyses researchers can decipher multiple arguments or viewpoints, question and discover how nebulous concepts become reality, and explore how ideas become normalized. In the words of one participant, critical policy analysis enables both discovery and exploration of “how categories work, and how do they become fixed, and how do we need to constantly challenge the categories?” In this sense, critical policy analysis is a tool for questioning structures and systems within the policy field. Data revealed that participants placed particular importance on using critical policy analysis to explore and question the policy process. One researcher said: We should be constantly asking questions: is this the way it has to be; what’s the value of doing it this way; how are people hurt by this; what are the alternatives? And then: How do you collect information that informs decisions? What would present a compelling case for changing the policy that may be having negative impacts? According to a second scholar, critical policy analysis reveals critical imperfections in the way traditional scholars think about the policy process: You are more or less guided by the tenets of traditional policy analysis, meaning that it’s a realist, structuralist epistemology. There’s a real world out there, and it’s flawed. It’s deeply flawed, and it’s flawed in a very predictable way. Doing work in that area means that you would deal with inequity, you would anticipate people being both effective and ineffective, you are a strong component of “there’s got to be practice” and “there’s got to be change,” and “you can’t get in this conversation just to do the critique; you also have to take part.” Within the policy field, this scholar explained, deeply held beliefs about reality and agency are palpable. The same deeply held beliefs that govern the behavior and assumptions of many policy scholars also impact the role of power and voice in policy processes. Scholars ascertained that critical policy analysis enabled them to explore, “what is the role of power in making knowledge … which is always shaped by power relationships” as well as, “to investigate the kinds of questions that fundamentally have to do with power and access to the policy process … about what and who has informed this definition over time.” It was noted that deep investigations of individual policies enabled a better understanding of the way power and voice operated within the policy process. In some cases, analysis involved exploring the power imbalances among discourse within communities, interest groups, or policy-makers vis-à-vis those impacted by policy. In their work, several scholars used questions such as, “Who is sitting around the decision-making table, and more importantly, who’s not sitting around the decision-making table?” to identify who has a voice in the policy process. Researchers also described the examination of inequities in power as exploring questions of “Who’s winning and who’s not winning?” or “Who’s benefiting and who’s not benefiting?” Through the process of raising critical questions, several scholars focused specifically on identifying and exposing inequities and social injustices, such as “loss of opportunity or lack of opportunity,” “who is not represented and why,” and “what are going to be the repercussions and for whom?” Such explorations unmask how one community’s accumulation of power may result in another community’s loss of power. To illustrate, one scholar found critical policy analysis allowed him to, “ask really important questions about the role of race and racism, of inequity, of issues of social justice and oppression.” Scholars also stressed the importance of exploring silences by looking at, “what policy says and doesn’t say, looking at how problems and solutions are defined and not defined, what voices are included and not included, and looking for voices on the margin.” One participant referred to such silences as “white spaces.” White spaces reveal: What’s missing; what needs to be there that’s not there; what are the silences that are there, and why aren’t they being addressed; and what can you do to help make sure that they are addressed? So looking at inequities, looking at loss of opportunity or lack of opportunity, looking at silences, looking at who’s not represented and why … This idea of distinguishing not only what is centered in policy and policy conversations but also what is marginalized or absent was a common concern among the scholars we interviewed. One scholar explained: We don’t just look at how the problems and solutions are defined …. [We also examine] how they’re not defined. We don’t just look at whose voices were included, but try to figure out what the silenced voices would say if they did have a chance to voice their concerns. In other words, using a critical framework when analyzing policy enables the exploration of the voices of those typically not heard in traditional policy contexts and processes. Conducting comprehensive examinations of specific policies involving detailed analyses of each policy-making and implementation stage, for some scholars, was the crux of critical policy work. Several scholars described their analytical work as “unpacking the assumptions,” exploring the foundational ideas “underpinning the policy,” or “unpacking the sense making” of policy discourse. One researcher defined critical policy analysis as a method for critiquing/questioning various stages of policy enactment: I want to know who is behind the policy, whose voice is being privileged …. And then I want to see how that rolls out to every student, and how it affects particular students …. So analyzing policy in a critical way to see how it is enacted, who it affects, who’s putting it forth, what it means, how it actually does or does not do what the intent is. This scholar explained that exploring how policy is enacted allows the researcher to consider the contextual intricacies of the policy process: You’re going in very well aware that there are societal structures that oppress. And policy is then the vehicle through which these things are cemented or not. And so that’s a very different perspective than going in with that kind of an ahistorical, non-historical view. For some researchers, an examination of this nature was not an end in itself, however. Rather, just over half of the researchers engaged in this project considered analyses an essential precursor to engaged and activist research. In the words of one scholar, “critical policy analysis opens up a space for activism.” Engaged and activist research Although the complexity offered through the application of most critical perspectives to policy analysis might make it hard to accept that influencing policy could even be an option for critical policy scholars, our participants identified informing the work of policy-makers as a key purpose for conducting critical policy analysis. Expressing dissatisfaction with the way the policy process has traditionally worked, they have sought ways to bring different perspectives to bear on policy. According to one participant, “most critical perspectives enable not only critique, but also indications of what might work in the best interest of certain populations. … We need to learn to speak the language of those who draft and approve policy.” Thinking about the development of this particular area of scholarship, one scholar expressed the expectation that critical policy work is more than an intellectual exercise – that it influences practice and policy. Another scholar remarked that critical policy analysis is focused not only on theoretical change but on real change as well: A lot of times we do research and we propose … what we think may be some practices that are worthy of consideration at the policy level. Some real pieces that we’ve done for legislators have actually become part of the state directives. We feel pretty good about that. One participant explained that critical policy analysis fosters a: perspective and the methodological approaches to be able to be more of an activist … it allows me to center the stories and the perspective of students and of families and of communities that have for very much [of the time] been silenced in this. Respondents linked their purpose for conducting critical policy analysis to bridging the gap between policy and practice, grounding this bridging activity in the field. Participants shared that their use of critical perspectives that emphasized context and collaboration enabled them to communicate authentically with and be useful to a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, principals, and regional or district leadership personnel. However, making research findings and policy analyses accessible to local educators and educational leaders appeared to be of utmost importance to this group. For example, one researcher stated: The thing you’re trying to do with the practitioners is to try to show how they can use the policy – any policy. It’s a leverage; some agency for them. You know, how can you subvert it, how can you move it, how can you use the discourses to mobilize them in ways that actually make it a value meaningful to them as practitioners? Another participant provided a perspective on how to build bridges between policy and educators’ practice: build educators’ capacity and then assist them in advocating for or making needed changes. This researcher explained that part of understanding how to leverage state or federal policy within local schools to support typically underserved student populations involves challenging wrong-headed beliefs about such students with data, introducing alternate ways of thinking and practicing, and then setting up systems to support them as they change their practice. Indeed, another researcher told us that given the current direction of federal and national education policy, critical policy analysis: is wonderful because we have an obligation, those of us in universities, to ask what structural priorities aren’t being addressed when we direct federal funding streams in certain directions. And I think that it becomes harder to have that kind of dissent, if you will, when there is such a powerful sort of torrential flood and momentum in one direction. I think it’s essential for the field of policy to nurture independence in scholars. I think we want to continue to bring in people from many different disciplines to ask these questions. This researcher went on to say that it is important to “be experimental” and not “be afraid to pose questions that are right at the heart of central issues about power,” particularly when it comes to what this researcher described as the “new federal role” in education. One scholar explained that the key value of critical policy analysis was how it enabled a “revolutionary stance … looking at: What does this policy do within this grid that privileges some and marginalizes and oppresses others? It is a different view.” Along similar lines, a different scholar stated: The problem is there and there’s a sense of urgency to do something about the problem. … We have to be engaged. We have to care about something so much that it’s going to move us to act, that it’s going to move us to do something, not just necessarily write about it.

<h4>We need to learn how to speak the language of policy makers as a precursor to critical and activist research and advocacy. They have no offense against our interp.</h4><p><strong>Diem et al 2014</strong> (Sarah Diem, Michelle D. Young, Anjalé D. Welton, Katherine Cumings Mansfield & Pei-Ling Lee (2014) The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27:9, 1068-1090, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2014.916007)</p><p>The <u><strong><mark>scholars</u></strong></mark> interviewed for this project <u><strong><mark>found</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>critical policy analysis an indispensable tool for questioning the roots of</mark> </u></strong>much <u><strong><mark>policy work.</u></strong></mark> Contrasting their work to traditional policy analyses, several scholars pointed out how <u><strong>critical policy analysis <mark>enabled</mark> a <mark>deeper critique</mark> <mark>of</mark> the <mark>contextual nuances and complexities of the policy process</u></strong></mark>. One scholar explained how <u><strong><mark>critical policy analysis</mark> was <mark>“focused on</mark> the questions of <mark>epistemology,” and</u></strong></mark>, unlike traditional approaches to policy analysis, critical policy analysis <u><strong><mark>recognizes</mark> the complexities of policy contexts and how these complexities impact what we know to be real and true.</p><p></u></strong>The <u><strong><mark>scholars</u></strong></mark> we interviewed <u><strong><mark>found it important to</mark> <mark>carefully examine policies and interrogate the policy process</mark> <mark>because</u></strong></mark>, as they pointed out, <u><strong><mark>policies are “subjective,”</mark> “value laden,” “complex,” and “messy.” Through critical policy analyses <mark>researchers can decipher multiple arguments or viewpoints, question and discover how</mark> nebulous <mark>concepts become reality, and </mark>explore how ideas become normalized.</p><p></u></strong>In the words of one participant, critical policy analysis enables both discovery and exploration of “how categories work, and how do they become fixed, and how do we need to constantly challenge the categories?” In this sense, <u><strong><mark>critical policy analysis is a tool for questioning structures and systems within the policy field.</p><p></u></strong></mark>Data revealed that participants placed particular importance on using critical policy analysis to explore and question the policy process. One researcher said:</p><p>We should be constantly asking questions: is this the way it has to be; what’s the value of doing it this way; how are people hurt by this; what are the alternatives? And then:</p><p>How do you collect information that informs decisions? What would present a compelling case for changing the policy that may be having negative impacts?</p><p>According to a second scholar, <u><strong>critical policy <mark>analysis reveals critical imperfections</mark> <mark>in the way traditional scholars think about the policy process</u></strong>:</p><p></mark>You are more or less guided by the tenets of traditional policy analysis, meaning that it’s a realist, structuralist epistemology. There’s a real world out there, and it’s flawed. It’s deeply flawed, and it’s flawed in a very predictable way. Doing work in that area means that you would deal with inequity, you would anticipate people being both effective and ineffective, you are a strong component of “there’s got to be practice” and “there’s got to be change,” and “you can’t get in this conversation just to do the critique; you also have to take part.”</p><p><u><strong>Within the policy field, this scholar explained, deeply held beliefs about reality and agency are palpable.</p><p></u></strong>The same deeply held beliefs that govern the behavior and assumptions of many policy scholars also impact the role of power and voice in policy processes. Scholars ascertained that <u><strong>critical policy <mark>analysis</mark> <mark>enabled them to explore</u></strong></mark>, “what is<u><strong> <mark>the role of power in making knowledge</mark> … which is <mark>always shaped by power relationships”</mark> as well as, <mark>“to investigate</mark> the kinds of <mark>questions</mark> <mark>that fundamentally have to do with power and access to the policy process …</mark> about what and who has informed this definition over time.”</u></strong> It was noted that <u><strong><mark>deep investigations of</mark> <mark>individual policies</mark> <mark>enabled a better understanding of the way power and voice operated within the policy process.</p><p></u></strong></mark>In some cases, <u><strong>analysis involved <mark>exploring</mark> the <mark>power imbalances among discourse within communities,</mark> interest groups, or <mark>policy-makers vis-à-vis those impacted by policy</u></strong></mark>. In their work, several scholars used questions such as, <u><strong>“Who is sitting around the decision-making table, and more importantly, who’s not sitting around the decision-making table?” to identify who has a voice in the policy process. Researchers also described the examination of inequities in power as exploring questions of “Who’s winning and who’s not winning?” or “Who’s benefiting and who’s not benefiting?”</p><p></u></strong>Through the process of raising critical questions, several scholars focused specifically on identifying and exposing inequities and social injustices, such as “loss of opportunity or lack of opportunity,” “who is not represented and why,” and “what are going to be the repercussions and for whom?” Such explorations unmask how one community’s accumulation of power may result in another community’s loss of power. To illustrate, one scholar found <u><strong>critical policy analysis allowed him <mark>to, “ask </u></strong></mark>really<u><strong><mark> important questions about the role of race and racism, of inequity, of issues of social justice and oppression.”</p><p></mark>Scholars</u></strong> <u><strong>also stressed the importance of <mark>exploring silences by looking at, “what policy says and doesn’t say, looking at how problems and solutions are defined and not defined, what voices are included and not included, and looking for voices on the margin.”</u></strong></mark> One participant referred to such silences as “white spaces.” White spaces reveal:</p><p>What’s missing; what needs to be there that’s not there; what are the silences that are there, and why aren’t they being addressed; and what can you do to help make sure that they are addressed? So looking at inequities, looking at loss of opportunity or lack of opportunity, looking at silences, looking at who’s not represented and why …</p><p><u><strong>This idea of distinguishing not only what is centered in policy and policy conversations but also what is marginalized or absent was a common concern among the scholars we interviewed. One scholar explained:</p><p>We don’t just look at how the problems and solutions are defined …. [We also <mark>examine] how they’re not defined</mark>. We don’t just look at whose voices were included, but </u></strong>try to figure out what the<u><strong> <mark>silenced voices</mark> </u></strong>would say if they did have a chance to voice their concerns.</p><p>In other words,<u><strong> using a critical framework when <mark>analyzing policy enables the exploration of the voices of those typically not heard in traditional policy contexts and processes.</p><p>Conducting comprehensive examinations of</mark> <mark>specific policies involving detailed analyses of each policy-making and implementation stage</u></strong></mark>, for some scholars, <u><strong><mark>was the crux of critical policy work</u></strong></mark>. Several scholars described their analytical work as <u><strong>“<mark>unpacking</mark> the <mark>assumptions</mark>,” exploring the <mark>foundational ideas</mark> <mark>“underpinning the policy,” or “unpacking the sense making” of policy discourse</u></strong></mark>. One researcher defined <u><strong>critical policy analysis as <mark>a method for critiquing/questioning various stages of</mark> <mark>policy enactment</u></strong></mark>:</p><p>I want to know who is behind the policy, whose voice is being privileged …. And then I want to see how that rolls out to every student, and how it affects particular students …. So analyzing policy in a critical way to see how it is enacted, who it affects, who’s putting it forth, what it means, how it actually does or does not do what the intent is. This scholar explained that exploring how policy is enacted allows the researcher to consider the contextual intricacies of the policy process:</p><p><u><strong>You’re going in very well aware that there are societal structures that oppress. And policy is then the vehicle through which these things are cemented or not. And so that’s a very different perspective than going in with that kind of an ahistorical, non-historical view.</p><p></u></strong>For some researchers, an examination of this nature was not an end in itself, however. Rather, just over half of the <u><strong><mark>researchers</mark> engaged in this project <mark>considered analyses an</mark> <mark>essential precursor to engaged and activist research</u></strong></mark>. In the words of one scholar<u><strong>, <mark>“critical policy analysis opens up a space for activism.”</p><p></mark>Engaged and activist research</p><p></u></strong>Although the complexity offered through the application of most critical perspectives to policy analysis might make it hard to accept that influencing policy could even be an option for critical policy scholars, our <u><strong><mark>participants</mark> <mark>identified informing the work of policy-makers</mark> <mark>as </mark>a key purpose for conducting critical policy analysis.</p><p><mark>Expressing dissatisfaction with</mark> the way the <mark>policy process</mark> has traditionally worked, they have sought ways to bring different perspectives to bear on policy.</u></strong> According to one participant, “most <u><strong><mark>critical perspectives enable not only critique, but</mark> also indications of <mark>what might work</mark> in the best interest of certain populations. … We need to learn to speak the language of those who draft and approve policy.”</p><p></u></strong>Thinking about the development of this particular area of scholarship, one scholar expressed the expectation that <u><strong><mark>critical policy work is more than an intellectual exercise – that it influences practice and policy</u></strong>.</mark> Another scholar remarked that <u><strong>critical policy analysis is <mark>focused not only on theoretical change but on real change</mark> as well:</p><p>A lot of times we do research and we propose … what we think may be some practices that are worthy of consideration at the policy level. Some real pieces that we’ve done for legislators have actually become part of the state directives. We feel pretty good about that.</p><p></u></strong>One participant explained that<u><strong> <mark>critical policy analysis fosters a: perspective and the methodological approaches to be able to be more of an activist</mark> … it allows me to center the stories and the perspective of students and of families and of communities that have for very much [of the time] been silenced in this.</p><p></u></strong>Respondents linked their <u><strong>purpose for conducting critical policy analysis to bridging the gap between policy and practice, grounding this bridging activity in the field. Participants shared that their use of critical perspectives that emphasized context and collaboration enabled them to communicate authentically with and be useful to a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, principals, and regional or district leadership personnel. However, making research findings and policy analyses accessible to local educators and educational leaders appeared to be of utmost importance to this group. For example, one researcher stated:</p><p></u></strong>The thing you’re trying to do with the<u><strong> <mark>practitioners</u></strong></mark> is to <u><strong>try to <mark>show how they can use</mark> the <mark>policy</mark> – any policy. <mark>It’s a leverage</u></strong></mark>; some <u><strong><mark>agency</mark> </u></strong>for them. You know, <u><strong><mark>how</mark> can <mark>you subvert it</mark>, how can you <mark>move it</mark>, <mark>how</mark> can <mark>you use the discourses to mobilize</mark> them <mark>in ways that actually make it</mark> a value <mark>meaningful to them</mark> as practitioners? </u></strong>Another participant provided a perspective on how to build bridges between policy and educators’ practice<mark>: <u><strong>build educators’ capacity and</mark> then <mark>assist them in advocating for or making needed changes</u></strong></mark>. This researcher explained that<u><strong> part of understanding <mark>how to leverage</mark> state or <mark>federal policy</mark> </u></strong>within local schools <u><strong><mark>to support typically underserved</u></strong></mark> student<u><strong> <mark>populations</mark> involves <mark>challenging wrong-headed beliefs</mark> </u></strong>about such students<u><strong> <mark>with data, introducing alternate ways of</mark> thinking and <mark>practicing</mark>, and <mark>then setting up systems to support them as they change their practice.</p><p></u></strong></mark>Indeed, another researcher told us that given the current direction of federal and national education policy, critical policy analysis: is wonderful because we have an obligation, those of us in universities, to ask what structural priorities aren’t being addressed when we direct federal funding streams in certain directions. And I think that it becomes harder to have that kind of dissent, if you will, when there is such a powerful sort of torrential flood and momentum in one direction. I think it’s essential for the field of policy to nurture independence in scholars.</p><p>I think we want to continue to bring in people from many different disciplines to ask these questions.</p><p>This researcher went on to say that it is important to “be experimental” and not “be afraid to pose questions that are right at the heart of central issues about power,” particularly when it comes to what this researcher described as the “new federal role” in education.</p><p>One scholar explained that <u><strong>the key value of <mark>critical policy analysis</mark> was how it <mark>enabled a “revolutionary stance …</mark> <mark>looking at: What does this policy do within this grid that privileges some and marginalizes and oppresses others?</u></strong></mark> It is a different view.” Along similar lines, a different scholar stated:</p><p><strong>The problem is there and there’s a sense of urgency to do something about the problem. … We have to be engaged. We have to care about something so much that it’s going to move us to act, that it’s going to move us to do something, not just necessarily write about it.</p></strong>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The state-by-state system is broken – only federal legalization solves industry uncertainty and taxation benefits

Blumenauer and Polis 13

Blumenauer and Polis 13 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd District) and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO 2nd District), “The Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy,” 2013, http://polis.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_path_forward.pdf SJE

The current regulatory system for marijuana is broken. Due to this patchwork system, many operating in compliance with state law may find themselves raided and their businesses ruined, while others that are actually breaking both federal and state laws may never be caught. Many patients who need marijuana for legitimate medical purposes can’t obtain it legally. They are forced to the black market Today, legitimate marijuana businesses can’t operate like other businesses, and state tax laws often aren’t consistent with their marijuana laws. Federal prosecutors and local law enforcement in each state often handle the situation differently, and the entire industry remains clouded by uncertainty, illegitimacy and fear.¶ it is time for the federal government to make sure that states, businesses, and individuals are able to act in an environment that has coherent and consistent laws. Congress should Tax and Regulate Marijuana removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and creating a regulatory and taxation framework, similar to the frameworks in place for alcohol and tobacco. A specific tax on marijuana grown for all purposes should be imposed to help fund substance abuse dependency treatment, law enforcement, and help reduce the federal debt a $50 per ounce tax, for example, would raise estimated revenue of $20 billion annually. This represents a unique opportunity to save ruined lives, wasted enforcement and prison costs, while simultaneously creating a new industry, with new jobs and revenues that will improve the federal budget outlook.

The system is broken many operating in compliance with state law find themselves ruined, while others breaking federal and state laws may never be caught patients are forced to the black market legitimate marijuana businesses can’t operate like other businesses state tax laws aren’t consistent with their marijuana laws the entire industry remains clouded by uncertainty , it is time for the federal government to make sure that businesses are able to act in an environment that has coherent and consistent laws Congress should Tax and Regulate Marijuana removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and creating a regulatory and taxation framework, a $50 per ounce tax, , would raise 20 billion annually. This represents a unique opportunity to save lives and costs, while creating a new industry

The current regulatory system for marijuana is broken. As more states move to legalize the substance, the problems will only get worse. Due to this patchwork system, many operating in compliance with state law may find themselves raided and their businesses ruined, while others that are actually breaking both federal and state laws may never be caught. Many patients who need marijuana for legitimate medical purposes can’t obtain it legally. They are forced to the black market, risking their safety and paying exorbitant prices. Simultaneously, medical marijuana programs have the potential to become safe havens for those looking to use the drug for relaxation or recreational purposes. Today, legitimate marijuana businesses can’t operate like other businesses, and state tax laws often aren’t consistent with their marijuana laws. Federal prosecutors and local law enforcement in each state often handle the situation differently, and the entire industry – an industry that many Americans support – remains clouded by uncertainty, illegitimacy and fear.¶ It is time to make a change. While individual states remain the laboratories of innovation, it is time for the federal government to make sure that states, businesses, and individuals are able to act in an environment that has coherent and consistent laws. Congress should pursue each of the following options: 1. Tax and Regulate Marijuana Considering the growing number of jurisdictions that legalize medical marijuana and the two jurisdictions that legalize recreational use, it is time that Congress end the federal prohibition on marijuana, removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and creating a regulatory and taxation framework, similar to the frameworks in place for alcohol and tobacco. A specific tax on marijuana grown for all purposes should be imposed to help fund substance abuse dependency treatment, law enforcement, and help reduce the federal debt. Revenue estimates from taxing marijuana vary due to uncertainties surrounding the existing marijuana market and how legalization and regulation would impact price and consumption habits. Assuming increased legal consumption and reduction in prices, a $50 per ounce tax, for example, would raise estimated revenue of $20 billion annually. 53 Any study of the fiscal impact should also include the savings generated by reduced expenditures on marijuana interdiction and enforcement. This represents a unique opportunity to save ruined lives, wasted enforcement and prison costs, while simultaneously creating a new industry, with new jobs and revenues that will improve the federal budget outlook. Passing such legislation would represent a key part of a comprehensive approach to marijuana reform. However Congress should also consider additional legislation that would ease problems during this transitional period, such as exempting medical marijuana specifically to ensure patient access, and alleviating specific tax and business challenges.

<h4><strong>The state-by-state system is broken – only federal legalization solves industry uncertainty and taxation benefits </h4><p>Blumenauer and Polis 13</p><p></strong>Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3rd District) and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO 2nd District), “The Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy,” 2013, http://polis.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_path_forward.pdf<u> SJE</p><p><mark>The</mark> current regulatory <mark>system</mark> for marijuana <mark>is broken</mark>.</u> As more states move to legalize the substance, the problems will only get worse. <u>Due to this patchwork system, <mark>many operating in compliance with state law </mark>may <mark>find themselves </mark>raided and their businesses <mark>ruined, while others</mark> that are actually <mark>breaking</mark> both <mark>federal and state laws may never be caught</mark>. Many <mark>patients </mark>who need marijuana for legitimate medical purposes can’t obtain it legally. They <mark>are forced to the black market</u></mark>, risking their safety and paying exorbitant prices. Simultaneously, medical marijuana programs have the potential to become safe havens for those looking to use the drug for relaxation or recreational purposes. <u>Today, <mark>legitimate marijuana businesses can’t operate like other businesses</mark>, and <mark>state tax laws</mark> often <mark>aren’t consistent with their marijuana laws</mark>. Federal prosecutors and local law enforcement in each state often handle the situation differently, and <strong><mark>the entire industry</u></strong></mark> – an industry that many Americans support – <u><strong><mark>remains clouded by</strong> <strong>uncertainty</strong></mark>, illegitimacy and fear.¶ </u>It is time to make a change. While individual states remain the laboratories of innovation<mark>, <u><strong>it is time for the federal government to make sure that</mark> states, <mark>businesses</mark>, and individuals <mark>are able to act in an environment that has coherent and consistent laws</strong></mark>. <mark>Congress should</u></mark> pursue each of the following options: 1. <u><mark>Tax and Regulate Marijuana</u></mark> Considering the growing number of jurisdictions that legalize medical marijuana and the two jurisdictions that legalize recreational use, it is time that Congress end the federal prohibition on marijuana, <u><mark>removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and creating a regulatory and taxation framework,</mark> similar to the frameworks in place for alcohol and tobacco. A specific tax on marijuana grown for all purposes should be imposed to help fund substance abuse dependency treatment, law enforcement, and help reduce the federal debt</u>. Revenue estimates from taxing marijuana vary due to uncertainties surrounding the existing marijuana market and how legalization and regulation would impact price and consumption habits. Assuming increased legal consumption and reduction in prices, <u><mark>a $50 per ounce tax,</mark> for example<mark>, would raise</mark> estimated revenue of $<mark>20 billion annually.</mark> </u>53 Any study of the fiscal impact should also include the savings generated by reduced expenditures on marijuana interdiction and enforcement. <u><mark>This represents a unique opportunity to save </mark>ruined <mark>lives</mark>, wasted enforcement <mark>and</mark> prison <mark>costs, while</mark> simultaneously <mark>creating a new industry</mark>, with new jobs and revenues that will improve the federal budget outlook.</u> Passing such legislation would represent a key part of a comprehensive approach to marijuana reform. However Congress should also consider additional legislation that would ease problems during this transitional period, such as exempting medical marijuana specifically to ensure patient access, and alleviating specific tax and business challenges.</p>

1AC

Solvency

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Even if the nuclear deal fails, PC is still key to sustain negotiations in the status quo which prevent prolif

Ross 10-16-14

Ross, Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and counselor at The Washington Institute, 10-16-14 (Dennis, previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for the central region at the National Security Council, “How To Muddle Through With Iran,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142219/dennis-ross/how-to-muddle-through-with-iran, accessed 10-20-14, CMM)

if there is no agreement before the talks end Iranians will take the lid off their program and rapidly ramp up their uranium enrichment program. Tehran would resume enriching uranium at 20 percent, increase its use of next generation centrifuges, and expand its stockpiles of enriched material. This would shrink the so-called break-out time that Iran would require to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium and potentially hide it. that would mean that the U S could no longer be confident that it could prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. the Israeli government’s temptation to launch a military strike against the Iranian nuclear program would surely grow not only because of the increased threat of Tehran’s program, but because the international community might be more forgiving of Israeli military action in circumstances where the Iranians appear to be rapidly accelerating their nuclear program is this dangerous sequence of events likely to take place? It’s possible, but neither the P5+1 nor the Iranians are keen on escalation, so both sides are likely to look for a way out One possibility would be to agree to an extension of the negotiations under the current terms. The benefit of such an extension, is that it would keep the Iranian program contained, and the Islamic Republic would not move closer to break-out capability Iranians would receive additional economic relief, Joseph, a former U.S. National Security Council official argued that preserving the status quo is preferable to the uncertainty and danger of no deal as it still leaves room for the possibility of achieving a sustainable comprehensible agreement. A possible variant of this scenario would be a partial deal in which both sides would formalize an agreement on several issues and continue the dialogue on the areas where there are still significant disagreements. In each case, diplomacy would continue and there would be no new sanctions.

if there is no agreement Iranians will rapidly ramp up enrichment This would shrink the break-out time to produce weapons-grade uranium the U S could no longer prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons the Israeli temptation to launch a military strike would surely grow not only because of the increased threat but because the international community might be more forgiving of military action this dangerous sequence ’s possible but neither both sides are likely to look for a way out One possibility would be an extension of negotiations under current terms it would keep the Iranian program contained preserving the status quo is preferable to the uncertainty and danger of no deal as it still leaves room for a comprehensible agreement

One negotiator from the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) told me that he expects that if there is no agreement before the talks end, the Iranians will take the lid off their program and rapidly ramp up their uranium enrichment program. Tehran would resume enriching uranium at 20 percent, increase its use of next generation centrifuges, and expand its stockpiles of enriched material. This would shrink the so-called break-out time that Iran would require to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium and potentially hide it. And that, in turn, would mean that the United States could no longer be confident that it could prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. How would the United States respond? Its first step would almost certainly be to introduce more draconian sanctions against Tehran and mobilize international support for them. (The most important of these sanctions would be designed to greatly curtail Iran’s ability to export its oil.) Notwithstanding the new sanctions, the Israeli government’s temptation to launch a military strike against the Iranian nuclear program would surely grow -- not only because of the increased threat of Tehran’s program, but also because the international community might be more forgiving of Israeli military action in circumstances where the Iranians appear to be rapidly accelerating their nuclear program. So, is this dangerous sequence of events likely to take place? It’s possible, but neither the P5+1 nor the Iranians are keen on escalation, so both sides are likely to look for a way out. A PARTIAL DEAL One possibility would be to agree to an extension of the negotiations under the current terms. The benefit of such an extension, for the West, is that it would keep the Iranian program contained, and the Islamic Republic would not move closer to break-out capability. For their part, the Iranians would receive additional economic relief, even though the basic structure of the sanctions regime would remain intact. Jofi Joseph, a former U.S. National Security Council official, has argued that preserving the status quo is preferable to the uncertainty and danger of no deal as it still leaves room for the possibility of achieving a sustainable comprehensible agreement. A possible variant of this scenario would be a partial deal in which both sides would formalize an agreement on several issues -- redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor, reconfiguration of Fordow into a research facility, enhanced verification protocols for nuclear inspectors -- and continue the dialogue on the areas where there are still significant disagreements. In each case, diplomacy would continue and there would be no new sanctions. Washington would have to accept that it could not roll back the Iranian program immediately, although it would still hope to do so over time.

<h4>Even if the nuclear deal fails, PC is still key to sustain negotiations in the status quo which prevent prolif</h4><p><strong>Ross</strong>, Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and counselor at The Washington Institute, <strong>10-16-14</strong> (Dennis, previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for the central region at the National Security Council, “How To Muddle Through With Iran,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142219/dennis-ross/how-to-muddle-through-with-iran, accessed 10-20-14, CMM)</p><p>One negotiator from the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) told me that he expects that <u><strong><mark>if there is no agreement</mark> before the talks end</u></strong>, the <u><strong><mark>Iranians</u></strong> <u><strong>will</mark> take the lid off their program and <mark>rapidly ramp up</mark> their uranium <mark>enrichment</mark> program. Tehran would resume enriching uranium at 20 percent, increase its use of next generation centrifuges, and expand its stockpiles of enriched material. <mark>This would shrink the</mark> so-called <mark>break-out time</mark> that Iran would require <mark>to produce weapons-grade</mark> enriched <mark>uranium</mark> and potentially hide it.</u></strong> And <u><strong>that</u></strong>, in turn, <u><strong>would mean that <mark>the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>could no longer </mark>be confident that it could <mark>prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons</mark>. </u></strong>How would the United States respond? Its first step would almost certainly be to introduce more draconian sanctions against Tehran and mobilize international support for them. (The most important of these sanctions would be designed to greatly curtail Iran’s ability to export its oil.) Notwithstanding the new sanctions, <u><strong><mark>the Israeli</mark> government’s <mark>temptation to launch a military strike</mark> against the Iranian nuclear program <mark>would surely grow</u></strong></mark> -- <u><strong><mark>not only because of the increased threat</mark> of Tehran’s program, <mark>but</mark> </u></strong>also <u><strong><mark>because the international community might be more forgiving of</mark> Israeli <mark>military action</mark> in circumstances where the Iranians appear to be rapidly accelerating their nuclear program</u></strong>. So, <u><strong>is <mark>this dangerous sequence</mark> of events likely to take place? It<mark>’s possible</mark>, <mark>but neither</mark> the P5+1 nor the Iranians are keen on escalation, so <mark>both sides are likely to look for a way out</u></strong></mark>. A PARTIAL DEAL <u><strong><mark>One possibility would</mark> <mark>be</mark> to agree to <mark>an extension of</mark> the <mark>negotiations under</mark> the <mark>current terms</mark>. The benefit of such an extension,</u></strong> for the West, <u><strong>is that <mark>it would keep the Iranian program contained</mark>, and the Islamic Republic would not move closer to break-out capability</u></strong>. For their part, the <u><strong>Iranians would receive additional economic relief, </u></strong>even though the basic structure of the sanctions regime would remain intact. Jofi <u><strong>Joseph, a former U.S. National Security Council official</u></strong>, has <u><strong>argued that <mark>preserving the status quo is preferable to the</mark> <mark>uncertainty and danger of no deal as it still leaves room for</mark> the possibility of achieving <mark>a</mark> sustainable <mark>comprehensible agreement</mark>. A possible variant of this scenario would be a partial deal in which both sides would formalize an agreement on several issues</u></strong> -- redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor, reconfiguration of Fordow into a research facility, enhanced verification protocols for nuclear inspectors -- <u><strong>and continue the dialogue on the areas where there are still significant disagreements. In each case, diplomacy would continue and there would be no new sanctions. </u></strong>Washington would have to accept that it could not roll back the Iranian program immediately, although it would still hope to do so over time. </p>

1NR

Internal Link Debate

2NC UQ -- Deal Now

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The impact is global violence

Zizek and Daly 04

Zizek and Daly 04 [Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek, 2004, p. 14-16]

our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. the gentrification of global liberal capitalism fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix

our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. in order to create a universal system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a gentrification of that system. the gentrification of global liberal capitalism reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and social exclusion remains mystified and nameless this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. universalism would not attempt to conceal or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

<h4><strong>The impact is global violence </h4><p>Zizek and Daly 04 </p><p></strong>[Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek, 2004, p. 14-16]</p><p>For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that <u><strong><mark>our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the</mark> constitutive <mark>violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization</mark> / anonymization <mark>of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world.</u></strong></mark> Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that <u><strong><mark>in order to create a universal</mark> global <mark>system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a</mark> kind of <mark>gentrification of that system.</mark> </u></strong>What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that <u><strong><mark>the gentrification of global liberal capitalism</u></strong></mark> is one whose ‘universalism’ <u><strong>fundamentally <mark>reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations.</u></strong></mark> In this way, <u><strong><mark>neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes</mark> of winning and losing <mark>as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place.</mark> </u></strong>Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, <u><strong><mark>the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and</mark>,</u></strong> in consequence, <u><strong><mark>social exclusion remains mystified and nameless</u></strong></mark> (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that <u><strong><mark>this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect</u></strong></mark> (or misdirect) <u><strong><mark>social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation.</u></strong></mark> Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this <u><strong>Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that <mark>our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale.</u></strong></mark> While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), <u><strong>what is novel about Zizek’s <mark>universalism</mark> is that it <mark>would not attempt to conceal</mark> this fact <mark>or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix</u></strong>.<u><strong></mark> </p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The plan destroys cartels

O’Hara 14

O’Hara 14 (Mary Emily O’Hara, Freelance journalist, “Legal Pot in the US Is Crippling Mexican Cartels” May 8, 2014, https://news.vice.com/article/legal-pot-in-the-us-is-crippling-mexican-cartels, KB)

a large portion of the US illegal drug market is controlled directly by Mexican cartels. Now, those cartels and their farmers complain that marijuana legalization is hurting their business. pot farmers in the Sinaloa region have stopped planting due to a massive drop in wholesale prices “It’s not worth it anymore. I wish the Americans would stop with this legalization.” before legalization in Washington and Colorado, about 10 million pounds of pot were grown in the US every year. But 40 million pounds came from Mexico. “Is it hurting the cartels? Yes. They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.” US state legalization would cut into cartel business and take over about 30 percent of their market.

the US illegal drug market is controlled by Mexican cartels those cartels complain that legalization is hurting their business pot farmers have stopped planting due to a drop in prices “Is it hurting the cartels? Yes. US state legalization would take over 30 percent of their market.

Marijuana has accounted for nearly half of all total drug arrests in the US for the past 20 years, according to the FBI’s crime statistics. And according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), a large portion of the US illegal drug market is controlled directly by Mexican cartels. The DOJ’s National Drug Intelligence Center, which has since been shut down, found in 2011 that the top cartels controlled the majority of drug trade in marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine in over 1,000 US cities. Now, those cartels and their farmers complain that marijuana legalization is hurting their business. And some reports could suggest that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is more interested in helping to protect the Mexican cartels’ hold on the pot trade than in letting it dissipate. Seven Mexican cartels have long battled for dominance of the US illegal drug market: Sinaloa, Los Zetas, Gulf, Juarez, Knights Templar, La Familia, and Tijuana. While some smaller cartels operate only along border regions in the Southwest and Southeast, giant cartels like Sinaloa have a presence on the streets of every single region. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that pot farmers in the Sinaloa region have stopped planting due to a massive drop in wholesale prices, from $100 per kilo down to only $25. One farmer is quoted as saying: “It’s not worth it anymore. I wish the Americans would stop with this legalization.” VICE News talked to retired federal agent Terry Nelson, a former field level commander who worked to prevent drugs from crossing the southern border. Nelson said that before medical marijuana and state legalization in Washington and Colorado, about 10 million pounds of pot were grown in the US every year. But 40 million pounds came from Mexico. Given the DEA’s relationship with Sinaloa, and the agency’s fury over legalized marijuana, it almost seems like the DEA wants to crush the legal weed market in order to protect the interests of their cartel friends. Almost. Exact numbers on illegal drug trafficking are always hard to pin down, due to the black market nature of distribution and sales. “Is it hurting the cartels? Yes. The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.” In 2012, a study by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that US state legalization would cut into cartel business and take over about 30 percent of their market.

<h4><strong>The plan destroys cartels</h4><p>O’Hara 14</p><p></strong>(Mary Emily O’Hara, Freelance journalist, “Legal Pot in the US Is Crippling Mexican Cartels” May 8, 2014, https://news.vice.com/article/legal-pot-in-the-us-is-crippling-mexican-cartels<u><strong>, KB)</p><p></u></strong>Marijuana has accounted for nearly half of all total drug arrests in the US for the past 20 years, according to the FBI’s crime statistics. And according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), <u><strong>a large portion of <mark>the US illegal drug market is controlled</mark> directly <mark>by Mexican cartels</mark>. </u></strong>The DOJ’s National Drug Intelligence Center, which has since been shut down, found in 2011 that the top cartels controlled the majority of drug trade in marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine in over 1,000 US cities. <u><strong>Now, <mark>those cartels</mark> and their farmers <mark>complain that</mark> marijuana <mark>legalization is hurting their business</mark>.</u></strong> And some reports could suggest that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is more interested in helping to protect the Mexican cartels’ hold on the pot trade than in letting it dissipate. Seven Mexican cartels have long battled for dominance of the US illegal drug market: Sinaloa, Los Zetas, Gulf, Juarez, Knights Templar, La Familia, and Tijuana. While some smaller cartels operate only along border regions in the Southwest and Southeast, giant cartels like Sinaloa have a presence on the streets of every single region. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that <u><strong><mark>pot farmers</mark> in the Sinaloa region <mark>have stopped planting due to a</mark> massive <mark>drop in </mark>wholesale <mark>prices</u></strong></mark>, from $100 per kilo down to only $25. One farmer is quoted as saying: <u><strong>“It’s not worth it anymore. I wish the Americans would stop with this legalization.” </u></strong>VICE News talked to retired federal agent Terry Nelson, a former field level commander who worked to prevent drugs from crossing the southern border. Nelson said that <u><strong>before</u></strong> medical marijuana and state <u><strong>legalization in Washington and Colorado, about 10 million pounds of pot were grown in the US every year. But 40 million pounds came from Mexico. </u></strong>Given the DEA’s relationship with Sinaloa, and the agency’s fury over legalized marijuana, it almost seems like the DEA wants to crush the legal weed market in order to protect the interests of their cartel friends. Almost. Exact numbers on illegal drug trafficking are always hard to pin down, due to the black market nature of distribution and sales. <u><strong><mark>“Is it hurting the cartels? Yes.</mark> </u></strong>The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “<u><strong>They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.” </u></strong>In 2012, a study by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that <u><strong><mark>US state legalization would</mark> cut into cartel business and <mark>take over</mark> about <mark>30 percent of their market.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The ballot is a form of interest convergence between the judge and the aff – this pacifying inclusive gesture replicates academic domination through liberal appropriation whilst perpetuating stasis through guilt assuasion

Chow 1993

Chow – Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities @ Brown - 1993

While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary The question is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony in an opposition against dominant power but how they can resist the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,” and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return to haunt us. Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested claims of oppression and victimization that are used to guilt-trip and to control; sexist and racist reaffirmations of sexual and racial diversities that are made merely in the name of righteousness—all these forces create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense, We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are battles of words Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are not changing the lives of those who seek survival What academic intellectuals must confront is thus not their or their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed) but the power, wealth, and privilege that Ironically accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words The predicament we face in the West Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen. How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper?

The question is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony in oppositional against dominant power but how they can resist the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return claims of oppression and victimization are used to guilt-trip and to control; affirmations of diversities that are made in the name of righteousness create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are not changing the lives of those who seek survival What academic intellectuals must confront is not their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed but the privilege that accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper

(Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, p. 16-17) While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary for many reasons-especially in cases where underprivileged groups seek equality of privilege-I remain skeptical of the validity of hegemony over time, especially if it is a hegemony formed through intellectual power. The question for me is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony (a question that positions them in an oppositional light against dominant power and neglects their share of that power through literacy, through the culture of words), but how they can resist, as Michel Foucault said, “the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse.’ “ Putting it another way, how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them and which can no longer be divided into the state and civil society in Gramsci’s terms, nor be clearly demarcated into national and transnational spaces? Because “borders” have so clearly meandered Into so many intel lectual issues that the more stable and conventional relation be tween borders and the field no longer holds, intervention cannot simply be thought of in terms of the creation of new ‘fields.” Instead, it is necessary to think primarily in terms of borders—of borders, that Is, as parasites that never take over a field in Its en tirety but erode it slowly and tactically. The work of Michel de Certeau Is helpful for a formulation of this para-sitical intervention. De Certeau distinguishes between “strategy” and another practice—”tactic”—in the following terms. A strategy has the ability to “transform the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (de Certeau, p. 36). The type of knowledge derived from strategy is one sustained and determined by the power to provide oneself with one’s own place” (de Certeau, p. 36). Strategy therefore belongs to “an economy of the proper place” (de Certeau, p. 55) and to those who are committed to the building, growth, and fortification of a “field. A text, for instance, would become in this economy “a cultural weapon, a private hunting pre serve.” or a means of social stratification” in the order of the Great Wall of China (de Certeau, p. 171). A tactic, by contrast, is a cal culated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (de Certeau, p’ 37). Betting on time instead of space, a tactic concerns an operational logic whose models may go as far back as the age-old ruses of fishes and insects that disguise or transform themselves in order to survive, and which has in any case been concealed by the form of rationality currently dominant in Western culture” (de Certeau, p. xi). Why are “tactics useful at this moment? As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,” and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return to haunt us. Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested claims of oppression and victimization that are used merely to guilt-trip and to control; sexist and racist reaffirmations of sexual and racial diversities that are made merely in the name of righteousness—all these forces create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned. These new solidarities are often informed by a strategic attitude which repeats what they seek to overthrow. The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense, We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are battles of words. Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are most certainly not directly changing the downtrodden lives of those who seek their survival in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan spaces alike. What academic intellectuals must confront is thus not their victimization by society at large (or their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed), but the power, wealth, and privilege that Ironically accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words. (When Foucault said intellectuals need to struggle against becoming the object and instrument of power, he spoke precisely to this kind of situation.) The predicament we face in the West, where Intellectual freedom shares a history with economic enterprise, Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business, . . . he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen. “ Why should we believe in those who continue to speak a language of alterity-as-lack while their salaries and honoraria keep rising? How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses, when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper? How do we prevent what begin as tactics—that which is ‘without any base where it could stockpile its winnings” (de Certeau. p. 37)—from turning into a solidly fenced-off field, in the military no less than in the academic sense?

<h4><strong>The ballot is a form of interest convergence between the judge and the aff – this pacifying inclusive gesture replicates academic domination through liberal appropriation whilst perpetuating stasis through guilt assuasion</h4><p>Chow </strong>– Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities @ Brown -<strong> 1993</p><p></strong>(Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, p. 16-17) </p><p><u>While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary</u> for many reasons-especially in cases where underprivileged groups seek equality of privilege-I remain skeptical of the validity of hegemony over time, especially if it is a hegemony formed through intellectual power. <u><mark>The question</u></mark> for me <u><mark>is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony</u></mark> (a question that positions them <u><mark>in</mark> an <mark>opposition</u>al</mark> light <u><mark>against dominant power</u></mark> and neglects their share of that power through literacy, through the culture of words), <u><mark>but <strong>how they can resist</u></strong></mark>, as Michel Foucault said, “<u><mark>the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse</u></mark>.’ “ Putting it another way, <u><mark>how do intellectuals struggle against <strong>a hegemony which already includes them</u></strong></mark> and which can no longer be divided into the state and civil society in Gramsci’s terms, nor be clearly demarcated into national and transnational spaces? Because “borders” have so clearly meandered Into so many intel lectual issues that the more stable and conventional relation be tween borders and the field no longer holds, intervention cannot simply be thought of in terms of the creation of new ‘fields.” Instead, it is necessary to think primarily in terms of borders—of borders, that Is, as parasites that never take over a field in Its en tirety but erode it slowly and tactically. The work of Michel de Certeau Is helpful for a formulation of this para-sitical intervention. De Certeau distinguishes between “strategy” and another practice—”tactic”—in the following terms. A strategy has the ability to “transform the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (de Certeau, p. 36). The type of knowledge derived from strategy is one sustained and determined by the power to provide oneself with one’s own place” (de Certeau, p. 36). Strategy therefore belongs to “an economy of the proper place” (de Certeau, p. 55) and to those who are committed to the building, growth, and fortification of a “field. A text, for instance, would become in this economy “a cultural weapon, a private hunting pre serve.” or a means of social stratification” in the order of the Great Wall of China (de Certeau, p. 171). A tactic, by contrast, is a cal culated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (de Certeau, p’ 37). Betting on time instead of space, a tactic concerns an operational logic whose models may go as far back as the age-old ruses of fishes and insects that disguise or transform themselves in order to survive, and which has in any case been concealed by the form of rationality currently dominant in Western culture” (de Certeau, p. xi). Why are “tactics useful at this moment? <u>As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,”</u> <u>and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and <mark>as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, <strong>many</strong> deep-rooted, <strong>politically reactionary forces return</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>to haunt us.</u></strong> <u>Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested <strong><mark>claims</strong></mark> <strong><mark>of oppression and victimization</strong></mark> that <strong><mark>are used</u></strong></mark> merely <u><strong><mark>to guilt-trip and to control</strong>; </mark>sexist and racist re<mark>affirmations of </mark>sexual and racial <mark>diversities that are made</mark> merely <mark>in the name of righteousness</mark>—all these forces <mark>create new “solidarities whose ideological premises <strong>remain unquestioned</u></strong></mark>. These new solidarities are often informed by a strategic attitude which repeats what they seek to overthrow. <u>The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense,</u> <u>We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are <strong>battles of words</u></strong>. <u><mark>Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are</mark> </u>most certainly <u><strong><mark>not</u></strong></mark> directly<u> <strong><mark>changing the</strong></mark> </u>downtrodden<u> <strong><mark>lives of those who seek</strong></mark> </u>their<u> <strong><mark>survival</strong></mark> </u>in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan spaces alike.<u> <mark>What academic intellectuals must confront is</mark> thus <mark>not their</mark> </u>victimization by society at large (<u>or their <mark>victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed</mark>)</u>, <u><mark>but the</mark> power, wealth, and <mark>privilege that</mark> Ironically <mark>accumulate <strong>from their</strong> “oppositional” <strong>viewpoint</strong></mark>, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words</u>. (When Foucault said intellectuals need to struggle against becoming the object and instrument of power, he spoke precisely to this kind of situation.) <u>The predicament we face in the West</u>, where Intellectual freedom shares a history with economic enterprise, <u>Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business</u>, . . . <u>he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen.</u> “ Why should we believe in those who continue to speak a language of alterity-as-lack while their salaries and honoraria keep rising? <u><mark>How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses</u></mark>, <u><mark>when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper</mark>?</u> How do we prevent what begin as tactics—that which is ‘without any base where it could stockpile its winnings” (de Certeau. p. 37)—from turning into a solidly fenced-off field, in the military no less than in the academic sense?</p>

1NC

1NC Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

States can’t solve without the federal government

Chemerinsky et al. 5/19/14

Chemerinsky et al. 5/19/14 [Erwin Chemerinsky , University of California, Irvine ~ School of Law ; Jolene Forman , American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Fellow; Allen Hopper, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Director; Sam Kamin, University of Denver ~ Sturm College of Law, Professor and Director, Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program. “Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation.” Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25 ETB]

the federal government surprised many by ¶ announcing that it would forgo, legal challenges to the new laws and ¶ allow Colorado and Washington to implement their regulatory regimes unimpeded This memo emphasized eight priorities that drive federal marijuana enforcement ¶ policy and then indicated that states that could demonstrate compliance with these ¶ priorities would largely be left to their own devices this hardly solves the federalism problems caused by marijuana’s dual legal status. marijuana’s continued status as a prohibited substance under federal law significantly hampers the capacity of the states to effectively implement new state taxation and ¶ regulatory policies. ¶ the threat of federal enforcement is only one of the potential problems stemming ¶ from the continuing federal prohibition of marijuana that even if the promise of federal non-enforcement were made permanent which cannot happen by ¶ executive action alone because enforcement decisions are always made at the whim of ¶ the executiv federal prohibition operates to present substantial obstacles to businesses and individuals seeking to implement and avail themselves of new state laws authorizing marijuana distribution and use. A. Banking ¶ the most profound consequence of marijuana’s ¶ prohibited status at the federal level is the unavailability of even the most rudimentary ¶ banking services for those engaged in marijuana commerce The threat – often¶ explicit – of money laundering prosecutions has made banks unwilling to engage in any transactions with marijuana businesses. As a result, marijuana in the states is ¶ largely a cash business, with all of the problems and negative connotations associated ¶ Regulators in Colorado and Washington State grasped early on that resolution of this ¶ problem would be one of the key concerns However, lawmakers in both states also realized fairly quickly that, given the ¶ predominantly federal nature of banking regulation, there was little that could be done ¶ at the state level alone Although Obama announced that marijuana businesses should have access to banking services59 and promulgated a ¶ pair of memos purporting to loosen banking restrictions on the marijuana industry,60 ¶ there is little that the executive branch can do unitarily; the core of the banking ¶ problem is the continuing illegality of marijuana at the federal level. even if the federal government were to promise never to pursue money laundering charges against those banks doing business with the marijuana industry, it is not at all clear that banks would actually begin to treat marijuana businesses the way they treat other businesses. The assets of a marijuana business remain subject to forfeiture even in the face of a federal promise not to pursue such actions and it is difficult to see how those assets could be seen by a bank as sufficiently secure against ¶ government seizure to be worth the risk. B. Tax Law¶ A little-known provision of federal tax law makes the operation of a successful ¶ marijuana business an ¶ incredibly difficult proposition. Federal Tax Rule 280E64 requires those operating in ¶ violation of federal drug laws to pay federal income tax ¶ and to do so on extremely disadvantageous terms Under 280E a marijuana retailer ¶ cannot deduct her expenses prior to calculating her taxable income; a marijuana business is required to pay taxes on its ¶ gross receipts.66 All other usual business expenses cannot be deducted as they can in any other business, ¶ either legitimate or illegal. ¶ Even if the federal government does not seek to prosecute marijuana business for ¶ violating federal law, and even if it does not seek to forfeit the assets of businesses in ¶ violation of that federal law, it is already applying rule 280E against those businesses ¶ in ways that may prove nearly as crippling to the industry. a literal interpretation of 280E would [cripple] ruin the entire industry No business could survive if it's taxed on its gross revenue So long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, marijuana businesses will have difficulty operating as full legal citizens. One of the biggest obstacles facing ¶ marijuana businesses is finding attorneys willing to provide legal ¶ service Because nearly all the actions of a marijuana professional remain violations of ¶ federal law, any assistance that a lawyer gives to a business that she knows to be in ¶ violation of federal law could be construed as an ethical violation Because all these tasks help a marijuana business to break federal law, ¶ there is a plausible argument that the lawyer subjects herself to discipline for ¶ knowingly doing so. ¶ State bar committees have split on the issue Even if a state were to explicitly empower lawyers to assist marijuana clients, those ¶ lawyers would have to tell those clients that they are in a state of profound legal ¶ uncertainty Take for example Hammer v. Today’s Health Care The court sided with the defendant, holding ¶ that neither legal nor equitable relief was available to the plaintiffs who had knowingly ¶ lent money to defendant for criminal purposes. The court recognized the absurdity of ¶ this result – excusing the defendants from repaying the loan because they were, in the ¶ eyes of the law, drug dealers – but was unwilling to give the plaintiffs the benefit of ¶ their bargain where the conduct envisioned by the agreement remained illegal under ¶ federal law Together with restrictions on the availability of lawyers, these cases make clear just ¶ how unsettled expectations are for those in the marijuana industry. They cannot rely on the contracts they sign or the insurance they pay for. They may or may not be able to secure legal representation to help them through the legal minefield created by complex state regulatory apparatuses. Although they are required to pay their taxes, ¶ they cannot deduct their expenses the way other businesses can. The reason in each ¶ case is the same – in the eyes of the law, they are engaging in criminal conduct.

marijuana’s status as prohibited under federal law significantly hampers the capacity of the states to effectively implement new policies even if the promise of federal non-enforcement were permanent which cannot happen because enforcement decisions are at the whim of ¶ the executive federal prohibition present substantial obstacles to businesses seeking to and themselves of state laws the most profound consequence is the unavailability of banking services The threat of money laundering prosecutions has made banks unwilling to engage in any transactions with marijuana businesses even if the fed were to promise never to pursue money laundering charges it is not at all clear that banks would treat marijuana businesses the way they treat other businesses The assets remain subject to forfeiture it is difficult to see how those assets could be seen by a bank as sufficiently secure to be worth the risk Under 280E a retailer ¶ cannot deduct her expenses a marijuana business is required to pay taxes on gross receipts Even if the federal government does not prosecute marijuana business and even if it does not seek to forfeit assets it is already applying 280E against businesses in ways that crippl the industry a literal interpretation of 280E would ¶ ruin the industry No business could survive One of the biggest obstacles is finding attorneys Because nearly all the actions of a marijuana professional remain violations of ¶ federal law, assistance could be an ethical violation They may not be able to secure legal representation to help them through the legal minefield created by complex state regulatory apparatuses.

All eyes turned immediately to the DOJ to see what the federal response would be. ¶ After months of agonizing silence, the federal government surprised many by ¶ announcing that it would forgo, for the time being, legal challenges to the new laws and ¶ allow Colorado and Washington to implement their regulatory regimes unimpeded.49 ¶ This new memo emphasized eight priorities that drive federal marijuana enforcement ¶ policy and then indicated that states that could demonstrate compliance with these ¶ priorities would largely be left to their own devices.50 ¶ While this policy guidance constitutes a welcome step back from the federal ¶ government’s previous brinksmanship, it hardly solves the federalism problems caused by marijuana’s dual legal status. As we demonstrate more fully below, ¶ marijuana’s continued status as a prohibited substance under federal law significantly hampers the capacity of the states to effectively implement new state taxation and ¶ regulatory policies. ¶ III. Problems Posed by Continuing Federal Prohibition ¶ As previous sections made clear, the threat of criminal prosecution against those ¶ operating marijuana businesses under the aegis of state law is more remote now than ¶ it has been in recent years. The federal government has announced a wait-and-see ¶ approach to state-level regulation,51 creating metrics for measuring whether states are ¶ up to the task of taxing-and-regulating rather than prohibiting marijuana outright.52 ¶ But the threat of federal enforcement is only one of the potential problems stemming ¶ from the continuing federal prohibition of marijuana.53 ¶ In this section, we point out the often dire consequences that continue to flow from ¶ marijuana’s categorization as a Schedule I narcotic. What we show is that even if the ¶ promise of federal non-enforcement were made permanent – which cannot happen by ¶ executive action alone because enforcement decisions are always made at the whim of ¶ the executive – federal prohibition operates to present substantial obstacles to businesses and individuals seeking to implement and avail themselves of new state laws authorizing marijuana distribution and use. ¶ A. Banking ¶ Perhaps the most profound, and most well-documented, consequence of marijuana’s ¶ prohibited status at the federal level is the unavailability of even the most rudimentary ¶ banking services for those engaged in marijuana commerce.54 The threat – often¶ explicit – of money laundering prosecutions has made banks unwilling to engage in any transactions with marijuana businesses.55 As a result, marijuana in the states is ¶ largely a cash business, with all of the problems and negative connotations associated ¶ with businesses forced to the periphery of legality.56 The lack of commercial banking is ¶ more than a dignitary harm for those operating in the marijuana industry; for many it ¶ is a sincere safety concern. Marijuana businesses present an easy target for thieves ¶ who are aware that these businesses often have no choice but to keep large quantities ¶ of cash on hand.57 ¶ Regulators in Colorado and Washington State grasped early on that resolution of this ¶ problem would be one of the key concerns of the administrative process58 –marijuana businesses are much more difficult to regulate and tax if they are operating on a cash ¶ basis. However, lawmakers in both states also realized fairly quickly that, given the ¶ predominantly federal nature of banking regulation, there was little that could be done ¶ at the state level alone. Although the Obama administration announced in early 2014 ¶ that marijuana businesses should have access to banking services59 and promulgated a ¶ pair of memos purporting to loosen banking restrictions on the marijuana industry,60 ¶ there is little that the executive branch can do unitarily; the core of the banking ¶ problem is the continuing illegality of marijuana at the federal level.61 ¶ For example, even if the federal government were to promise never to pursue money laundering charges against those banks doing business with the marijuana industry, it is not at all clear that banks would actually begin to treat marijuana businesses the way they treat other businesses. The assets of a marijuana business remain subject to forfeiture – even in the face of a federal promise not to pursue such actions – and it is difficult to see how those assets could be seen by a bank as sufficiently secure against ¶ government seizure to be worth the risk.62 It was for this reason that the reaction of ¶ the marijuana industry to the new banking guidelines was decidedly tepid.63¶ B. Tax Law¶ A little-known provision of federal tax law makes the operation of a successful ¶ marijuana business – even one operating in clear compliance with state law – an ¶ incredibly difficult proposition. Federal Tax Rule 280E64 requires those operating in ¶ violation of federal drug laws – and only federal drug laws65 – to pay federal income tax ¶ and to do so on extremely disadvantageous terms. Under 280E a marijuana retailer ¶ cannot deduct her expenses prior to calculating her taxable income; other than the cost ¶ of obtaining the goods for sale, a marijuana business is required to pay taxes on its ¶ gross receipts.66 All other usual business expenses – retail rent, employee payroll, ¶ lights, heating and cooling, etc. – cannot be deducted as they can in any other business, ¶ either legitimate or illegal. ¶ Even if the federal government does not seek to prosecute marijuana business for ¶ violating federal law, and even if it does not seek to forfeit the assets of businesses in ¶ violation of that federal law, it is already applying rule 280E against those businesses ¶ in ways that may prove nearly as crippling to the industry. For example, in 2011 the ¶ IRS ruled that Harborside Health Center, California’s largest medical marijuana ¶ dispensary, owed millions in taxes under the application of 280E.¶ 67 Steve DeAngelo, ¶ Harborside’s owner was quoted as saying that a literal interpretation of 280E would ¶ [cripple] ruin not just him but the entire industry: "No business, including Harborside, could ¶ survive if it's taxed on its gross revenue. All we want is to be treated like every other ¶ business in America."68 ¶ C. Access to Law and Lawyers ¶ So long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, marijuana businesses will have difficulty operating as full legal citizens. One of the biggest obstacles facing ¶ marijuana businesses, for example, is finding attorneys willing to provide legal ¶ services. The Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and the ethics rules of nearly ¶ every state prohibit an attorney from knowingly facilitating the criminal conduct of her client.69 Because nearly all the actions of a marijuana professional remain violations of ¶ federal law, any assistance that a lawyer gives to a business that she knows to be in ¶ violation of federal law could be construed as an ethical violation. This is true not just ¶ when the lawyer helps a marijuana retailer purchase product from a marijuana grow ¶ facility – when she assists in the actual violations of federal law, in other words – but ¶ also when the lawyer incorporates the marijuana business, helps draft a lease, lobbies ¶ local government officials for a zoning exemption or negotiates an employment ¶ agreement. Because all of these tasks help a marijuana business to break federal law, ¶ there is a plausible argument that the lawyer subjects herself to discipline for ¶ knowingly doing so. ¶ State bar committees considering the ethics of representing the marijuana industry ¶ have largely split on the issue. Most recently, the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar ¶ Association concluded that, as it is currently drafted, lawyers put themselves at risk ¶ when they perform many legal tasks for marijuana clients: ¶ A lawyer cannot comply with Colo.RPC 1.2(d) and, for example, draft or ¶ negotiate (1) contracts to facilitate the purchase and sale of marijuana or (2) ¶ leases for properties or facilities, or contracts for resources or supplies, that ¶ clients intend to use to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell marijuana, ¶ even though such transactions comply with Colorado law, and even though the ¶ law or the transaction may be so complex that a lawyer’s assistance would be ¶ useful, because the lawyer would be assisting the client in conduct that the ¶ lawyer knows is criminal under federal law.70 ¶ The state of Arizona came to exactly the opposite conclusion, reasoning that the ¶ assistance of lawyers was necessary to help the state achieve its goals of maintaining a ¶ regulated medical marijuana regime. ¶ [W]e decline to interpret and apply ER 1.2(d) in a manner that would prevent a ¶ lawyer who concludes that the client’s proposed conduct is in “clear and ¶ unambiguous compliance” with state law from assisting the client in connection ¶ with activities expressly authorized under state law, thereby depriving clients ¶ of the very legal advice and assistance that is needed to engage in the conduct ¶ that the state law expressly permits. The maintenance of an independent legal ¶ profession, and of its rights to advocate for the interests of clients, is a bulwark ¶ of our system of government….A state law now expressly permits certain conduct. Legal services are necessary or desirable to implement and bring to ¶ fruition that conduct expressly permitted under state law.71 ¶ Even if a state were to explicitly empower lawyers to assist marijuana clients, those ¶ lawyers would have to tell those clients that they are in a state of profound legal ¶ uncertainty. Take for example, the little known case of Hammer v. Today’s Health Care ¶ II.72 In Hammer, a pair of Arizona citizens sued a Colorado medical marijuana ¶ dispensary in Arizona state court to recover on a $500,000 loan on which the ¶ dispensary had stopped making payments. The court sided with the defendant, holding ¶ that neither legal nor equitable relief was available to the plaintiffs who had knowingly ¶ lent money to defendant for criminal purposes.73 The court recognized the absurdity of ¶ this result – excusing the defendants from repaying the loan because they were, in the ¶ eyes of the law, drug dealers – but was unwilling to give the plaintiffs the benefit of ¶ their bargain where the conduct envisioned by the agreement remained illegal under ¶ federal law.74 An insurance case from Hawai’i produced an equally disquieting result. A ¶ homeowner whose 12 marijuana plants had been stolen from her home sued her ¶ insurance company for failing to pay out on a policy insuring, among other things, “loss ¶ to trees, shrubs, and other plants”75 The court rejected the claim, on the basis that state ¶ law did not purport to and could not authorize marijuana cultivation under federal law ¶ and that enforcement of the insurance contract would thus be contrary to both federal ¶ law and policy.76 ¶ Together with restrictions on the availability of lawyers, these cases make clear just ¶ how unsettled expectations are for those in the marijuana industry. They cannot rely on the contracts they sign or the insurance they pay for. They may or may not be able to secure legal representation to help them through the legal minefield created by complex state regulatory apparatuses. Although they are required to pay their taxes, ¶ they cannot deduct their expenses the way other businesses can. The reason in each ¶ case is the same – in the eyes of the law, they are engaging in criminal conduct.

<h4>States <strong>can’t solve without the federal government</h4><p>Chemerinsky et al. 5/19/14</p><p><u>[Erwin Chemerinsky , University of California, Irvine ~ School of Law ; Jolene Forman , American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Fellow; Allen Hopper, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Director; Sam Kamin, University of Denver ~ Sturm College of Law, Professor and Director, Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program. “Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation.” Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25 ETB]</p><p></u></strong>All eyes turned immediately to the DOJ to see what the federal response would be. ¶ After months of agonizing silence, <u>the federal government surprised many by ¶ announcing that it would forgo,</u> for the time being, <u>legal challenges to the new laws and ¶ allow Colorado and Washington to implement their regulatory regimes unimpeded</u>.49 ¶ <u>This </u>new <u>memo emphasized eight priorities that drive federal marijuana enforcement ¶ policy and then indicated that states that could demonstrate compliance with these ¶ priorities would largely be left to their own devices</u>.50 ¶ While <u>this </u>policy guidance constitutes a welcome step back from the federal ¶ government’s previous brinksmanship, it <u>hardly solves the federalism problems caused by marijuana’s dual legal status.</u> As we demonstrate more fully below, ¶ <u><strong><mark>marijuana’s </mark>continued <mark>status as </mark>a <mark>prohibited </mark>substance <mark>under federal law significantly hampers the capacity of</strong> <strong>the states to effectively implement new</strong> </mark>state taxation and ¶ regulatory <strong><mark>policies</strong></mark>. ¶ </u>III. Problems Posed by Continuing Federal Prohibition ¶ As previous sections made clear, the threat of criminal prosecution against those ¶ operating marijuana businesses under the aegis of state law is more remote now than ¶ it has been in recent years. The federal government has announced a wait-and-see ¶ approach to state-level regulation,51 creating metrics for measuring whether states are ¶ up to the task of taxing-and-regulating rather than prohibiting marijuana outright.52 ¶ But <u>the threat of federal enforcement is only one of the potential problems stemming ¶ from the continuing federal prohibition of marijuana</u>.53 ¶ In this section, we point out the often dire consequences that continue to flow from ¶ marijuana’s categorization as a Schedule I narcotic. What we show is <u>that <strong><mark>even if the </u></strong></mark>¶<u><strong> <mark>promise of federal non-enforcement were</strong> </mark>made <strong><mark>permanent</strong> </u></mark>– <u><mark>which cannot happen </mark>by ¶ executive action alone <mark>because enforcement decisions are </mark>always made <mark>at the whim of ¶ the executiv</u>e </mark>– <u><strong><mark>federal prohibition</strong> </mark>operates to <strong><mark>present substantial obstacles to businesses</strong> </mark>and individuals <strong><mark>seeking to</strong> </mark>implement <strong><mark>and</strong> </mark>avail <strong><mark>themselves of</strong> </mark>new <strong><mark>state laws</strong> </mark>authorizing marijuana distribution and use.</u> ¶ <u>A. Banking ¶ </u>Perhaps <u><mark>the most profound</u></mark>, and most well-documented, <u><mark>consequence </mark>of marijuana’s ¶ prohibited status at the federal level <mark>is the unavailability of </mark>even the most rudimentary ¶ <mark>banking services </mark>for those engaged in marijuana commerce</u>.54 <u><strong><mark>The threat </strong></mark>– often¶ explicit – <strong><mark>of money laundering prosecutions has made banks unwilling to engage in any transactions</mark> <mark>with marijuana businesses</mark>.</u></strong>55 <u>As a result, marijuana in the states is ¶ largely a cash business, with all of the problems and negative connotations associated ¶ </u>with businesses forced to the periphery of legality.56 The lack of commercial banking is ¶ more than a dignitary harm for those operating in the marijuana industry; for many it ¶ is a sincere safety concern. Marijuana businesses present an easy target for thieves ¶ who are aware that these businesses often have no choice but to keep large quantities ¶ of cash on hand.57 ¶ <u>Regulators in Colorado and Washington State grasped early on that resolution of this ¶ problem would be one of the key concerns </u>of the administrative process58 –marijuana businesses are much more difficult to regulate and tax if they are operating on a cash ¶ basis. <u>However, lawmakers in both states also realized fairly quickly that, given the ¶ predominantly federal nature of banking regulation, there was little that could be done ¶ at the state level alone</u>. <u>Although</u> the <u>Obama</u> administration <u>announced</u> in early 2014 ¶ <u>that</u> <u>marijuana businesses should have access to banking services59</u> <u>and promulgated a ¶ pair of memos purporting to loosen banking restrictions on the marijuana industry,60 ¶ there is little that the executive branch can do unitarily; the core of the banking ¶ problem is the continuing illegality of marijuana at the federal level.</u>61 ¶ For example, <u><strong><mark>even if the fed</mark>eral government <mark>were to promise never to pursue money laundering charges</strong> </mark>against those banks doing business with the marijuana industry, <strong><mark>it is not at all clear that banks would</strong> </mark>actually begin to <strong><mark>treat marijuana businesses the way they treat other businesses</strong></mark>. <mark>The assets </mark>of a marijuana business <mark>remain subject to forfeiture </u></mark>– <u>even in the face of a federal promise not to pursue such actions</u> – <u>and <mark>it is difficult to see how those assets could be seen by a bank as sufficiently secure</mark> against ¶ government seizure <mark>to be worth the risk</mark>.</u>62 It was for this reason that the reaction of ¶ the marijuana industry to the new banking guidelines was decidedly tepid.63¶ <u>B. Tax Law¶ A little-known provision of federal tax law makes the operation of a successful ¶ marijuana business</u> – even one operating in clear compliance with state law – <u>an ¶ incredibly difficult proposition. Federal Tax Rule 280E64 requires those operating in ¶ violation of federal drug laws</u> – and only federal drug laws65 – <u>to pay federal income tax ¶ and to do so on extremely disadvantageous terms</u>. <u><mark>Under 280E a </mark>marijuana <mark>retailer ¶ cannot deduct her expenses </mark>prior to calculating her taxable income;</u> other than the cost ¶ of obtaining the goods for sale, <u><mark>a marijuana business is required to pay taxes on </mark>its ¶ <mark>gross receipts</mark>.66 All other usual business expenses</u> – retail rent, employee payroll, ¶ lights, heating and cooling, etc. – <u>cannot be deducted as they can in any other business, ¶ either legitimate or illegal. ¶ <strong><mark>Even if the federal government does not</strong></mark> seek to <strong><mark>prosecute marijuana business </strong></mark>for ¶ violating federal law, <strong><mark>and even if it does not seek to forfeit</strong></mark> the <strong><mark>assets</strong> </mark>of businesses in ¶ violation of that federal law, <strong><mark>it is already applying</strong> </mark>rule <strong><mark>280E</strong> <strong>against</strong> </mark>those <strong><mark>businesses</strong> </mark>¶ <strong><mark>in ways that</mark> </strong>may prove nearly as <strong><mark>crippl</strong></mark>ing to <strong><mark>the industry</strong></mark>.</u> For example, in 2011 the ¶ IRS ruled that Harborside Health Center, California’s largest medical marijuana ¶ dispensary, owed millions in taxes under the application of 280E.¶ 67 Steve DeAngelo, ¶ Harborside’s owner was quoted as saying that <u><strong><mark>a literal interpretation of 280E would </u></strong>¶<u><strong> </mark>[cripple] <mark>ruin</u></strong> </mark>not just him but <u><strong><mark>the</mark> entire <mark>industry</u></strong></mark>: "<u><strong><mark>No business</u></strong></mark>, including Harborside, <u><strong><mark>could</u></strong> </mark>¶ <u><strong><mark>survive </mark>if it's taxed on its gross revenue</u></strong>. All we want is to be treated like every other ¶ business in America."68 ¶ C. Access to Law and Lawyers ¶ <u><strong>So long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, marijuana businesses will have difficulty operating</strong> as full legal citizens. <mark>One of the biggest obstacles </mark>facing ¶ marijuana businesses</u>, for example, <u><mark>is finding attorneys </mark>willing to provide legal ¶ service</u>s. The Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and the ethics rules of nearly ¶ every state prohibit an attorney from knowingly facilitating the criminal conduct of her client.69 <u><mark>Because nearly all the actions of a marijuana professional remain violations of ¶ federal law, </mark>any <mark>assistance </mark>that a lawyer gives to a business that she knows to be in ¶ violation of federal law <mark>could be </mark>construed as <mark>an ethical violation</u></mark>. This is true not just ¶ when the lawyer helps a marijuana retailer purchase product from a marijuana grow ¶ facility – when she assists in the actual violations of federal law, in other words – but ¶ also when the lawyer incorporates the marijuana business, helps draft a lease, lobbies ¶ local government officials for a zoning exemption or negotiates an employment ¶ agreement. <u>Because all </u>of <u>these tasks help a marijuana business to break federal law, ¶ there is a plausible argument that the lawyer subjects herself to discipline for ¶ knowingly doing so. ¶ State bar committees</u> considering the ethics of representing the marijuana industry ¶ <u>have</u> largely <u>split on the issue</u>. Most recently, the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar ¶ Association concluded that, as it is currently drafted, lawyers put themselves at risk ¶ when they perform many legal tasks for marijuana clients: ¶ A lawyer cannot comply with Colo.RPC 1.2(d) and, for example, draft or ¶ negotiate (1) contracts to facilitate the purchase and sale of marijuana or (2) ¶ leases for properties or facilities, or contracts for resources or supplies, that ¶ clients intend to use to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell marijuana, ¶ even though such transactions comply with Colorado law, and even though the ¶ law or the transaction may be so complex that a lawyer’s assistance would be ¶ useful, because the lawyer would be assisting the client in conduct that the ¶ lawyer knows is criminal under federal law.70 ¶ The state of Arizona came to exactly the opposite conclusion, reasoning that the ¶ assistance of lawyers was necessary to help the state achieve its goals of maintaining a ¶ regulated medical marijuana regime. ¶ [W]e decline to interpret and apply ER 1.2(d) in a manner that would prevent a ¶ lawyer who concludes that the client’s proposed conduct is in “clear and ¶ unambiguous compliance” with state law from assisting the client in connection ¶ with activities expressly authorized under state law, thereby depriving clients ¶ of the very legal advice and assistance that is needed to engage in the conduct ¶ that the state law expressly permits. The maintenance of an independent legal ¶ profession, and of its rights to advocate for the interests of clients, is a bulwark ¶ of our system of government….A state law now expressly permits certain conduct. Legal services are necessary or desirable to implement and bring to ¶ fruition that conduct expressly permitted under state law.71 ¶ <u>Even if a state were to explicitly empower lawyers to assist marijuana clients, those ¶ lawyers would have to tell those clients that they are in a state of profound legal ¶ uncertainty</u>. <u>Take for example</u>, the little known case of <u>Hammer v. Today’s Health Care</u> ¶ II.72 In Hammer, a pair of Arizona citizens sued a Colorado medical marijuana ¶ dispensary in Arizona state court to recover on a $500,000 loan on which the ¶ dispensary had stopped making payments. <u>The court sided with the defendant, holding ¶ that neither legal nor equitable relief was available to the plaintiffs who had knowingly ¶ lent money to defendant for criminal purposes.</u>73 <u>The court recognized the absurdity of ¶ this result – excusing the defendants from repaying the loan because they were, in the ¶ eyes of the law, drug dealers – but was unwilling to give the plaintiffs the benefit of ¶ their bargain where the conduct envisioned by the agreement remained illegal under ¶ federal law</u>.74 An insurance case from Hawai’i produced an equally disquieting result. A ¶ homeowner whose 12 marijuana plants had been stolen from her home sued her ¶ insurance company for failing to pay out on a policy insuring, among other things, “loss ¶ to trees, shrubs, and other plants”75 The court rejected the claim, on the basis that state ¶ law did not purport to and could not authorize marijuana cultivation under federal law ¶ and that enforcement of the insurance contract would thus be contrary to both federal ¶ law and policy.76 ¶ <u>Together with restrictions on the availability of lawyers, these cases make clear just ¶ how unsettled expectations are for those in <strong>the marijuana industry</strong>. They <strong>cannot rely on</strong> the <strong>contracts </strong>they sign <strong>or </strong>the <strong>insurance </strong>they pay for. <strong><mark>They </strong></mark>may or <strong><mark>may not be able to secure legal representation to help them through the legal minefield created by complex state regulatory apparatuses.</strong></mark> Although they are required to pay their taxes, ¶ they cannot deduct their expenses the way other businesses can. The reason in each ¶ case is the same – in the eyes of the law, they are engaging in criminal conduct.</p></u>

1AC

Solvency

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Empirics prove the link outweighs the turn—legalization is always defeated

Romoser, 13

Romoser, 13 (James, Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. expected 2014; Columbia University, B.A. 2005; Unstacking the Deck: The Legalization of Online Poker; Copyright (c) 2013 American Criminal Law Review American Criminal Law Review  Summer, 2013  American Criminal Law Review  50 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 519)

Congress can pass legislation A potential federal regulatory structure is already in place several influential congressmen have introduced bills of this sort Despite being powerful figures Reid and Kyl did not garner enough support and the proposal died the prospects for any federal bill are dim

Congress can pass legislation A potential federal regulatory structure is already in place several influential congressmen have introduced bills of this sort Despite being powerful figures Reid and Kyl did not garner enough support and the proposal died the prospects for any federal bill are dim

A. Federal Legislation Under the federal option, Congress can pass legislation allowing the U.S. government to issue licenses to reputable companies, thereby giving thosecompanies the right to legally offer online poker to Americans. A potential federal regulatory structure is already in place: the National Indian Gaming Commission, within the Department of the Interior, has regulated gambling activities on Native American lands since 1988. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n152" \t "_blank" n152 Although the commission deals mainly with brick-and-mortar casinos, its mission could be expanded to cover online poker.Alternatively, a similar regulatory agency could be created. A federal online poker regime also would have the advantage of consistent, across-the-board standards--though as a practical and political matter, any federal law to set up a national poker network would likely have to give states the ability to opt out. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n153" \t "_blank" n153 In recent years, several influential congressmen have introduced bills of this sort. In 2007, 2009, and 2011, former Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.)sponsored legislation seeking to legalize almost all online betting, as long as it occurred on properly licensed sites. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n154" \t "_blank" n154 His proposal at one point was approved by a 41-to-22 bipartisan vote in the House Financial Services Committee, but it failed to progress any further. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n155" \t "_blank" n155 In 2010, during the lame-duck session of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to push through a bill to legalize and regulate online poker exclusively, but that bill also failed. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n156" \t "_blank" n156 Most recently, after the 2012 elections, Reid tried again--this time, with the unlikely ally of former Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n157" \t "_blank" n157 Kyl, a staunch opponent of gambling, was one of the architects of the UIGEA passage in 2006. But he reached a compromise with Reid (whose constituents include Nevada casino companies that stand to benefit from expanded online poker) on a bill to create an online poker licensing regime while explicitly banning most other forms of online betting. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n158" \t "_blank" n158 Despite being powerful figures in their respective caucuses,Reid and Kyl did not garner enough support to attach the bill to unrelated financial legislation, and the [*540] proposal died when the new Congress was sworn in. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n159" \t "_blank" n159 Poker industry leaders now feel the prospects for any federal poker bill are dim given the current congressional gridlock. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n160" \t "_blank" n160

<h4>Empirics prove the link outweighs the turn—legalization is always defeated</h4><p><strong>Romoser, 13</strong> (James, Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. expected 2014; Columbia University, B.A. 2005; Unstacking the Deck: The Legalization of Online Poker; Copyright (c) 2013 American Criminal Law Review American Criminal Law Review  Summer, 2013  American Criminal Law Review  50 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 519) </p><p>A. Federal Legislation Under the federal option, <u><strong><mark>Congress can pass legislation</u></strong></mark> allowing the U.S. government to issue licenses to reputable companies, thereby giving thosecompanies the right to legally offer online poker to Americans. <u><strong><mark>A potential federal regulatory structure is already in place</u></strong></mark>: the National Indian Gaming Commission, within the Department of the Interior, has regulated gambling activities on Native American lands since 1988. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n152" \t "_blank" n152 Although the commission deals mainly with brick-and-mortar casinos, its mission could be expanded to cover online poker.Alternatively, a similar regulatory agency could be created. A federal online poker regime also would have the advantage of consistent, across-the-board standards--though as a practical and political matter, any federal law to set up a national poker network would likely have to give states the ability to opt out. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n153" \t "_blank" n153 In recent years, <u><strong><mark>several influential congressmen have introduced bills of this sort</u></strong></mark>. In 2007, 2009, and 2011, former Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.)sponsored legislation seeking to legalize almost all online betting, as long as it occurred on properly licensed sites. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n154" \t "_blank" n154 His proposal at one point was approved by a 41-to-22 bipartisan vote in the House Financial Services Committee, but it failed to progress any further. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n155" \t "_blank" n155 In 2010, during the lame-duck session of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to push through a bill to legalize and regulate online poker exclusively, but that bill also failed. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n156" \t "_blank" n156 Most recently, after the 2012 elections, Reid tried again--this time, with the unlikely ally of former Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n157" \t "_blank" n157 Kyl, a staunch opponent of gambling, was one of the architects of the UIGEA passage in 2006. But he reached a compromise with Reid (whose constituents include Nevada casino companies that stand to benefit from expanded online poker) on a bill to create an online poker licensing regime while explicitly banning most other forms of online betting. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n158" \t "_blank" n158 <u><strong><mark>Despite being powerful figures</u></strong></mark> in their respective caucuses,<u><strong><mark>Reid and Kyl did not garner enough support</u></strong></mark> to attach the bill to unrelated financial legislation, <u><strong><mark>and the</u></strong></mark> [*540] <u><strong><mark>proposal died</u></strong></mark> when the new Congress was sworn in. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n159" \t "_blank" n159 Poker industry leaders now feel <u><strong><mark>the prospects for any federal</mark> </u></strong>poker <u><strong><mark>bill are dim</u></strong></mark> given the current congressional gridlock. HYPERLINK "http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/lnacui2api/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.663932.0700676456&target=results_DocumentContent&returnToKey=20_T20246495737&parent=docview&rand=1405541828158&reloadEntirePage=true" \l "n160" \t "_blank" n160 </p>

1NR

Link Debate

2NC Link Wall

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The alt is to reject the aff - individualized and specific rejections to capitalist politics are key

Engler 08

Engler 08 [Mark, author and analyst with foreign policy in focus, “There is an alternative to corporate rule”]

as long as democratic movements do not have the power to overrule political and economic elites, there exists an important case for just saying "no" -- for first insisting that those now in power stop doing harm. When Wall Street neoliberals and Washington militarists ask, "What is the alternative?" they base the question on faulty assumptions. Their question serves to naturalize very radical agendas of empire and corporate rule, suggesting that these are normal and acceptable states of affairs. They are not. In a situation where power is grossly imbalanced, where crimes are being perpetuated in the name of democracy, and where ever larger sections of public life are being handed over to the market, saying "no" to these radical agendas can be a perfectly worthy task in itself. In an important respect, the alternative to invading Iraq is not invading Iraq. The alternative to NAFTA is no NAFTA. Given the disastrous history of U.S. interventions -- not just in Iraq, but also, to mention some particularly ignoble examples of the past 60 years, in Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua -- calling for a moratorium on such military actions, official and covert, is a first step in stemming the damage of imperial globalization. The agenda of corporate globalization, , has relied on forceful maneuvering to come into existence. Neoliberalism involves aggressively opening markets, clearing the way for a previously unheard of level of speculative capital transfer, and dictating the restructuring of local economies. None of these things occur naturally, and they deserve opposition. A moratorium on harmful deals and on further expansion , is a vital immediate demand. Simply refusing each of the mandates of the Washington Consensus -- or at least rejecting the idea that they should be imposed world as a one-size-fits-all uniform would itself allow for a substantial restructuring of globalization politics. The true utopians in the global economy are people who embraced the market fundamentalist fantasy that unchecked capital would serve the common good. Refuting this idea can be fairly straightforward. When the Washington Consensus demands the privatization of public industry and the division of the commons into private property, an alternative is to keep these things in the hands of the public, defending the provision of public goods as a way of ensuring economic human rights -- If it calls for cuts in social services, an alternative is to reject the cuts, And when IMF bailouts for wealthy investors create a situation in which, to paraphrase author Eduardo Galeano, "risk is socialized while profit is privatized," an alternative is simply to end these bailouts, making speculators bear the cost of their gambles. The demand to reverse neoliberal structural adjustment policies proposes a fundamentally different relationship between wealthy nations and the global South than currently exists. It would grant countries the freedom to determine their own economic policies, priorities for government spending, and rules for controlling foreign investment. Instead of imposing a single hegemonic model on the entire world, this new relationship would allow for broader diversity and experimentation in international development It alone would likely bring change of great enough magnitude to make the politics of the global economy look virtually unrecognizable to those who have grown accustomed to Washington-dictated corporate globalization. ever-larger swaths of the globe view the neoliberal doctrine of corporate expansion as a failed and discredited vision. This creates unique opportunities for citizens to fight to bring a democratic globalization into existence many people are already doing so, and, on key issues they are winning. For there is nothing so dangerous to those who insist that the world must remain as it is as the simple, stubbornly defiant doctrine of hope.

democratic movements do not have the power to overrule political elites there exists a case for saying "no" insisting that those now in power stop doing harm Wall Street neoliberals ask What is the alternative?" they base the question on faulty assumptions

The ideas, experiences, and proposals of the World Social Forum provide a trove of information for all those who want to construct a new agenda for the global economy. At the same time, as long as democratic movements do not have the power to overrule political and economic elites, there exists an important case for just saying "no" -- for first insisting that those now in power stop doing harm. When Wall Street neoliberals and Washington militarists ask, "What is the alternative?" they base the question on faulty assumptions. Their question serves to naturalize very radical agendas of empire and corporate rule, suggesting that these are normal and acceptable states of affairs. They are not. In a situation where power is grossly imbalanced, where crimes are being perpetuated in the name of democracy, and where ever larger sections of public life are being handed over to the market, saying "no" to these radical agendas can be a perfectly worthy task in itself. In an important respect, the alternative to invading Iraq is not invading Iraq. The alternative to NAFTA is no NAFTA. The neocons' invasion of Iraq has cost thousands of American lives, taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, produced some two million refugees, and is set to squander over a trillion dollars of public funds. It has generated heightened regional tensions, greater instability, and more terrorism. Given the disastrous history of U.S. interventions -- not just in Iraq, but also, to mention some particularly ignoble examples of the past 60 years, in Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua -- calling for a moratorium on such military actions, official and covert, is a first step in stemming the damage of imperial globalization. The agenda of corporate globalization, which unfortunately thrived during the Clinton presidency and is still popular within the right wing of the Democratic Party, is subtler. But this, too, has relied on forceful maneuvering to come into existence. Neoliberalism involves aggressively opening markets, clearing the way for a previously unheard of level of speculative capital transfer, and dictating the restructuring of local economies. None of these things occur naturally, and they deserve opposition. A moratorium on harmful "free trade"deals and on further expansion of the WTO, especially into areas beyond the traditional realm of trade, is a vital immediate demand. Simply refusing each of the mandates of the Washington Consensus -- or at least rejecting the idea that they should be imposed world as a one-size-fits-all uniform for development -- would itself allow for a substantial restructuring of globalization politics. The true utopians in the global economy are people who embraced the market fundamentalist fantasy that unchecked capital would serve the common good. Refuting this idea can be fairly straightforward. Neoliberal corporate globalization prescribes the elimination of tariffs and other protections for local enterprises. An alternative would be to allow poorer countries to keep these intact, reviving what is known in trade agreements as "special and differential treatment." This model would give developing countries more flexibility in choosing to nurture infant industries and to protect agricultural commodities that are important to traditional cultures and to the security of their food supply. When the Washington Consensus demands the privatization of public industry and the division of the commons into private property, an alternative is to keep these things in the hands of the public, defending the provision of public goods as a way of ensuring economic human rights -- including guaranteed public access to water, electricity, and health care. If it calls for cuts in social services, an alternative is to reject the cuts,maintaining or bolstering these services and instead pushing for a redistributive tax system that makes the wealthy pay their fair share. When Washington mandates a more "flexible" labor market -- one without unions or worker protections -- an alternative is to defend living wages, collective bargaining, and the right to associate. And when IMF bailouts for wealthy investors create a situation in which, to paraphrase author Eduardo Galeano, "risk is socialized while profit is privatized," an alternative is simply to end these bailouts, making speculators bear the cost of their gambles. The demand to reverse neoliberal structural adjustment policies proposes a fundamentally different relationship between wealthy nations and the global South than currently exists. It would grant countries the freedom to determine their own economic policies, priorities for government spending, and rules for controlling foreign investment. Instead of imposing a single hegemonic model on the entire world, this new relationship would allow for broader diversity and experimentation in international development. While this does not by itself constitute a vision for ensuring human rights or protecting the environment, it nevertheless represents an important strategic gain. It alone would likely bring change of great enough magnitude to make the politics of the global economy look virtually unrecognizable to those who have grown accustomed to Washington-dictated corporate globalization. Those who reject corporate and imperial models of globalization have a wealth of ideas at their disposal, a healthy internal debate to refine their strategies, and a vibrant, growing international network of citizens that see their efforts as part an interconnected whole. They also have very powerful enemies. Fortunately, as we enter the post-Bush era, the international community has voiced a firm rejection of unilateralism and preemptive war. Likewise, ever-larger swaths of the globe view the neoliberal doctrine of corporate expansion as a failed and discredited vision. This creates unique opportunities for citizens to fight to bring a democratic globalization into existence. More exciting still is that many people are already doing so, and, on key issues like debt relief and across entire regions like the Latin America, they are winning. The punditry is increasingly taking notice. For there is nothing so dangerous to those who insist that the world must remain as it is as the simple, stubbornly defiant doctrine of hope.

<h4>The alt is to reject the aff - individualized and specific rejections to capitalist politics are key </h4><p><strong>Engler 08</strong> [Mark, author and analyst with foreign policy in focus, “There is an alternative to corporate rule”]</p><p> </p><p>The ideas, experiences, and proposals of the World Social Forum provide a trove of information for all those who want to construct a new agenda for the global economy. At the same time, <u>as long as <mark>democratic movements do not have the power to overrule</mark> <mark>political</mark> and economic <mark>elites</mark>, <mark>there exists</mark> <mark>a</mark>n important <mark>case for</mark> just <strong><mark>saying "no"</strong></mark> -- for first <mark>insisting that those now in power stop doing harm</mark>.</u> <u>When <mark>Wall Street neoliberals</mark> and Washington militarists <mark>ask</mark>, "<mark>What is the alternative?"</mark> <mark>they base the question on faulty assumptions</mark>. Their question serves to naturalize very radical agendas of empire and corporate rule, suggesting that these are normal and acceptable states of affairs. They are not. In a situation where power is grossly imbalanced, where crimes are being perpetuated in the name of democracy, and where ever larger sections of public life are being handed over to the market, saying "no" to these radical agendas can be a perfectly worthy task in itself.</u> <u>In an important respect, the alternative to invading Iraq is not invading Iraq. The alternative to NAFTA is no NAFTA.</u> The neocons' invasion of Iraq has cost thousands of American lives, taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, produced some two million refugees, and is set to squander over a trillion dollars of public funds. It has generated heightened regional tensions, greater instability, and more terrorism. <u>Given the disastrous history of U.S. interventions -- not just in Iraq, but also, to mention some particularly ignoble examples of the past 60 years, in Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua --</u> <u>calling for a moratorium on such military actions, official and covert, is a first step in stemming the damage of imperial globalization.</u> <u>The agenda of corporate globalization,</u> which unfortunately thrived during the Clinton presidency and is still popular within the right wing of the Democratic Party, is subtler. But this, too<u>, has relied on forceful maneuvering to come into existence. Neoliberalism involves aggressively opening markets, clearing the way for a previously unheard of level of speculative capital transfer, and dictating the restructuring of local economies. None of these things occur naturally, and they deserve opposition. A moratorium on harmful</u> "free trade"<u>deals and on further expansion</u> of the WTO, especially into areas beyond the traditional realm of trade<u>, is a vital immediate demand.</u> <u>Simply refusing each of the mandates of the Washington Consensus -- or at least rejecting the idea that they should be imposed world as a one-size-fits-all uniform </u>for development -- <u>would itself allow for a substantial restructuring of globalization politics. The true utopians in the global economy are people who embraced the market fundamentalist fantasy that unchecked capital would serve the common good. Refuting this idea can be fairly straightforward.</u> Neoliberal corporate globalization prescribes the elimination of tariffs and other protections for local enterprises. An alternative would be to allow poorer countries to keep these intact, reviving what is known in trade agreements as "special and differential treatment." This model would give developing countries more flexibility in choosing to nurture infant industries and to protect agricultural commodities that are important to traditional cultures and to the security of their food supply. <u>When the Washington Consensus demands the privatization of public industry and the division of the commons into private property, an alternative is to keep these things in the hands of the public, defending the provision of public goods as a way of ensuring economic human rights --</u> including guaranteed public access to water, electricity, and health care. <u>If it calls for cuts in social services, an alternative is to reject the cuts,</u>maintaining or bolstering these services and instead pushing for a redistributive tax system that makes the wealthy pay their fair share. When Washington mandates a more "flexible" labor market -- one without unions or worker protections -- an alternative is to defend living wages, collective bargaining, and the right to associate. <u>And when IMF bailouts for wealthy investors create a situation in which, to paraphrase author Eduardo Galeano, "risk is socialized while profit is privatized," an alternative is simply to end these bailouts, making speculators bear the cost of their gambles.</u> <u>The demand to reverse neoliberal structural adjustment policies proposes a fundamentally different relationship between wealthy nations and the global South than currently exists. It would grant countries the freedom to determine their own economic policies, priorities for government spending, and rules for controlling foreign investment. Instead of imposing a single hegemonic model on the entire world, this new relationship would allow for broader diversity and experimentation in international development</u>. While this does not by itself constitute a vision for ensuring human rights or protecting the environment, it nevertheless represents an important strategic gain. <u>It alone would likely bring change of great enough magnitude to make the politics of the global economy look virtually unrecognizable to those who have grown accustomed to Washington-dictated corporate globalization.</p><p></u>Those who reject corporate and imperial models of globalization have a wealth of ideas at their disposal, a healthy internal debate to refine their strategies, and a vibrant, growing international network of citizens that see their efforts as part an interconnected whole. They also have very powerful enemies. Fortunately, as we enter the post-Bush era, the international community has voiced a firm rejection of unilateralism and preemptive war. Likewise, <u>ever-larger swaths of the globe view the neoliberal doctrine of corporate expansion as a failed and discredited vision. This creates unique opportunities for citizens to fight to bring a democratic globalization into existence</u>. More exciting still is that <u>many people are already doing so, and, on key issues</u> like debt relief and across entire regions like the Latin America, <u>they are winning.</u> The punditry is increasingly taking notice. <u>For there is nothing so dangerous to those who insist that the world must remain as it is as the simple, stubbornly defiant doctrine of hope.</p></u>

1NC

1NC K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Cartels are key to Mexico’s banking sector – collapse crushes the entire economy

Lange 10

Lange 10 (Jason Lange, Correspondent, Washington, “From spas to banks, Mexico economy rides on drugs” Jan 22, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/22/us-drugs-mexico-economy-idUSTRE60L0X120100122, KB)

Collins is one of dozens under suspicion of laundering money for the nation's booming drug business, whose growing economic impact now pervades just about every level of Mexican life. cartels bring $40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year. Mexico probably made more money in 2009 moving drugs than it did exporting oil drug cash is everywhere in Mexico It has propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy. "Mexico is saturated with this money," said Friedman, who heads geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor. the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate What's going on in Zapopan is happening all over Mexico. Drug money has fueled part of a real estate boom around tourist resorts cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses. Much of the cartels' profits eventually ends up in Mexico's banking system During the global financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity, says economist Ibarra "They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that helped the banks drug money in banks is a global phenomenon, not just in Mexico. Drug gangs in Mexico have their associates make thousands of tiny deposits in their bank accounts to avoid raising suspicion from banking authorities, a practice known as "smurfing," more money sits in Sinaloan banks than its legitimate economy should be generating. drug money is driving nearly 20 percent of the state's economy. organized crime's involvement in Mexican businesses had expanded sharply in the five years through 2008, with gangs now involved in most sectors of the economy. Another problem the economy could face is that drug funding could one day fall if authorities cracked down on money laundering or wrenched power away from the cartels. the moment it stops it all crashes

Mexico made more money moving drugs than it did exporting oil It has propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy. the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate Drug money has fueled a real estate boom cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses. the cartels' profits ends up in Mexico's banking system During the financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity "They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that helped the banks drug money is driving 20 percent of the state's economy. drug funding could one day fall the moment it stops it all crashes

At a modern factory in a city whose main claim to fame is an image of the Virgin Mary revered for granting miracles, Mexican pharmaceuticals firm Grupo Collins churns out antibiotics and other medicines. But the United States contends that the company in Zapopan is not what it seems. The U.S. Treasury put Grupo Collins on a black list in 2008, saying the firm supplies a small drug cartel in western Mexico with chemicals needed to make methamphetamines. Grupo Collins, which has denied any connection to organized crime, is one of dozens under suspicion of laundering money for the nation's booming drug business, whose growing economic impact now pervades just about every level of Mexican life. Mexican cartels, which control most of the cocaine and methamphetamine smuggled into the United States, bring an estimated $25 billion to $40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year. To put that in perspective: Mexico probably made more money in 2009 moving drugs than it did exporting oil, its single biggest legitimate foreign currency earner. From the white Caribbean beaches of Cancun to violent towns on the U.S. border and the beauty parlors of Mexico City's wealthy suburbs, drug cash is everywhere in Mexico. It has even propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy. Smuggled into Mexico mostly from the United States in $100 bills, narco money finds its way onto the books of restaurants, construction firms and bars as drug lords try to legitimize their cash and prevent police from tracing it. "Mexico is saturated with this money," said George Friedman, who heads geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor. In western Mexico, drug money started pouring into Zapopan and nearby Guadalajara in the 1980s as the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate, said Martin Barron, a researcher at the institute that trains Mexico's organized crime prosecutors. Now residents in the region known in Mexico for its piety say drug smugglers barely make an effort to disguise themselves. A strip of fancy boutiques in Zapopan was financed with drug money, says Jaime Ramirez, a local newspaper columnist who has been reporting on the drug world for two decades. As well as the Grupo Collins factory in Zapopan, a nearby car wash is also on the U.S. Treasury's black list. A local cemetery draws relatives of traffickers who were among the 17,000 people killed in the drug war in Mexico since 2006. "A lot of narcos are buried there. You should see it on Fathers' Day," Ramirez said, as a black pick-up truck with tinted windows pulled in. Zapopan residents just shrug their shoulders when a wealthy neighbor displays traits seen as typical of a drug trafficker -- wearing cowboy gear, playing loud "norteno" music from the country's north or holding lavish parties attended by guests who arrive in pick-up trucks or SUVs. "Living alongside them is normal," Ramirez said. "Everybody knows when a neighbor is on the shady side." One of those neighbors was Sandra Avila, a glamorous trafficker known as the "Queen of the Pacific," who lived in Zapopan before being arrested in Mexico City in 2007. On a typical day in Zapopan recently, men unloaded boxes from vans in the Grupo Collins compound, near the company's private chapel and soccer field. From behind the factory's high walls, there was little to suggest it could have ties to a cartel. "It has always been really calm," said Genaro Rangel, who sells tacos every morning to factory workers from a stall across the street. The plant was advertising a job opening on the company web site for a machine room technician. Washington's accusation, filed under a U.S. sanctions program, makes it illegal for Americans to do business with Grupo Collins and freezes any assets it might have in U.S. accounts. In a 2006 report, Mexican authorities named Grupo Collins' owner Telesforo Tirado as an operator of the Colima cartel. The U.S. Treasury and Mexico's Attorney General's office both declined to provide further details on the case and Grupo Collins executives also refused to comment. But Tirado has previously denied the charges in the Mexican media. CASHING IN ON THE DRUG TRADE What's going on in Zapopan is happening all over Mexico. A well-known Mexico City restaurant specializing in the spicy cuisine of the Yucatan peninsula was added to the U.S. list of front companies in December. Months earlier, one of Mexico's top food critics had recommended it. Drug money has also fueled part of a real estate boom around tourist resorts such as Cancun, said a senior U.S. law enforcement official in Mexico City. "We've had cases where traffickers purchased large tracts of land in areas where any investor would buy," he said, asking not to be named because of concerns about his safety. An architect in the city of Tijuana did well out of designing buildings that cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses. "The pay was enough for me to build a house for myself, as well as to buy a lot a tools," he said. He was once hired to design a tunnel that led to the street from a secret door in a drug gang member's closet. Craving acceptance, the drug gangs even throw their money at acquaintances to get them on the social scene. A drug trafficker pays his friend Roberto, who declined to give his last name, to keep him connected in Tijuana and introduce him to women. "I take him to parties," Roberto said. In the wealthy shopping areas of Interlomas, near Mexico City, the Perfect Silhouette spa offers breast implants. Staffed by young women in loose-fitting white suits, the spa also sells weight-loss creams and offers massages. The U.S. Treasury recently said it was part of the financial network of the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader was gunned down by elite Mexican marines in December. The salon's manager, Teresa Delgado, appeared baffled by the U.S. accusations. "We haven't seen anything strange here," she said. A woman Delgado identified as the owner did not return a phone call requesting an interview. Businesses enlisted to launder drug money typically get a cut worth 3 percent to 8 percent of the funds passing through their books, the U.S. law enforcement official said. "SMURFING" AROUND THE LAWS Much of the cartels' profits eventually ends up in Mexico's banking system, the U.S. official said. During the global financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity, says economist Guillermo Ibarra of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. "They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that to a certain extent helped the banks," Ibarra said. Indeed, drug money in banks is a global phenomenon, not just in Mexico. A United Nations report on the global drug trade in 2009 said that "at a time of major bank failures, money doesn't smell, bankers seem to believe." Drug gangs in Mexico have their associates make thousands of tiny deposits in their bank accounts to avoid raising suspicion from banking authorities, a practice known as "smurfing," said the U.S. official. Mexico's banking association and the finance ministry's anti-money laundering unit declined to comment for this story. While Mexico is confiscating more drugs and assets than ever under President Felipe Calderon, forfeitures of money are still minuscule compared to even low-ball estimates of the amount of drug money that flows into Mexico. Under Calderon, authorities have confiscated about $400 million, almost none of which was seized from banks, said Ricardo Najera, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. Mexican bank secrecy laws make it particularly difficult to go after drug money in financial institutions, Najera said. "We can't just go in there and say 'OK, let's have a look,'" he said. "We have to trace the illicit origin of that money before we can get at those bank accounts." The U.S. Treasury has blocked only about $16 million in suspected Mexican drug assets since June 2000, a Treasury official in Washington said. The official, who asked not to be named, said the sanctions program aims to hit drug lords by breaking "their commercial and financial backbones." But freezing assets is not "the principal objective nor the key measure of success." MAFIA CAPITALISM Data on Mexican banking provides a novel way for calculating the size of the drug economy. Ibarra crunched numbers on monetary aggregates across different Mexican states and concluded that more money sits in Sinaloan banks than its legitimate economy should be generating. "It's as if two people had the same job and the same level of seniority, but one of them has twice as much savings," he said, talking about comparisons between Sinaloa and other states. Ibarra estimates cartels have laundered more than $680 million in the banks of Sinaloa -- which is a financial services backwater -- and that drug money is driving nearly 20 percent of the state's economy. Edgardo Buscaglia, an academic at Columbia University, recently scoured judicial case files and financial intelligence reports, some of which were provided by Mexican authorities. His research found organized crime's involvement in Mexican businesses had expanded sharply in the five years through 2008, with gangs now involved in most sectors of the economy. Buscaglia thinks Mexico's lackluster effort to confiscate dirty money is allowing drug gangs and other mafias to flourish. "You will wind up with mafia capitalism here before things improve," he said. Even though cartels are clearly creating jobs and giving a lot of people extra spending money, some of these economic benefits are neutralized by a raging drug war that has scared investors. About a dozen foreign companies in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from Texas, are postponing investments in factories there because of regular gun battles in the city, said Soledad Maynez, who heads a local factory association. She met with the companies' representatives in November. "They need the security issue improved," she said. Business leaders say thousands of shops have closed in Ciudad Juarez because of the violence. Another problem the economy could face is that drug funding could one day fall if authorities cracked down on money laundering or somehow wrenched power away from the cartels. "(Drug money) could have a short-term positive effect. But in the long run, because you're propping up this artificial economy, the moment it stops it all crashes," the U.S. law enforcement official said. (Additional reporting by Lizbeth Diaz in Tijuana, editing by Claudia Parsons and Jim Impoco)

<h4>Cartels are key to Mexico’s banking sector – collapse crushes the entire economy</h4><p><strong>Lange 10</p><p></strong>(Jason Lange, Correspondent, Washington, “From spas to banks, Mexico economy rides on drugs” Jan 22, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/22/us-drugs-mexico-economy-idUSTRE60L0X120100122, KB)</p><p>At a modern factory in a city whose main claim to fame is an image of the Virgin Mary revered for granting miracles, Mexican pharmaceuticals firm Grupo Collins churns out antibiotics and other medicines. But the United States contends that the company in Zapopan is not what it seems. The U.S. Treasury put Grupo Collins on a black list in 2008, saying the firm supplies a small drug cartel in western Mexico with chemicals needed to make methamphetamines. Grupo <u><strong>Collins</u></strong>, which has denied any connection to organized crime, <u><strong>is one of dozens under suspicion of laundering money for the nation's booming drug business,</u></strong> <u><strong>whose growing economic impact now pervades just about every level of Mexican life. </u></strong>Mexican <u><strong>cartels</u></strong>, which control most of the cocaine and methamphetamine smuggled into the United States, <u><strong>bring</u></strong> an estimated $25 billion to <u><strong>$40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year. </u></strong>To put that in perspective: <u><strong><mark>Mexico</mark> probably <mark>made more money</mark> in 2009 <mark>moving drugs than it did exporting oil</u></strong></mark>, its single biggest legitimate foreign currency earner. From the white Caribbean beaches of Cancun to violent towns on the U.S. border and the beauty parlors of Mexico City's wealthy suburbs, <u><strong>drug cash is everywhere in Mexico</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>It has</u></strong></mark> even <u><strong><mark>propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy.</mark> </u></strong>Smuggled into Mexico mostly from the United States in $100 bills, narco money finds its way onto the books of restaurants, construction firms and bars as drug lords try to legitimize their cash and prevent police from tracing it. <u><strong>"Mexico is saturated with this money," said</u></strong> George <u><strong>Friedman, who heads geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor.</u></strong> In western Mexico, drug money started pouring into Zapopan and nearby Guadalajara in the 1980s as <u><strong><mark>the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate</u></strong></mark>, said Martin Barron, a researcher at the institute that trains Mexico's organized crime prosecutors. Now residents in the region known in Mexico for its piety say drug smugglers barely make an effort to disguise themselves. A strip of fancy boutiques in Zapopan was financed with drug money, says Jaime Ramirez, a local newspaper columnist who has been reporting on the drug world for two decades. As well as the Grupo Collins factory in Zapopan, a nearby car wash is also on the U.S. Treasury's black list. A local cemetery draws relatives of traffickers who were among the 17,000 people killed in the drug war in Mexico since 2006. "A lot of narcos are buried there. You should see it on Fathers' Day," Ramirez said, as a black pick-up truck with tinted windows pulled in. Zapopan residents just shrug their shoulders when a wealthy neighbor displays traits seen as typical of a drug trafficker -- wearing cowboy gear, playing loud "norteno" music from the country's north or holding lavish parties attended by guests who arrive in pick-up trucks or SUVs. "Living alongside them is normal," Ramirez said. "Everybody knows when a neighbor is on the shady side." One of those neighbors was Sandra Avila, a glamorous trafficker known as the "Queen of the Pacific," who lived in Zapopan before being arrested in Mexico City in 2007. On a typical day in Zapopan recently, men unloaded boxes from vans in the Grupo Collins compound, near the company's private chapel and soccer field. From behind the factory's high walls, there was little to suggest it could have ties to a cartel. "It has always been really calm," said Genaro Rangel, who sells tacos every morning to factory workers from a stall across the street. The plant was advertising a job opening on the company web site for a machine room technician. Washington's accusation, filed under a U.S. sanctions program, makes it illegal for Americans to do business with Grupo Collins and freezes any assets it might have in U.S. accounts. In a 2006 report, Mexican authorities named Grupo Collins' owner Telesforo Tirado as an operator of the Colima cartel. The U.S. Treasury and Mexico's Attorney General's office both declined to provide further details on the case and Grupo Collins executives also refused to comment. But Tirado has previously denied the charges in the Mexican media. CASHING IN ON THE DRUG TRADE <u><strong>What's going on in Zapopan is happening all over Mexico. </u></strong>A well-known Mexico City restaurant specializing in the spicy cuisine of the Yucatan peninsula was added to the U.S. list of front companies in December. Months earlier, one of Mexico's top food critics had recommended it. <u><strong><mark>Drug money has</mark> </u></strong>also <u><strong><mark>fueled</mark> part of <mark>a real estate boom</mark> around tourist resorts</u></strong> such as Cancun, said a senior U.S. law enforcement official in Mexico City. "We've had cases where traffickers purchased large tracts of land in areas where any investor would buy," he said, asking not to be named because of concerns about his safety. An architect in the city of Tijuana did well out of designing buildings that <u><strong><mark>cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses.</mark> </u></strong>"The pay was enough for me to build a house for myself, as well as to buy a lot a tools," he said. He was once hired to design a tunnel that led to the street from a secret door in a drug gang member's closet. Craving acceptance, the drug gangs even throw their money at acquaintances to get them on the social scene. A drug trafficker pays his friend Roberto, who declined to give his last name, to keep him connected in Tijuana and introduce him to women. "I take him to parties," Roberto said. In the wealthy shopping areas of Interlomas, near Mexico City, the Perfect Silhouette spa offers breast implants. Staffed by young women in loose-fitting white suits, the spa also sells weight-loss creams and offers massages. The U.S. Treasury recently said it was part of the financial network of the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader was gunned down by elite Mexican marines in December. The salon's manager, Teresa Delgado, appeared baffled by the U.S. accusations. "We haven't seen anything strange here," she said. A woman Delgado identified as the owner did not return a phone call requesting an interview. Businesses enlisted to launder drug money typically get a cut worth 3 percent to 8 percent of the funds passing through their books, the U.S. law enforcement official said. "SMURFING" AROUND THE LAWS <u><strong>Much of <mark>the cartels' profits</mark> eventually <mark>ends up in Mexico's banking system</u></strong></mark>, the U.S. official said. <u><strong><mark>During the</mark> global <mark>financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity</mark>, says economist</u></strong> Guillermo <u><strong>Ibarra</u></strong> of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. <u><strong><mark>"They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that</u></strong></mark> to a certain extent <u><strong><mark>helped the banks</u></strong></mark>," Ibarra said. Indeed, <u><strong>drug money in banks is a global phenomenon, not just in Mexico.</u></strong> A United Nations report on the global drug trade in 2009 said that "at a time of major bank failures, money doesn't smell, bankers seem to believe." <u><strong>Drug gangs in Mexico have their associates make thousands of tiny deposits in their bank accounts to avoid raising suspicion from banking authorities, a practice known as "smurfing," </u></strong>said the U.S. official. Mexico's banking association and the finance ministry's anti-money laundering unit declined to comment for this story. While Mexico is confiscating more drugs and assets than ever under President Felipe Calderon, forfeitures of money are still minuscule compared to even low-ball estimates of the amount of drug money that flows into Mexico. Under Calderon, authorities have confiscated about $400 million, almost none of which was seized from banks, said Ricardo Najera, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. Mexican bank secrecy laws make it particularly difficult to go after drug money in financial institutions, Najera said. "We can't just go in there and say 'OK, let's have a look,'" he said. "We have to trace the illicit origin of that money before we can get at those bank accounts." The U.S. Treasury has blocked only about $16 million in suspected Mexican drug assets since June 2000, a Treasury official in Washington said. The official, who asked not to be named, said the sanctions program aims to hit drug lords by breaking "their commercial and financial backbones." But freezing assets is not "the principal objective nor the key measure of success." MAFIA CAPITALISM Data on Mexican banking provides a novel way for calculating the size of the drug economy. Ibarra crunched numbers on monetary aggregates across different Mexican states and concluded that <u><strong>more money sits in Sinaloan banks than its legitimate economy should be generating.</u></strong> "It's as if two people had the same job and the same level of seniority, but one of them has twice as much savings," he said, talking about comparisons between Sinaloa and other states. Ibarra estimates cartels have laundered more than $680 million in the banks of Sinaloa -- which is a financial services backwater -- and that <u><strong><mark>drug money is driving</mark> nearly <mark>20 percent of the state's economy.</mark> </u></strong>Edgardo Buscaglia, an academic at Columbia University, recently scoured judicial case files and financial intelligence reports, some of which were provided by Mexican authorities. His research found <u><strong>organized crime's involvement in Mexican businesses had expanded sharply in the five years through 2008, with gangs now involved in most sectors of the economy. </u></strong>Buscaglia thinks Mexico's lackluster effort to confiscate dirty money is allowing drug gangs and other mafias to flourish. "You will wind up with mafia capitalism here before things improve," he said. Even though cartels are clearly creating jobs and giving a lot of people extra spending money, some of these economic benefits are neutralized by a raging drug war that has scared investors. About a dozen foreign companies in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from Texas, are postponing investments in factories there because of regular gun battles in the city, said Soledad Maynez, who heads a local factory association. She met with the companies' representatives in November. "They need the security issue improved," she said. Business leaders say thousands of shops have closed in Ciudad Juarez because of the violence. <u><strong>Another problem the economy could face is that <mark>drug funding could one day fall</mark> if authorities cracked down on money laundering or</u></strong> somehow <u><strong>wrenched power away from the cartels. </u></strong>"(Drug money) could have a short-term positive effect. But in the long run, because you're propping up this artificial economy, <u><strong><mark>the moment it stops it all crashes</u></strong></mark>," the U.S. law enforcement official said. (Additional reporting by Lizbeth Diaz in Tijuana, editing by Claudia Parsons and Jim Impoco)</p>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Turns their offense—limits are vital to creativity and innovation

Intrator 10

Intrator 10 David Intrator (President of The Creative Organization) October 21, 2010 “Thinking Inside the Box,” http://www.trainingmag.com/article/thinking-inside-box

One of the most pernicious myths about creativity is the belief that one needs to “think outside the box.” nothing could be further from the truth creativity is about problem-solving, and by definition a problem is a constraint, a limit, a box. What makes creative problem-solving uniquely challenging is that you are the one defining the problem you are required to establish limits to be truly creative, you have to clean up your mess, organizing those fragments into something real, something useful, something that actually works. That’s the hard part.

creativity is about problem-solving a problem is , a limit What makes creative problem-solving uniquely challenging is that you are required to establish limits to be truly creative, you have to clean up your mess, organizing those fragments into something useful That’s the hard part

One of the most pernicious myths about creativity, one that seriously inhibits creative thinking and innovation, is the belief that one needs to “think outside the box.” As someone who has worked for decades as a professional creative, nothing could be further from the truth. This a is view shared by the vast majority of creatives, expressed famously by the modernist designer Charles Eames when he wrote, “Design depends largely upon constraints.” The myth of thinking outside the box stems from a fundamental misconception of what creativity is, and what it’s not. In the popular imagination, creativity is something weird and wacky. The creative process is magical, or divinely inspired. But, in fact, creativity is not about divine inspiration or magic. It’s about problem-solving, and by definition a problem is a constraint, a limit, a box. One of the best illustrations of this is the work of photographers. They create by excluding the great mass what’s before them, choosing a small frame in which to work. Within that tiny frame, literally a box, they uncover relationships and establish priorities. What makes creative problem-solving uniquely challenging is that you, as the creator, are the one defining the problem. You’re the one choosing the frame. And you alone determine what’s an effective solution. This can be quite demanding, both intellectually and emotionally. Intellectually, you are required to establish limits, set priorities, and cull patterns and relationships from a great deal of material, much of it fragmentary. More often than not, this is the material you generated during brainstorming sessions. At the end of these sessions, you’re usually left with a big mess of ideas, half-ideas, vague notions, and the like. Now, chances are you’ve had a great time making your mess. You might have gone off-site, enjoyed a “brainstorming camp,” played a number of warm-up games. You feel artistic and empowered. But to be truly creative, you have to clean up your mess, organizing those fragments into something real, something useful, something that actually works. That’s the hard part. It takes a lot of energy, time, and willpower to make sense of the mess you’ve just generated. It also can be emotionally difficult. You’ll need to throw out many ideas you originally thought were great, ideas you’ve become attached to, because they simply don’t fit into the rules you’re creating as you build your box.

<h4><strong>Turns their offense—limits are vital to creativity and innovation</h4><p>Intrator 10</p><p></strong>David Intrator (President of The Creative Organization) October 21, 2010 “Thinking Inside the Box,” http://www.trainingmag.com/article/thinking-inside-box </p><p><u><strong>One of the most pernicious myths about creativity</u></strong>, one that seriously inhibits creative thinking and innovation, <u><strong>is the belief that one needs to “think outside the box.”</u></strong> As someone who has worked for decades as a professional creative, <u><strong>nothing could be further from the truth</u></strong>. This a is view shared by the vast majority of creatives, expressed famously by the modernist designer Charles Eames when he wrote, “Design depends largely upon constraints.” The myth of thinking outside the box stems from a fundamental misconception of what creativity is, and what it’s not. In the popular imagination, creativity is something weird and wacky. The creative process is magical, or divinely inspired. But, in fact, <u><strong><mark>creativity is</u></strong></mark> not about divine inspiration or magic. It’s <u><strong><mark>about problem-solving</mark>, and by definition <mark>a problem is </mark>a constraint<mark>, a limit</mark>, a box.</u></strong> One of the best illustrations of this is the work of photographers. They create by excluding the great mass what’s before them, choosing a small frame in which to work. Within that tiny frame, literally a box, they uncover relationships and establish priorities. <u><strong><mark>What makes creative problem-solving uniquely challenging is that</mark> you</u></strong>, as the creator, <u><strong>are the one defining the problem</u></strong>. You’re the one choosing the frame. And you alone determine what’s an effective solution. This can be quite demanding, both intellectually and emotionally. Intellectually, <u><strong><mark>you are required to establish limits</u></strong></mark>, set priorities, and cull patterns and relationships from a great deal of material, much of it fragmentary. More often than not, this is the material you generated during brainstorming sessions. At the end of these sessions, you’re usually left with a big mess of ideas, half-ideas, vague notions, and the like. Now, chances are you’ve had a great time making your mess. You might have gone off-site, enjoyed a “brainstorming camp,” played a number of warm-up games. You feel artistic and empowered. But <u><strong><mark>to be truly creative, you have to clean up your mess, organizing those fragments into something</mark> real, something <mark>useful</mark>, something that actually works. <mark>That’s the hard part</mark>.</u></strong> It takes a lot of energy, time, and willpower to make sense of the mess you’ve just generated. It also can be emotionally difficult. You’ll need to throw out many ideas you originally thought were great, ideas you’ve become attached to, because they simply don’t fit into the rules you’re creating as you build your box.</p>

2NC

2NC Overview

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Plan causes political firestorm

Kusnetz, 13

Kusnetz, 13 (Nicholas Kusnetz is a current reporter at the Center for Public Integrity. He has previously reported on state government corruption and transparency for the State Integrity Investigation. He comes to the Center from ProPublica; "The Big Gamble" on April 13, 2014 fromwww.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/legalizing_internet_gambling_sheldon_adelson_casinos_offshore_companies.html)

billions of dollars ongress is facing increasing pressure Adelson, a prominent backer of conservative political causes and head of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire, has pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to get Congress to ban Internet gambling outright interest groups spent $8.2 million lobbying the federal government on Internet gambling

Congress is facing increasing pressure Adelson has pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to get Congress to ban Internet gambling outright interest groups spent $8.2 million lobbying on Internet gambling

Ever since Bugsy Siegel opened the Flamingo Hotel in 1946 and launched the Las Vegas Strip, gambling has held a tenuous position in American life, suggesting glamour, wealth, and corruption all at once. Now that casinos have spread nationwide and allegedly shed their mafia ties, a new branch of the industry is fighting for legitimacy. Las Vegas–based casinos and overseas operators have begun an all-out battle over Internet gambling, which is mostly banned nationwide but carries with it the promise of billions of dollars in additional revenue for casinos and state governments. Three states began licensing online betting last year, and Congress is facing increasing pressure to either bar or regulate the fledgling industry. The moves are coming in response to a concerted push orchestrated by a colorful cast of characters, including Sheldon Adelson, one of the most prolific political donors of the super PAC era, an offshore company that only recently settled federal allegations of money laundering and bank fraud, and a pair of benignly named political advocacy groups backed by big-time casino cash. Adelson, a prominent backer of conservative political causes and head of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire, has pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to get Congress to ban Internet gambling outright. In March, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced a bill that was written with the help of Adelson’s lobbyists to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, industry giants like Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts have taken the opposite tack, banding together in an effort to legalize and tap into the growing market. Maneuvering quietly in the background are foreign entities, including the Isle-of-Man-based PokerStars, the world’s biggest online poker operator. As a whole, the casino industry is among the most generous in giving to political candidates across the country. According to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the gambling industry contributed $287.6 million to state and federal campaigns from 2009 to 2012 (state data for 2013 aren’t yet available). All together, these interest groups spent $8.2 million lobbying the federal government on Internet gambling last year, according to the trade publisher GamblingCompliance, and millions more in state capitals from Trenton to Sacramento. And while Washington has drawn much of the recent attention, the real action may come in the states. New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware have already legalized online gambling, and lawmakers are debating the issue in seven other states right now.

<h4>Plan causes political firestorm</h4><p><strong>Kusnetz, 13</strong> (Nicholas Kusnetz is a current reporter at the Center for Public Integrity. He has previously reported on state government corruption and transparency for the State Integrity Investigation. He comes to the Center from ProPublica; "The Big Gamble" on April 13, 2014 fromwww.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/legalizing_internet_gambling_sheldon_adelson_casinos_offshore_companies.html)</p><p>Ever since Bugsy Siegel opened the Flamingo Hotel in 1946 and launched the Las Vegas Strip, gambling has held a tenuous position in American life, suggesting glamour, wealth, and corruption all at once. Now that casinos have spread nationwide and allegedly shed their mafia ties, a new branch of the industry is fighting for legitimacy. Las Vegas–based casinos and overseas operators have begun an all-out battle over Internet gambling, which is mostly banned nationwide but carries with it the promise of <u><strong>billions of dollars</u></strong> in additional revenue for casinos and state governments. Three states began licensing online betting last year, and <mark>C<u><strong>ongress is facing increasing pressure</u></strong></mark> to either bar or regulate the fledgling industry. The moves are coming in response to a concerted push orchestrated by a colorful cast of characters, including Sheldon Adelson, one of the most prolific political donors of the super PAC era, an offshore company that only recently settled federal allegations of money laundering and bank fraud, and a pair of benignly named political advocacy groups backed by big-time casino cash. <u><strong><mark>Adelson</mark>, a prominent backer of conservative political causes and head of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire, <mark>has pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to get Congress to ban Internet gambling outright</u></strong></mark>. In March, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced a bill that was written with the help of Adelson’s lobbyists to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, industry giants like Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts have taken the opposite tack, banding together in an effort to legalize and tap into the growing market. Maneuvering quietly in the background are foreign entities, including the Isle-of-Man-based PokerStars, the world’s biggest online poker operator. As a whole, the casino industry is among the most generous in giving to political candidates across the country. According to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the gambling industry contributed $287.6 million to state and federal campaigns from 2009 to 2012 (state data for 2013 aren’t yet available). All together, these <u><strong><mark>interest groups spent $8.2 million lobbying </mark>the federal government <mark>on Internet gambling</u></strong></mark> last year, according to the trade publisher GamblingCompliance, and millions more in state capitals from Trenton to Sacramento. And while Washington has drawn much of the recent attention, the real action may come in the states. New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware have already legalized online gambling, and lawmakers are debating the issue in seven other states right now.</p><p> </p>

1NR

Link Debate

2NC Link Wall

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Dems have the momentum to take the senate now – but there is no margin of error

Cohn 9/12 <Nate, The New York Times, “Democrats Are Seeing More Daylight in Path to Senate Control,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/democrats-are-seeing-more-daylight-in-path-to-senate-control.html?abt=0002&abg=1>#SPS

Cohn 9/12 <Nate, The New York Times, “Democrats Are Seeing More Daylight in Path to Senate Control,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/democrats-are-seeing-more-daylight-in-path-to-senate-control.html?abt=0002&abg=1>#SPS

the Democratic path to a Senate has started to look easier. today the Democratic path to victory looks as clear as it has at any point this year. That path remains narrow with just two months to go, the party appears to have an advantage The Democrats now appear to have a modest lead in Colorado and Michigan, two states where Republicans entered the summer with high hopes. a diverse set of pollsters has given Udall a lead In Michigan Peters, leads by an even larger margin. These leads are not insurmountable. But they are not insubstantial, either. There is no evidence of a trend toward the Republicans and, if anything, the Democratic advantage has grown If Colorado and Michigan are penciled into the Democratic column the Democrats will then need three more states to retain control. The Democrats have a fairly broad set of options for those states In North Carolina and Iowa, the Democrats maintain a fairly clear, if small, lead in the polls, and Alaska is notoriously difficult to poll. Leo now gives Hagan a 73 percent chance of victory, given that she leads her Republican opponent Tillis, by two percentage points Braley also has an advantage, albeit an even more tenuous one than Ms. Hagan. His lead, however, is fairly consistent: Unlike the races in Colorado and Michigan, those in North Carolina and Iowa are true tossups. The current Democratic advantage could prove to be fleeting, but there’s not much evidence of movement in the Republicans’ direction for now.

the Dem path to a Senate victory looks as clear as it has at any point this year. That path remains narrow with just two months to go, the party appears to have an advantage The Dem s have a modest lead in Colorado and Michigan These leads are not insurmountable. But they are not insubstantial, either . If Colorado and Michigan are penciled Democratic , the Dem s need three more states to retain control . In North Carolina and Iowa Democrats maintain a fairly clear, if small, lead and Alaska is notoriously difficult to poll Unlike the races in Colorado and Michigan North Carolina and Iowa are true tossups. The current Democratic advantage could prove to be fleeting, but there’s not much evidence of movement in the Republicans’ direction

A few months ago, the Democratic path to a Senate majority looked long and arduous. It has started to look easier. The Democrats started the campaign with a clear advantage in enough races to end up with 45 seats, well short of the 50 needed to retain control of the chamber. To get to 50, the party was going to have to run the table in five battleground states where polls were already showing Republicans with an occasional lead — or replace one of them by holding either Arkansas or Louisiana, two deep-red states with Democratic incumbents in jeopardy. Doing so would have been challenging under any circumstances. It seemed especially daunting this year, given the president’s low approval ratings and the long history of the president’s party suffering a “midterm penalty.” But today the Democratic path to victory looks as clear as it has at any point this year. That path remains narrow, to be sure. The Democrats will probably still need to sweep those five fairly close races. Yet with just two months to go, the party appears to have an advantage in four of them. And the Democrats have other opportunities that might give them more breathing room. The Democrats now appear to have a modest lead in Colorado and Michigan, two states where Republicans entered the summer with high hopes. Over the last month, a diverse set of pollsters has given Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, a Democratic incumbent, a lead of an average of 3.7 points. In Michigan, the Democrat, Gary Peters, leads by an even larger 5.5-point margin. These leads are not insurmountable. But they are not insubstantial, either. There is no evidence of a trend toward the Republicans and, if anything, the Democratic advantage has grown over the summer. Leo, The Upshot’s Senate forecasting model, now gives the Democrats around an 80 percent chance of winning each of these states. At one point earlier this year, Leo interpreted Mr. Udall to be the underdog, and Mr. Peters had only a 59 percent chance of winning as recently as a month and a half ago. If Colorado and Michigan are penciled into the Democratic column, the Democrats will then need three more states to retain control. The Democrats have a fairly broad set of options for those states, but the likeliest possibility is that the election comes down to Alaska, Iowa and North Carolina. All three pose big challenges to Democrats. Alaska voted for Mitt Romney by 14 points in 2012. The president’s approval ratings are terrible in Iowa, where the Democrats have an imperfect nominee — one who seemed to criticize farmers in recorded remarks at a fund-raiser — in one of the few competitive races where the party will not benefit from incumbency. And there is no state where Democrats suffer more from an off-year electorate than North Carolina, where Democrats are exceptionally dependent on young and nonwhite voters to overcome the state’s conservative and older white voters. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the Republicans are favored in any of these states. In North Carolina and Iowa, the Democrats maintain a fairly clear, if small, lead in the polls, and Alaska is notoriously difficult to poll. Leo now gives Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina a 73 percent chance of victory, given that she leads her Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, by two percentage points, 45 to 43, in an average of polls. I might rate her chances somewhat lower, in part because she’s benefiting from an unlikely six-point edge in a new poll from Rasmussen, a firm with a record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques. Another factor complicating the polls is that they may be underestimating the support of Mr. Tillis by asking respondents about a Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh, who is not seriously campaigning but is nonetheless receiving more support than Libertarian candidates in North Carolina generally do. Even so, Ms. Hagan generally leads in the polls that do not name Mr. Haugh, and there’s not much question which candidate is ahead. Representative Bruce Braley, the Democratic nominee in Iowa, also has an advantage, albeit an even more tenuous one than Ms. Hagan. He has been leading by about two-thirds of a point over the last month. His lead, however, is fairly consistent: His Republican opponent, Joni Ernst, has led in just one poll over the last three months, and a more recent version of that poll, an online survey by YouGov, The New York Times and CBS, flipped to Mr. Braley. Unlike the races in Colorado and Michigan, those in North Carolina and Iowa are true tossups. The current Democratic advantage could prove to be fleeting, but there’s not much evidence of movement in the Republicans’ direction for now.

<h4>Dems have the momentum to take the senate now – but there is no margin of error</h4><p><strong>Cohn 9/12</strong> <u><strong><Nate, The New York Times, “Democrats Are Seeing More Daylight in Path to Senate Control,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/democrats-are-seeing-more-daylight-in-path-to-senate-control.html?abt=0002&abg=1>#SPS</p><p></u></strong>A few months ago, <u><strong><mark>the Dem</mark>ocratic <mark>path to a Senate</u></strong></mark> majority looked long and arduous. It <u><strong>has started to look easier. </u></strong>The Democrats started the campaign with a clear advantage in enough races to end up with 45 seats, well short of the 50 needed to retain control of the chamber. To get to 50, the party was going to have to run the table in five battleground states where polls were already showing Republicans with an occasional lead — or replace one of them by holding either Arkansas or Louisiana, two deep-red states with Democratic incumbents in jeopardy. Doing so would have been challenging under any circumstances. It seemed especially daunting this year, given the president’s low approval ratings and the long history of the president’s party suffering a “midterm penalty.” But <u><strong>today the Democratic path to <mark>victory looks as clear as it has at any point this year.</u></strong> <u><strong>That path remains narrow</u></strong></mark>, to be sure. The Democrats will probably still need to sweep those five fairly close races. Yet <u><strong><mark>with just two months to go, the party appears to have an advantage</u></strong></mark> in four of them. And the Democrats have other opportunities that might give them more breathing room. <u><strong><mark>The Dem</mark>ocrat<mark>s</mark> now appear to <mark>have a modest lead in Colorado and Michigan</mark>, two states where Republicans entered the summer with high hopes.</u></strong> Over the last month, <u><strong>a diverse set of pollsters has given</u></strong> Senator Mark <u><strong>Udall</u></strong> of Colorado, a Democratic incumbent, <u><strong>a lead</u></strong> of an average of 3.7 points. <u><strong>In Michigan</u></strong>, the Democrat, Gary <u><strong>Peters, leads by an even larger</u></strong> 5.5-point <u><strong>margin. <mark>These leads are not insurmountable.</u></strong> <u><strong>But they are not insubstantial, either</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>There is no evidence of a trend toward the Republicans and,</u></strong> <u><strong>if anything, the Democratic advantage has grown</u></strong> over the summer. Leo, The Upshot’s Senate forecasting model, now gives the Democrats around an 80 percent chance of winning each of these states. At one point earlier this year, Leo interpreted Mr. Udall to be the underdog, and Mr. Peters had only a 59 percent chance of winning as recently as a month and a half ago<mark>. <u><strong>If Colorado and Michigan are penciled</mark> into the <mark>Democratic</mark> column</u></strong><mark>, <u><strong>the</mark> <mark>Dem</mark>ocrat<mark>s</mark> will then <mark>need three more states to retain control</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>The Democrats have a fairly broad set of options for those states</u></strong>, but the likeliest possibility is that the election comes down to Alaska, Iowa and North Carolina.<u><strong> </u></strong>All three pose big challenges to Democrats. Alaska voted for Mitt Romney by 14 points in 2012. The president’s approval ratings are terrible in Iowa, where the Democrats have an imperfect nominee — one who seemed to criticize farmers in recorded remarks at a fund-raiser — in one of the few competitive races where the party will not benefit from incumbency. And there is no state where Democrats suffer more from an off-year electorate than North Carolina, where Democrats are exceptionally dependent on young and nonwhite voters to overcome the state’s conservative and older white voters. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the Republicans are favored in any of these states<mark>. <u><strong>In North Carolina and Iowa</mark>, the <mark>Democrats maintain a fairly clear, if small, lead</mark> in the polls, <mark>and Alaska is notoriously difficult to poll</mark>. Leo now gives</u></strong> Senator Kay <u><strong>Hagan</u></strong> of North Carolina <u><strong>a 73 percent chance of victory, given that she leads her Republican opponent</u></strong>, Thom <u><strong>Tillis, by two percentage points</u></strong>, 45 to 43, in an average of polls. I might rate her chances somewhat lower, in part because she’s benefiting from an unlikely six-point edge in a new poll from Rasmussen, a firm with a record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques. Another factor complicating the polls is that they may be underestimating the support of Mr. Tillis by asking respondents about a Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh, who is not seriously campaigning but is nonetheless receiving more support than Libertarian candidates in North Carolina generally do. Even so, Ms. Hagan generally leads in the polls that do not name Mr. Haugh, and there’s not much question which candidate is ahead. Representative Bruce <u><strong>Braley</u></strong>, the Democratic nominee in Iowa, <u><strong>also has an advantage, albeit an even more tenuous one than Ms. Hagan.</u></strong> He has been leading by about two-thirds of a point over the last month. <u><strong>His lead, however, is fairly consistent:</u></strong> His Republican opponent, Joni Ernst, has led in just one poll over the last three months, and a more recent version of that poll, an online survey by YouGov, The New York Times and CBS, flipped to Mr. Braley. <u><strong><mark>Unlike the races in Colorado and Michigan</mark>, those in <mark>North Carolina and Iowa are true tossups. The current Democratic advantage could prove to be fleeting, but there’s not much evidence of movement in the Republicans’ direction</mark> for now.</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Studies

Royal 10

Royal 10 Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214

economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power increasing the risk of miscalculation even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states if the expectations of future trade decline the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could trigger decreased trade expectations others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels

crises usher redistribution of power increasing miscalc a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable if expectations of trade decline, conflict increases states use force to gain resources Hess find a strong correlation between internal and external conflict during periods of downturn governments have incentives to create a 'rally effect diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states scholarship links decline with conflict

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

<h4>Studies</h4><p><strong>Royal 10</strong> </p><p>Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214</p><p>Less intuitive is how periods of <u><strong>economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.</u></strong> Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that <u><strong>rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next</u></strong>. As such, exogenous shocks such as <u>economic <mark>crises </mark>could <mark>usher </mark>in a <mark>redistribution of </mark>relative <mark>power</u></mark> (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, <u><strong><mark>increasing</mark> the risk of <mark>miscalc</mark>ulation</u></strong> (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, <u><strong>even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict</u></strong> as <u><strong><mark>a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power</u></strong></mark> (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that <u><strong><mark>'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable</mark> in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour</strong> of states</u>. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, <u><mark>if</mark> the <mark>expectations of</mark> future <mark>trade decline</u>,</mark> particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, <u><strong>the likelihood for <mark>conflict increases</mark>, as <mark>states </mark>will be inclined to <mark>use force to gain</mark> access to those <mark>resources</mark>. Crises could</u></strong> potentially be the <u>trigger</u> for <u>decreased trade expectations</u> either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, <u>others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and <mark>Hess</u></mark> (2002) <u><strong><mark>find a strong correlation between internal</mark> conflict <mark>and</mark> <mark>external conflict</mark>, particularly <mark>during periods of</mark> economic <mark>downturn</u></strong></mark>. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the <u>presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other</u>. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) <u>Economic decline has</u> also <u><strong>been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism</u></strong> (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. <u>"<strong>Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting <mark>governments have </mark>increased <mark>incentives to </mark>fabricate external military conflicts to <mark>create a 'rally</mark> around the flag' <mark>effect</mark>.</u></strong> Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that <u>the tendency towards <mark>diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states</u></mark> than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that <u><strong>periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force</u></strong>. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas <u>political <strong>science <mark>scholarship links</mark> economic <mark>decline with </mark>external <mark>conflict</mark> at systemic</strong>, dyadic and national levels</u>.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. </p>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

That’s good -- discussing fed legalization might not be the perfect solution to racial violence but it is a necessary first step

Glodjo 14

Glodjo 14 (Tyler, Adjunct Professor at Union University and PhD candidate at Indiana University, “Marijuana Legalization in Black and White: The Racial Cost of the Status Quo”, January 15th http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2014/01/marijuana-legalization-in-black-and-white/, AB)

an African American was three-to-four-times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person This is a indictment against our criminal justice system While whites and blacks use marijuana at similar rates, blacks are far more likely to be arrested for it arrests for marijuana possession do not result in the disenfranchised felon these arrests do, play into a grander racial narrative told throughout our nation many will argue against the legalization of marijuana possession arrests have become a gateway to the “black male as criminal” archetype so prevalent today. without legalization marijuana is still a gateway ushering in a disproportionate number of blacks who are then sucked into a racial narrative that defines them and pushes them into the category of felon We must be willing to push back against all forms of brokenness and injustice If marijuana is not legalized, we are left with the injustice of a racial narrative that is skewed to profile blacks as criminals for the same crimes whites commit with apparent impunity. the future of the black community itself may depend on the willingness of those who care about racial justice to re-examine their basic assumptions about the role of the criminal justice system in our society While there is plenty of room for varying opinions on legalizing marijuana legalization may be a small step forward in dismantling mass incarceration The disparities that currently exist in arrests for possession are symptomatic of racial superiority and inferiority. we can agree and disagree on whether legalization is the best way forward but move forward we must. Let’s begin by considering that mass incarceration our criminal justice system is the pool that feeds many of the social ills we address

arrests marijuana possession these arrests do play into a grander racial narrative told throughout our nation many argue against legalization possession arrests become a gateway to t black as criminal archetype without legalization marijuana is still a gateway ushering in a disproportionate number of blacks sucked into a racial narrative We must be willing to push back If marijuana is not legalized we are left with injustice skewed to profile blacks the future of the black community may depend on the willingness of those who care about racial justice to re-examine their assumptions about the criminal justice system While there is varying opinions on legalizing legalization may be a small step forward we can agree and disagree on whether legalization is the best but move forward we must. Let’s begin by considering our criminal justice system is the pool that feeds social ills

From 2001–2010, an African American was three-to-four-times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. This is a staggering indictment against our criminal justice system. While whites and blacks use marijuana at similar rates, blacks are far more likely to be arrested for it. Why? Michelle Alexander’s work provides the overarching narrative necessary for addressing this issue. Many of the arrests for marijuana possession do not result in the disenfranchised felon Alexander describes as the undercaste of the United States; these arrests do, however, play into a grander racial narrative told throughout our nation. While many will argue against the legalization of marijuana because of its merits as a gateway drug, possession arrests have become a gateway to the “black male as criminal” archetype so prevalent today. Many Christians fear legalization because marijuana is the “gateway drug,” and they are concerned for the long-term harm this may have on society. However, without legalization, marijuana is still a gateway—ushering in a disproportionate number of blacks who are then sucked into a racial narrative that, as Alexander purports, defines them and pushes them into the category of felon. Either way, then, marijuana is a gateway—either to more drug use, to criminal life, or both. While it may seem quite simple that Christians should be against the legalization of this drug, especially if it leads to harder drug use, are we willing to accept that there may be serious costs to its prohibition as well? We must be willing to push back against all forms of brokenness and injustice, for all people. If marijuana is not legalized, we are left with the injustice of a racial narrative that is skewed to profile blacks as criminals for the same crimes whites commit with apparent impunity. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander states, “The fate of millions of people—indeed the future of the black community itself—may depend on the willingness of those who care about racial justice to re-examine their basic assumptions about the role of the criminal justice system in our society.” While there is plenty of room for varying opinions on legalizing marijuana, and while legalization may or may not be a small step forward in dismantling mass incarceration, let us not be fooled into thinking this isn’t a racial justice issue. The disparities that currently exist in arrests for possession are symptomatic of a much larger illness that has plagued our country before it was even founded—that of racial superiority and inferiority. Alexander implicates the Christian community in her statement because we are those “who care about racial justice.” We care about justice because we serve a just and righteous God. There’s no shortage of concern among our ranks over the effects of poverty and fatherlessness in poor minority communities. We are eager to promote mentoring programs, food banks, pregnancy counseling, emergency relief, and a myriad of other ministries. We do these things because deep down we want brokenness to be repaired. We long for Jesus to fulfill His promise to make all things new. While I thank God for the success my friend Matt found after his juvenile experimentation with weed, I wish my friend Jimmy had the same opportunity and expectations to walk away unscathed. With the issue of marijuana use, we can agree and disagree on whether legalization is the best way forward, but move forward we must. Let’s begin by considering that mass incarceration and the unjust discrimination in our criminal justice system is the pool that feeds many of the social ills we address. From there, we can seek God to purify the streams that falsely create racial narratives which dishonor God’s people and pollute our desire for justice.

<h4>That’s good -- discussing fed legalization might not be the perfect solution to racial violence but it is a necessary first step </h4><p><strong>Glodjo 14</strong> (Tyler, Adjunct Professor at Union University and PhD candidate at Indiana University, “Marijuana Legalization in Black and White: The Racial Cost of the Status Quo”, January 15th http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2014/01/marijuana-legalization-in-black-and-white/, AB) </p><p>From 2001–2010, <u><strong>an African American was three-to-four-times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person</u></strong>. <u><strong>This</u></strong> <u><strong>is a</u></strong> staggering <u><strong>indictment</u></strong> <u><strong>against our criminal justice system</u></strong>. <u><strong>While</u></strong> <u><strong>whites and blacks use marijuana at similar rates, blacks are far more likely to be arrested for</u></strong> <u><strong>it</u></strong>. Why? Michelle Alexander’s work provides the overarching narrative necessary for addressing this issue. Many of the <u><strong><mark>arrests</mark> for <mark>marijuana</mark> <mark>possession</mark> do not result in the disenfranchised felon</u></strong> Alexander describes as the undercaste of the United States; <u><strong><mark>these arrests do</mark>,</u></strong> however, <u><strong><mark>play into a grander racial narrative</mark> <mark>told</mark> <mark>throughout</mark> <mark>our</mark> <mark>nation</u></strong></mark>. While <u><strong><mark>many</mark> will <mark>argue</mark> <mark>against </mark>the <mark>legalization</mark> of marijuana</u></strong> because of its merits as a gateway drug, <u><strong><mark>possession</mark> <mark>arrests</mark> have <mark>become a gateway to t</mark>he “<mark>black</mark> male <mark>as criminal</mark>” <mark>archetype</mark> so prevalent today. </u></strong>Many Christians fear legalization because marijuana is the “gateway drug,” and they are concerned for the long-term harm this may have on society. However, <u><strong><mark>without legalization</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>marijuana</mark> <mark>is still a gateway</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong><mark>ushering in a</mark> <mark>disproportionate number of blacks</mark> who are then <mark>sucked into a racial narrative</mark> that</u></strong>, as Alexander purports, <u><strong>defines them and pushes them into the category of felon</u></strong>. Either way, then, marijuana is a gateway—either to more drug use, to criminal life, or both. While it may seem quite simple that Christians should be against the legalization of this drug, especially if it leads to harder drug use, are we willing to accept that there may be serious costs to its prohibition as well? <u><strong><mark>We must be willing to push back</mark> against all forms of brokenness and injustice</u></strong>, for all people. <u><strong><mark>If</u></strong> <u><strong>marijuana is not legalized</mark>, <mark>we are left with</mark> the</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>injustice</mark> of a racial narrative that is <mark>skewed to profile blacks</mark> as criminals for the same crimes whites commit with apparent impunity. </u></strong>In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander states, “The fate of millions of people—indeed <u><strong><mark>the future of the black community</mark> itself</u></strong>—<u><strong><mark>may</mark> <mark>depend</mark> <mark>on the willingness</mark> <mark>of those</mark> <mark>who care about racial justice</mark> <mark>to re-examine</mark> <mark>their</mark> basic <mark>assumptions</mark> <mark>about</mark> the role of <mark>the</mark> <mark>criminal justice system</mark> in our society</u></strong>.” <u><strong><mark>While there is</mark> plenty of room for <mark>varying</mark> <mark>opinions</mark> <mark>on</mark> <mark>legalizing</mark> marijuana</u></strong>, and while <u><strong><mark>legalization</mark> <mark>may</u></strong></mark> or may not <u><strong><mark>be a small step forward</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>in dismantling mass incarceration</u></strong>, let us not be fooled into thinking this isn’t a racial justice issue. <u><strong>The disparities that currently exist in arrests for possession</u></strong> <u><strong>are symptomatic of</u></strong> a much larger illness that has plagued our country before it was even founded—that of <u><strong>racial superiority and inferiority. </u></strong>Alexander implicates the Christian community in her statement because we are those “who care about racial justice.” We care about justice because we serve a just and righteous God. There’s no shortage of concern among our ranks over the effects of poverty and fatherlessness in poor minority communities. We are eager to promote mentoring programs, food banks, pregnancy counseling, emergency relief, and a myriad of other ministries. We do these things because deep down we want brokenness to be repaired. We long for Jesus to fulfill His promise to make all things new. While I thank God for the success my friend Matt found after his juvenile experimentation with weed, I wish my friend Jimmy had the same opportunity and expectations to walk away unscathed. With the issue of marijuana use, <u><strong><mark>we</mark> <mark>can agree</mark> <mark>and disagree on whether legalization is the</mark> <mark>best</mark> way forward</u></strong>,<u><strong> <mark>but</mark> <mark>move forward we must.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>Let’s begin</u></strong> <u><strong>by considering</mark> that mass incarceration</u></strong> and the unjust discrimination in <u><strong><mark>our criminal justice system</u></strong> <u><strong>is the pool that feeds</mark> many of the <mark>social ills</mark> we address</u></strong>. From there, we can seek God to purify the streams that falsely create racial narratives which dishonor God’s people and pollute our desire for justice.</p>

2NC

2NC Legalization

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Congressional fights over gambling- lobbying

Chang 14

Chang 14 Ailsa Chang. NPR: Mega-Donor Opens Wallet On The Hill To Kill Online Gambling http://www.npr.org/2014/04/03/298779750/mega-donor-opens-wallet-on-the-hill-to-kill-online-gambling 04/03/14 [aw]

Congress has already kicked into gear against online gambling the senator leading the charge has received tens of thousands of dollars from Adelson Republican Graham of South Carolina. I don't know how much money he gave me, but I'm doing this bill because it makes sense to me to regulate chaos," says Graham. The senator's never been a visible critic of online gambling before, but Graham says fighting it now is a win-win situation. It will make his good friend happy, and it will make social conservatives back home happy. Adelson and his team have made it clear — they will spare no expense in this fight Caesars Entertainment helped launch a counter-offensive to kill the bill

Congress has kicked into gear against online gambling the senator leading the charge has received tens of thousands of dollars from Adelson don't know how much money he gave me, but I'm doing this bill because it makes sense to me t says Graham The senator's never been a visible critic of online gambling before, but Graham says fighting it now is a win-win situation Adelson and his team have made it clear — they will spare no expense in this fight Caesars Entertainment helped launch a counter-offensive to kill the bill

Congress has already kicked into gear against online gambling, and the senator leading the charge has received tens of thousands of dollars this election cycle from Adelson and his family – Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "Well, I don't know how much money he gave me, but I'm doing this bill because it makes sense to me to regulate chaos," says Graham. Last week, Graham introduced a bill Adelson's lobbyists helped write. The senator's never been a visible critic of online gambling before, but Graham says fighting it now is a win-win situation. It will make his good friend happy, and it will make social conservatives back home happy. "Sheldon and the Baptists are one with this. The Baptists in South Carolina and Sheldon have become one person on this idea," says Graham. "You know, I'm sure the people in Vegas have different financial interests, but from my point of view, this is really easy politics for me back in South Carolina." Adelson's political advisor Abboud says the senator's allegiance has nothing to do with the big checks he's gotten from the billionaire. "To try and think that there's any link between a campaign contribution and legislation is a false notion," says Abboud. "There's no connection between financial support for Lindsey Graham and the bill sponsorship." Still, Adelson and his team have made it clear — they will spare no expense in this fight. Last year, Adelson spent $320,000 lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's just a speck of dust for the casino magnate, and his opponents know it. "We don't have $38 billion," said Jan Jones Blackhurst, the head of government relations at Caesars Entertainment. She says online gambling could actually attract new players and boost business. That's one of the reasons Caesars helped launch a counter-offensive to kill the bill. But even a big player like Caesars is feeling a bit intimidated.

<h4><strong>Congressional fights over gambling- lobbying</h4><p>Chang 14</p><p></strong>Ailsa Chang. NPR: Mega-Donor Opens Wallet On The Hill To Kill Online Gambling http://www.npr.org/2014/04/03/298779750/mega-donor-opens-wallet-on-the-hill-to-kill-online-gambling 04/03/14 [aw]</p><p><u><strong><mark>Congress</mark> <mark>has</mark> already <mark>kicked into gear against online gambling</u></strong></mark>, and <u><strong><mark>the senator leading the charge has received tens of thousands of dollars</u></strong></mark> this election cycle <u><strong><mark>from</mark> <mark>Adelson</u></strong></mark> and his family – <u><strong>Republican</u></strong> Lindsey <u><strong>Graham of South Carolina. </u></strong>"Well, <u><strong>I <mark>don't know how much money he gave me, but I'm doing this bill because it makes sense to me t</mark>o regulate chaos," <mark>says Graham</mark>.</u></strong> Last week, Graham introduced a bill Adelson's lobbyists helped write. <u><strong><mark>The senator's never been a visible critic of online gambling before, but Graham says fighting it now is a win-win situation</mark>. It will make his good friend happy, and it will make social conservatives back home happy. </u></strong>"Sheldon and the Baptists are one with this. The Baptists in South Carolina and Sheldon have become one person on this idea," says Graham. "You know, I'm sure the people in Vegas have different financial interests, but from my point of view, this is really easy politics for me back in South Carolina." Adelson's political advisor Abboud says the senator's allegiance has nothing to do with the big checks he's gotten from the billionaire. "To try and think that there's any link between a campaign contribution and legislation is a false notion," says Abboud. "There's no connection between financial support for Lindsey Graham and the bill sponsorship." Still, <u><strong><mark>Adelson and his team have made it clear — they will spare no expense in this fight</u></strong></mark>. Last year, Adelson spent $320,000 lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's just a speck of dust for the casino magnate, and his opponents know it. "We don't have $38 billion," said Jan Jones Blackhurst, the head of government relations at <u><strong><mark>Caesars Entertainment</u></strong></mark>. She says online gambling could actually attract new players and boost business. That's one of the reasons Caesars <u><strong><mark>helped launch a counter-offensive to kill the bill</u></strong></mark>. But even a big player like Caesars is feeling a bit intimidated.</p>

1NR

Link Debate

2NC Link Wall

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Prostitution legalization unpopular

YouGov 11

YouGov 11

8/25/11 [AW] In the Economist/YouGov Americans have very different views about legalizing prostitution. 52% oppose that Those under 30 are divided those 65 and older are overwhelmingly opposed Men are more favorable to legalizing prostitution than women are 49% of independents and 42% of Democrats would legalize prostitution, only 26% of Republicans agree.

Americans have different views about legalizing prostitution. 52% oppose that those 65 and older are overwhelmingly opposed. Men are more favorable than women 49% of independents and 42% of Democrats would legalize prostitution, only 26% of Republicans

You Gov: 68% Favor Legalized Gambling; 39% Would Legalize Prostitution http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/08/25/68-favor-legalized-gambling-39-would-legalize-pros/ 8/25/11 [AW] Many states permit gambling -in casinos or through lotteries -and Americans generally support that. In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, two out of three favor legalized gambling, 22% oppose it. Republicans and Democrats, the young and the old, support it at about the same level. But Americans have very different views about legalizing prostitution. 52% oppose that. And support differs from one group to the next. Those under 30 are divided about the prospect; those 65 and older are overwhelmingly opposed. Men are more favorable to legalizing prostitution than women are; college graduates more positive than those with less education. And while 49% of independents and 42% of Democrats would legalize prostitution, only 26% of Republicans agree.

<h4><strong>Prostitution legalization unpopular</h4><p>YouGov 11</p><p></strong>You Gov: 68% Favor Legalized Gambling; 39% Would Legalize Prostitution http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/08/25/68-favor-legalized-gambling-39-would-legalize-pros/<u><strong> 8/25/11 [AW]</p><p></u></strong>Many states permit gambling -in casinos or through lotteries -and Americans generally support that. <u><strong>In the</u></strong> latest <u><strong>Economist/YouGov</u></strong> Poll, two out of three favor legalized gambling, 22% oppose it. Republicans and Democrats, the young and the old, support it at about the same level. But <u><strong><mark>Americans have</mark> very <mark>different views about legalizing prostitution. 52% oppose that</u></strong></mark>. And support differs from one group to the next. <u><strong>Those under 30 are divided</u></strong> about the prospect; <u><strong><mark>those 65 and older are overwhelmingly opposed</u></strong>. <u><strong>Men are more favorable</mark> to legalizing prostitution <mark>than women</mark> are</u></strong>; college graduates more positive than those with less education. And while <u><strong><mark>49% of independents and 42% of Democrats would legalize prostitution, only 26% of Republicans</mark> agree.</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Marijuana legalization is merely a palliative which obscures the broader structures of classist and racialized subjectivity which ensure mass violence

Calhoun 14

Calhoun 14 (Ryan Calhoun, philosophy student at the University of Buffalo, 1-12-14, “Weed Legalization As Privatization, Disempowerment,” http://c4ss.org/content/23632) gz

Marijuana’s legalization seems much more like neoliberal privatization of markets than true liberation of them the decency of these even as weed is legalized, those in prison for the crime of possessing or selling marijuana will remain there those who formerly tried to compete in this market remain locked up in cages. it has always been particularly racialized and classist. This leaves many black, Hispanic and poor individuals with a permanent hex affixed to them that these laws do not address. legalization picks the winners of the weed market from those who were lucky enough to not find themselves on the wrong side of the law and who already have access to the capital to invest into this expensive business many remain shackled both by the pre-existing landscape of the market and by new regulations which prohibit them from participating in it. now facing the age of Big Marijuana

Marijuana’s legalization seems more like neoliberal privatization of markets as weed is legalized, those in prison will remain there those who formerly tried to compete remain locked in cages it has always been particularly racialized and classist. This leaves many black, Hispanic and poor individuals with a permanent hex affixed to them that these laws do not address legalization picks the winners from those lucky enough to not find themselves on the wrong side of the law and who already have access to capital

Marijuana’s legalization seems much more like neoliberal privatization of markets than true liberation of them. While I do not question the decency of these first major marijuana retailers, there are legitimate concerns. Those most victimized by the state’s rabid oppression of marijuana markets will find themselves very often out of luck, as extensive background checks are required by law, and any drug felony charge is enough to exclude individuals from operating as vendors. TakePart magazine notes in an article that even as weed is legalized, those in prison for the crime of possessing or selling marijuana will remain there. While new businesses boom with customers, those who formerly tried to compete in this market remain locked up in cages. The drug war has affected millions during its hellish tear through Americans’ lives and culture, but it has always been particularly racialized and classist. This leaves many black, Hispanic and poor individuals with a permanent hex affixed to them that these laws do not address. Like with the beltway libertarian conception of privatization, legalization picks the winners of the weed market from those who were lucky enough to not find themselves on the wrong side of the law and who already have access to the capital to invest into this expensive business. Legalization, at its best, functions as an opposition to continued state violence against drug users and possessors. It is therefore troubling that we find even after this so-called legalization, many remain shackled both by the pre-existing landscape of the market and by new regulations which prohibit them from participating in it. It is never by the political means we realize our freedom, but only a hold-back of even worse oppression. We fight an uphill battle against the incredible damage the state does. And now facing the age of Big Marijuana, we might be shocked to find the sorts of restrictions many established pot shops favor. In order to delegitimize street dealers, we have to treat them as inherently dangerous and volatile.

<h4><strong>Marijuana legalization is merely a palliative which obscures the broader structures of classist and racialized subjectivity which ensure mass violence</h4><p>Calhoun 14 </p><p></strong>(Ryan Calhoun, philosophy student at the University of Buffalo, 1-12-14, “Weed Legalization As Privatization, Disempowerment,” http://c4ss.org/content/23632) gz</p><p><u><strong><mark>Marijuana’s legalization seems</mark> much <mark>more like neoliberal privatization of markets</mark> than true liberation of them</u></strong>. While I do not question <u><strong>the decency of these</u></strong> first major marijuana retailers, there are legitimate concerns. Those most victimized by the state’s rabid oppression of marijuana markets will find themselves very often out of luck, as extensive background checks are required by law, and any drug felony charge is enough to exclude individuals from operating as vendors. TakePart magazine notes in an article that <u><strong>even <mark>as weed is legalized, those in prison</mark> for the crime of possessing or selling marijuana <mark>will remain there</u></strong></mark>. While new businesses boom with customers, <u><strong><mark>those who formerly tried to compete</mark> in this market <mark>remain locked</mark> up <mark>in cages</mark>. </u></strong>The drug war has affected millions during its hellish tear through Americans’ lives and culture, but <u><strong><mark>it has always been particularly racialized and classist. This leaves many black, Hispanic and poor individuals with a permanent hex affixed to them that these laws do not address</mark>.</u></strong> Like with the beltway libertarian conception of privatization, <u><strong><mark>legalization picks the winners</mark> of the weed market <mark>from those</mark> who were <mark>lucky enough to not find themselves on the wrong side of the law and who already have access to</mark> the <mark>capital</mark> to invest into this expensive business</u></strong>. Legalization, at its best, functions as an opposition to continued state violence against drug users and possessors. It is therefore troubling that we find even after this so-called legalization, <u><strong>many remain shackled both by the pre-existing landscape of the market and by new regulations which prohibit them from participating in it.</u></strong> It is never by the political means we realize our freedom, but only a hold-back of even worse oppression. We fight an uphill battle against the incredible damage the state does. And <u><strong>now facing the age of Big Marijuana</u></strong>, we might be shocked to find the sorts of restrictions many established pot shops favor. In order to delegitimize street dealers, we have to treat them as inherently dangerous and volatile.</p>

1NC

1NC Cap K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Topical version of the aff solves -- err strongly negative—they ignore the contingency and revisability of the law

Lobel 7

Lobel 7 Orly Lobel, University of San Diego Assistant Professor of Law, 2007, The Paradox of Extralegal Activism: Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politics,” 120 HARV. L. REV. 937, http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/lobel.pdf

question we must constantly pose is how critical accounts of social reform models contribute to our ability to produce action that will be constructive. To critique the ability of law to produce social change is inevitably to raise the question of alternatives When claims of legal cooptation are compared to possible alternative forms of activism, the false necessity embedded in the contemporary story emerges — a story that privileges informal extralegal forms as transformative while assuming that a conservative tilt exists in formal legal paths. law is regularly the first to be questioned, deconstructed, and then critically dismissed Despite its weaknesses, however, law is an optimistic discipline Order without law is often the privilege of the strong Marginalized groups have used legal reform precisely because they lacked power. Despite limitations, these groups have often successfully secured their interests through legislative and judicial victories Rather than experiencing a disabling disenchantment with the legal system, we can learn from both the successes and failures of past models, with the aim of constantly redefining the boundaries of legal reform and making visible law’s broad reach

To critique the ability of law to produce change is to raise the question of alternatives Despite weaknesses law is an optimistic discipline Order without law is the privilege of the strong Marginalized groups have used legal reform because they lacked power Despite limitations groups have often secured their interests we can learn from successes and failures of past models, constantly redefining the boundaries of legal reform

A critique of cooptation often takes an uneasy path. Critique has always been and remains not simply an intellectual exercise but a political and moral act. The question we must constantly pose is how critical accounts of social reform models contribute to our ability to produce scholarship and action that will be constructive. To critique the ability of law to produce social change is inevitably to raise the question of alternatives. In and of itself, the exploration of the limits of law and the search for new possibilities is an insightful field of inquiry. However, the contemporary message that emerges from critical legal consciousness analysis has often resulted in the distortion of the critical arguments themselves. This distortion denies the potential of legal change in order to illuminate what has yet to be achieved or even imagined. Most importantly, cooptation analysis is not unique to legal reform but can be extended to any process of social action and engagement. When claims of legal cooptation are compared to possible alternative forms of activism, the false necessity embedded in the contemporary story emerges — a story that privileges informal extralegal forms as transformative while assuming that a conservative tilt exists in formal legal paths. In the triangular conundrum of “law and social change,” law is regularly the first to be questioned, deconstructed, and then critically dismissed. The other two components of the equation — social and change — are often presumed to be immutable and unambiguous. Understanding the limits of legal change reveals the dangers of absolute reliance on one system and the need, in any effort for social reform, to contextualize the discourse, to avoid evasive, open-ended slogans, and to develop greater sensitivity to indirect effects and multiple courses of action. Despite its weaknesses, however, law is an optimistic discipline. It operates both in the present and in the future. Order without law is often the privilege of the strong. Marginalized groups have used legal reform precisely because they lacked power. Despite limitations, these groups have often successfully secured their interests through legislative and judicial victories. Rather than experiencing a disabling disenchantment with the legal system, we can learn from both the successes and failures of past models, with the aim of constantly redefining the boundaries of legal reform and making visible law’s broad reach.

<h4>Topical version of the aff solves -- err <u>strongly negative</u>—they ignore the contingency and revisability of the law</h4><p><strong>Lobel 7</p><p></strong>Orly Lobel, University of San Diego Assistant Professor of Law, 2007, The Paradox of Extralegal Activism: Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politics,” 120 HARV. L. REV. 937, http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/lobel.pdf</p><p>A critique of cooptation often takes an uneasy path. Critique has always been and remains not simply an intellectual exercise but a political and moral act. The <u><strong>question we must constantly pose is how critical accounts of social reform models contribute to our ability to produce</u></strong> scholarship and <u><strong>action that will be constructive. <mark>To critique the ability of law to produce</mark> social <mark>change is</mark> inevitably <mark>to raise the question of alternatives</u></strong></mark>. In and of itself, the exploration of the limits of law and the search for new possibilities is an insightful field of inquiry. However, the contemporary message that emerges from critical legal consciousness analysis has often resulted in the distortion of the critical arguments themselves. This distortion denies the potential of legal change in order to illuminate what has yet to be achieved or even imagined. Most importantly, cooptation analysis is not unique to legal reform but can be extended to any process of social action and engagement. <u><strong>When claims of legal cooptation are compared to possible alternative forms of activism, the false necessity embedded in the contemporary story emerges — a story that privileges informal extralegal forms as transformative while assuming that a conservative tilt exists in formal legal paths. </u></strong>In the triangular conundrum of “law and social change,” <u><strong>law is regularly the first to be questioned, deconstructed, and then critically dismissed</u></strong>. The other two components of the equation — social and change — are often presumed to be immutable and unambiguous. Understanding the limits of legal change reveals the dangers of absolute reliance on one system and the need, in any effort for social reform, to contextualize the discourse, to avoid evasive, open-ended slogans, and to develop greater sensitivity to indirect effects and multiple courses of action. <u><strong><mark>Despite </mark>its <mark>weaknesses</mark>, however, <mark>law is an optimistic discipline</u></strong></mark>. It operates both in the present and in the future. <u><strong><mark>Order without law is</mark> often <mark>the privilege of the strong</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Marginalized groups have used legal reform</mark> precisely <mark>because they lacked power</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Despite limitations</mark>, these <mark>groups have often</mark> successfully <mark>secured their interests</mark> through legislative and judicial victories</u></strong>. <u><strong>Rather than experiencing a disabling disenchantment with the legal system, <mark>we can learn from</mark> both the <mark>successes and failures of past models, </mark>with the aim of <mark>constantly redefining the boundaries of</mark> <mark>legal reform</mark> and making visible law’s broad reach</u></strong>. </p>

2NC

2NC AT: State Bad

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Obama is holding off a Congressional vote – that’s key to sustaining negotiations

SANGER, NYT, 10-19-14

SANGER, NYT, 10-19-14 (David, “Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us/fear-of-ebola-closes-schools-and-shapes-politics.html?rref=politics&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=swipe&region=FixedRight&pgtype=article, accessed 10-20-14, CMM)

No one knows if Obama will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it. the Iranians have signaled that they would accept , a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department has concluded Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” We have been clear that initially there would be suspension of any of the U.S. and international sanctions regime, and that the lifting of sanctions will only come when the I.A.E.A. verifies that Iran has met serious and substantive benchmarks,” We must be confident that Iran’s compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time.” many members of Congress see the plan as an effort by the administration to freeze them out chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Menendez said over the weekend that, “If a potential deal does not substantially and effectively dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, I expect Congress will respond. An agreement cannot allow Iran to be a threshold nuclear state.” He has sponsored legislation to tighten sanctions if no agreement is reached by Nov. 24. Kirk added, “Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sanctions that passed the Senate in a 99 to 0 vote,” a reference to the vote in 2010 that imposed what have become the toughest set of sanctions. Such declarations have Obama concerned Obama must navigate not one negotiation, but three The first is between Obama’s negotiators and Zarif The second is between Zarif and forces in Tehran the third is between Obama and Congress Obama “has a harder job” convincing Congress than he will have selling a deal in Tehran it may not be wrong But it is clear that along with the fate of Iran’s biggest nuclear sites — Natanz and Fordow the negotiations have focused intently on how sanctions would be suspended. Americans, the sanctions are their greatest leverage. For many ordinary Iranians, they are what this negotiation is all about: a chance to boost the economy, reconnect with the world and end Iran’s status as a pariah state. For that reason, many think Obama’s best option is to keep the negotiations going if a deal is not reached by the deadline Obama is feeling pressure

an accord with Iran would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it Iranians have signaled they would accept a “suspension” of sanctions Obama has the authority to suspend those sanctions Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sanctions Obama must navigate not one negotiation, but three negotiations have focused intently on how sanctions would be suspended sanctions are their greatest leverage Obama’s best option is to keep the negotiations going

No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it. Even while negotiators argue over the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to spin and where inspectors could roam, the Iranians have signaled that they would accept, at least temporarily, a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say. But Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate those sanctions. Only Congress can take that step. And even if Democrats held on to the Senate next month, Mr. Obama’s advisers have concluded they would probably lose such a vote. “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said. White House officials say Congress should not be surprised by this plan. They point to testimony earlier this year when top negotiators argued that the best way to assure that Iran complies with its obligations is a step-by-step suspension of sanctions — with the implicit understanding that the president could turn them back on as fast as he turned them off. “We have been clear that initially there would be suspension of any of the U.S. and international sanctions regime, and that the lifting of sanctions will only come when the I.A.E.A. verifies that Iran has met serious and substantive benchmarks,” Bernadette Meehan, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said Friday, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We must be confident that Iran’s compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time.” But many members of Congress see the plan as an effort by the administration to freeze them out, a view shared by some Israeli officials who see a congressional vote as the best way to constrain the kind of deal that Mr. Obama might strike. Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat, said over the weekend that, “If a potential deal does not substantially and effectively dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, I expect Congress will respond. An agreement cannot allow Iran to be a threshold nuclear state.” He has sponsored legislation to tighten sanctions if no agreement is reached by Nov. 24. A leading Republican critic of the negotiations, Senator Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, added, “Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sanctions that passed the Senate in a 99 to 0 vote,” a reference to the vote in 2010 that imposed what have become the toughest set of sanctions. Such declarations have the Obama administration concerned. And they are a reminder that for a deal to be struck with Iran, Mr. Obama must navigate not one negotiation, but three. The first is between Mr. Obama’s negotiators and the team led by Mohammad Javad Zarif, the savvy Iranian foreign minister. The second is between Mr. Zarif and forces in Tehran that see no advantage in striking a deal, led by many in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and many of the mullahs. The critical player in that effort is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has reissued specific benchmarks for an accord, including Iran’s eventual expansion of its uranium enrichment program by nearly tenfold. And the third is between Mr. Obama and Congress. Mr. Zarif, in an interview last summer, said that Mr. Obama “has a harder job” convincing Congress than he will have selling a deal in Tehran. That may be bluster, but it may not be entirely wrong. Many of the details of the negotiations remain cloaked. The lead negotiator, Wendy Sherman, the under secretary of state for political affairs and a leading candidate to become the State Department’s No. 2 official next month, struck a deal with congressional leaders that enables her to avoid public testimony when the negotiations are underway. Instead, she conducts classified briefings for the key congressional committees. But it is clear that along with the fate of Iran’s biggest nuclear sites — Natanz and Fordow, where uranium fuel is enriched, and a heavy-water reactor at Arak that many fear will be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium — the negotiations have focused intently on how sanctions would be suspended. To the Americans, the sanctions are their greatest leverage. For many ordinary Iranians, they are what this negotiation is all about: a chance to boost the economy, reconnect with the world and end Iran’s status as a pariah state. For that reason, many think Mr. Obama’s best option is to keep the negotiations going if a deal is not reached by the deadline, a possibility both Iranian and Russian officials have floated. “Between now and 2017 Obama’s goal is to avert an Iranian bomb and avert bombing Iran,” said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “If Congress feels obliged to pass additional sanctions, the best way to do it would be to create a deterrent — basically to say if you recommence activities Iran has halted, here are new sanctions.” But Mr. Obama is feeling pressure as well. Some cracks are appearing in the sanctions regime. In the spring, the administration was alarmed to see a spike in Chinese purchases of Iranian oil, seeming to undercut the sanctions. More recently the figures have declined again. Nonetheless they are the subject of behind-the-scenes talks between American and Chinese officials. And the Iranians want far more than a suspension of American-led sanctions: They are also pressing for an end to United Nations Security Council resolutions that bar “dual use” exports that have civilian uses but also could be used in nuclear and missile programs; those resolutions give the United States and its allies a legal basis for demanding inspections of shipments to Iran that could be part of a covert program.

<h4>Obama is holding off a Congressional vote – that’s key to sustaining negotiations</h4><p><strong>SANGER, NYT, 10-19-14</strong> (David, “Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us/fear-of-ebola-closes-schools-and-shapes-politics.html?rref=politics&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=swipe&region=FixedRight&pgtype=article, accessed 10-20-14, CMM)</p><p><u><strong>No one knows if</u></strong> the <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> administration <u><strong>will</u></strong> <u><strong>manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: <mark>an accord with Iran</mark> that <mark>would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong>But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached</u></strong>, President <u><strong><mark>Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it</mark>. </u></strong>Even while negotiators argue over the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to spin and where inspectors could roam, <u><strong>the <mark>Iranians have signaled</mark> that <mark>they would accept</u></strong></mark>, at least temporarily<u><strong>, <mark>a “suspension” of</mark> the stringent <mark>sanctions</mark> that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department</u></strong>, in a detailed study it declined to make public, <u><strong>has concluded</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong><mark>Obama has the authority to suspend</mark> the vast majority of <mark>those sanctions</mark> without seeking a vote by Congress</u></strong>, officials say. But Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate those sanctions. Only Congress can take that step. And even if Democrats held on to the Senate next month, Mr. Obama’s advisers have concluded they would probably lose such a vote. “<u><strong>We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,”</u></strong> one senior official said. White House officials say Congress should not be surprised by this plan. They point to testimony earlier this year when top negotiators argued that the best way to assure that Iran complies with its obligations is a step-by-step suspension of sanctions — with the implicit understanding that the president could turn them back on as fast as he turned them off. “<u><strong>We have been clear that initially there would be suspension of any of the U.S. and international sanctions regime, and that the lifting of sanctions will only come when the I.A.E.A. verifies that Iran has met serious and substantive benchmarks,”</u></strong> Bernadette Meehan, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said Friday, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “<u><strong>We must be confident that Iran’s compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time.” </u></strong>But <u><strong>many members of Congress see the plan as an effort by the administration to freeze them out</u></strong>, a view shared by some Israeli officials who see a congressional vote as the best way to constrain the kind of deal that Mr. Obama might strike. Ms. Meehan says there “is a role for Congress in our Iran policy,” but members of Congress want a role larger than consultation and advice. An agreement between Iran and the countries it is negotiating with — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — would not be a formal treaty, and thus would not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The <u><strong>chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee</u></strong>, Senator Robert <u><strong>Menendez</u></strong>, the New Jersey Democrat, <u><strong>said over the weekend that, “If a potential deal does not substantially and effectively dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, I expect Congress will respond. An agreement cannot allow Iran to be a threshold nuclear state.” He has sponsored legislation to tighten sanctions if no agreement is reached by Nov. 24. </u></strong>A leading Republican critic of the negotiations, Senator Mark S. <u><strong>Kirk</u></strong> of Illinois, <u><strong>added, “<mark>Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sanctions</mark> that passed the Senate in a 99 to 0 vote,” a reference to the vote in 2010 that imposed what have become the toughest set of sanctions. Such declarations have </u></strong>the <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> administration <u><strong>concerned</u></strong>. And they are a reminder that for a deal to be struck with Iran, Mr. <u><strong><mark>Obama must navigate not one negotiation, but three</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>The first is between</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong>Obama’s negotiators and</u></strong> the team led by Mohammad Javad <u><strong>Zarif</u></strong>, the savvy Iranian foreign minister. <u><strong>The second is between</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong>Zarif and forces in Tehran</u></strong> that see no advantage in striking a deal, led by many in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and many of the mullahs. The critical player in that effort is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has reissued specific benchmarks for an accord, including Iran’s eventual expansion of its uranium enrichment program by nearly tenfold. And <u><strong>the third is between</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong>Obama and Congress</u></strong>. Mr. Zarif, in an interview last summer, said that Mr. <u><strong>Obama “has a harder job” convincing Congress than he will have selling a deal in Tehran</u></strong>. That may be bluster, but <u><strong>it may not be </u></strong>entirely <u><strong>wrong</u></strong>. Many of the details of the negotiations remain cloaked. The lead negotiator, Wendy Sherman, the under secretary of state for political affairs and a leading candidate to become the State Department’s No. 2 official next month, struck a deal with congressional leaders that enables her to avoid public testimony when the negotiations are underway. Instead, she conducts classified briefings for the key congressional committees. <u><strong>But it is clear that along with the fate of Iran’s biggest nuclear sites — Natanz and Fordow</u></strong>, where uranium fuel is enriched, and a heavy-water reactor at Arak that many fear will be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium — <u><strong>the <mark>negotiations have focused intently on how sanctions would be suspended</mark>. </u></strong>To the <u><strong>Americans, the <mark>sanctions are their greatest leverage</mark>. For many ordinary Iranians, they are what this negotiation is all about: a chance to boost the economy, reconnect with the world and end Iran’s status as a pariah state. For that reason, many think</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong><mark>Obama’s best option is to keep the negotiations going</mark> if a deal is not reached by the deadline</u></strong>, a possibility both Iranian and Russian officials have floated. “Between now and 2017 Obama’s goal is to avert an Iranian bomb and avert bombing Iran,” said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “If Congress feels obliged to pass additional sanctions, the best way to do it would be to create a deterrent — basically to say if you recommence activities Iran has halted, here are new sanctions.” But Mr. <u><strong>Obama is feeling pressure</u></strong> as well. Some cracks are appearing in the sanctions regime. In the spring, the administration was alarmed to see a spike in Chinese purchases of Iranian oil, seeming to undercut the sanctions. More recently the figures have declined again. Nonetheless they are the subject of behind-the-scenes talks between American and Chinese officials. And the Iranians want far more than a suspension of American-led sanctions: They are also pressing for an end to United Nations Security Council resolutions that bar “dual use” exports that have civilian uses but also could be used in nuclear and missile programs; those resolutions give the United States and its allies a legal basis for demanding inspections of shipments to Iran that could be part of a covert program.</p>

1NR

Link Debate

A2: No PC on Fopo

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Democrats get blamed for unpopular federal policies

Cook ’10- Political Reporter , 6/28

Cook ’10- Political Reporter (Charlie, Democratic Buckaroos Trying To Hold On, , National Journal, 4/24/14, http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/democratic-buckaroos-trying-to-hold-on-20100424, 6/28

The report depicts an American electorate that is angry and suspicious, fearful and vengeful. Sixty-five percent of respondents say that Congress is having a negative effect on the country A party in power these days seems like a rodeo cowboy riding a bucking bronco -- just trying to hang on. The fact that the two parties are seen as equally unattractive also might comfort some Democrats, but only if they ignore two realities. First, it took Republicans six or eight years to destroy their party's brand; it took Democrats less than 18 months to trash theirs. we have never seen a midterm election turn into a referendum on a party that had no power. Midterm elections are all about the party in power, particularly when that party controls the White House and of Congress. The Republican Party has a plethora of problems, but this election will not be about them this is a lousy time to be the party holding all the power. Democrats can expect that voters will make them bear the brunt of the blame for everything that the people think is wrong with the country.

The report depicts an American electorate that is angry and suspicious, fearful and vengeful. it took Republicans six or eight years to destroy their party's brand it took Democrats less than 18 months to trash theirs we have never seen a midterm election turn into a referendum on a party that had no power. The Republican Party has a plethora of problems, but this election will not be about them emocrats can expect that voters will make them bear the brunt of the blame for everything that the people think is wrong with the country.

The report, based on four recent Pew national surveys, depicts an American electorate that is angry and suspicious, fearful and vengeful. Sixty-five percent of respondents say that Congress is having a negative effect on the country; 47 percent say that government threatens their personal rights and freedoms; and only 43 percent say they would like to see their member of Congress re-elected this fall, a record low. Voters were happy to dislodge Republicans from their congressional majorities in 2006 and from the White House in 2008. And this same electorate is threatening to throw out the House's Democratic majority this year. A party in power these days seems like a rodeo cowboy riding a bucking bronco -- just trying to hang on. Deeper in the report is a table comparing current attitudes, captured in Pew's survey of 1,001 Americans taken April 1-5, with those found in Pew polls taken in July 1994 and October 2006, the last years that election "waves" remade the national political landscape. In July 1994, a little more than three months before Democrats lost both the House and Senate, Congress had an overall job-approval rating of 53 percent. In October 2006, the month before Republicans lost both chambers, just 41 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Congress. Earlier this month, Congress's favorable rating was an abysmal 25 percent. Meanwhile, the GOP scored a favorable rating of just 37 percent in the recent Pew survey. Some Democrats find considerable solace in the fact that voters don't like Republicans much. Yet their own party's favorable rating was just 38 percent, a mere point higher. (In a recent Gallup Poll, Democrats had a 41 percent favorable rating, putting them 1 point lower than Republicans.) The fact that the two parties are seen as equally unattractive also might comfort some Democrats, but only if they ignore two realities. First, it took Republicans six or eight years to destroy their party's brand; it took Democrats less than 18 months to trash theirs. More important, we have never seen a midterm election turn into a referendum on a party that had no power. Midterm elections are all about the party in power, particularly when that party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Republican Party has a plethora of problems, but this election will not be about them. The GOP will have to deal with its problems by 2012. But this year? Not so much. A larger Pew survey of 2,070 registered voters conducted March 11-21 found the parties tied at 44 percent in the generic congressional ballot test, in which voters were asked whether they intend to vote for the Republican or Democratic House candidate in their district. During those same two weeks, Gallup's tracking poll of registered voters found Democrats ahead by 2 or 3 percentage points -- 47 percent to 45 or 44 percent. The past three weeks of Gallup tracking produced similarly close numbers in response to the generic ballot question. However, Democrats should be extremely worried about the fact that midterm electorates are almost always older and whiter -- meaning, more Republican -- than the electorates in presidential contests. And this year, Republicans are showing much greater intensity and enthusiasm than Democrats. So, even if the parties are running neck and neck among registered voters on Election Day, Republicans would come out ahead in the popular vote and very likely the House seat count. Simply put, this is a lousy time to be the party holding all the power. Democrats can expect that voters will make them bear the brunt of the blame for everything that the people think is wrong with the country.

<h4>Democrats get blamed for unpopular federal policies</h4><p><strong>Cook ’10- Political Reporter </strong>(Charlie, Democratic Buckaroos Trying To Hold On, , National Journal, 4/24/14, http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/democratic-buckaroos-trying-to-hold-on-20100424<u><strong>, 6/28</p><p><mark>The report</u></strong></mark>, based on four recent Pew national surveys, <u><strong><mark>depicts an American electorate that is angry and suspicious, fearful and vengeful.</mark> Sixty-five percent of respondents say that Congress is having a negative effect on the country</u></strong>; 47 percent say that government threatens their personal rights and freedoms; and only 43 percent say they would like to see their member of Congress re-elected this fall, a record low. Voters were happy to dislodge Republicans from their congressional majorities in 2006 and from the White House in 2008. And this same electorate is threatening to throw out the House's Democratic majority this year. <u><strong>A party in power these days seems like a rodeo cowboy riding a bucking bronco -- just trying to hang on. </u></strong>Deeper in the report is a table comparing current attitudes, captured in Pew's survey of 1,001 Americans taken April 1-5, with those found in Pew polls taken in July 1994 and October 2006, the last years that election "waves" remade the national political landscape. In July 1994, a little more than three months before Democrats lost both the House and Senate, Congress had an overall job-approval rating of 53 percent. In October 2006, the month before Republicans lost both chambers, just 41 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Congress. Earlier this month, Congress's favorable rating was an abysmal 25 percent. Meanwhile, the GOP scored a favorable rating of just 37 percent in the recent Pew survey. Some Democrats find considerable solace in the fact that voters don't like Republicans much. Yet their own party's favorable rating was just 38 percent, a mere point higher. (In a recent Gallup Poll, Democrats had a 41 percent favorable rating, putting them 1 point lower than Republicans.) <u><strong>The fact that the two parties are seen as equally unattractive also might comfort some Democrats, but only if they ignore two realities. First, <mark>it took Republicans six or eight years to destroy their party's brand</mark>; <mark>it took Democrats less than 18 months to trash theirs</mark>.</u></strong> More important, <u><strong><mark>we have never seen a midterm election turn into a referendum on a party that had no power.</mark> Midterm elections are all about the party in power, particularly when that party controls the White House and</u></strong> both chambers <u><strong>of Congress. <mark>The Republican Party has a plethora of problems, but this election will not be about them</u></strong></mark>. The GOP will have to deal with its problems by 2012. But this year? Not so much. A larger Pew survey of 2,070 registered voters conducted March 11-21 found the parties tied at 44 percent in the generic congressional ballot test, in which voters were asked whether they intend to vote for the Republican or Democratic House candidate in their district. During those same two weeks, Gallup's tracking poll of registered voters found Democrats ahead by 2 or 3 percentage points -- 47 percent to 45 or 44 percent. The past three weeks of Gallup tracking produced similarly close numbers in response to the generic ballot question. However, Democrats should be extremely worried about the fact that midterm electorates are almost always older and whiter -- meaning, more Republican -- than the electorates in presidential contests. And this year, Republicans are showing much greater intensity and enthusiasm than Democrats. So, even if the parties are running neck and neck among registered voters on Election Day, Republicans would come out ahead in the popular vote and very likely the House seat count. Simply put, <u><strong>this is a lousy time to be the party holding all the power. D<mark>emocrats can expect that voters will make them bear the brunt of the blame for everything that the people think is wrong with the country.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Reformism is a link

Luxemburg 99

Luxemburg 99 Rosa, Polish-Jewish-German Marxist theorist, socialist philosopher, and revolutionary. “Reform or Revolution.” Chapter VI. Conquest of Political Power..

Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic developmen Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society.

Legislative reform and revolution are reciprocally exclusive as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat legal constitution is the product of revolution work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms transformation and reform do not differ according to duration but content people who pronounce themselves in favour of legislative reform in place do not choose a more tranquil road to the same goal, but a different goal Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society

Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic development that can be picked out at the pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. They condition and complement each other, and are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem. It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another. That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.

<h4>Reformism is a link</h4><p><strong><mark>Luxemburg 99</strong></mark> Rosa, Polish-Jewish-German Marxist theorist, socialist philosopher, and revolutionary. “Reform or Revolution.” Chapter VI. Conquest of Political Power..</p><p><u>Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic developmen</u>t that can be picked out at the pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. <u><strong><mark>Legislative reform and revolution</strong></mark> are different <strong>factors</strong> in the development of class society. </u>They condition and complement each other, and<u> <strong><mark>are</strong></mark> at the same time <strong><mark>reciprocally exclusive</strong></mark>,</u> <u><strong><mark>as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Every <mark>legal constitution is the product of</mark> a <mark>revolution</u></strong></mark>. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period <u><mark>work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution</mark>.</u> Here is the kernel of the problem. <u><strong><mark>It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms</mark>. </strong>A social <mark>transformation and</mark> a legislative <mark>reform do not differ according to</mark> their <mark>duration but</mark> according to their <mark>content</mark>. </u>The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.<u> That is why <mark>people who pronounce themselves in favour of</mark> the method of <mark>legislative reform</mark> <strong><mark>in place</mark> and in contradistinction to</strong> the conquest of political power and social revolution, <mark>do not</mark> really <mark>choose a more tranquil</mark>, calmer and slower <mark>road to the <strong>same</strong> goal, but a <strong>different</strong> goal</mark>. <strong><mark>Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society</strong></mark>. </u>If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.</p>

1NC

1NC Cap K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Veto doesn’t scuttle the deal

Mirengoff 12-9

Mirengoff 12-9

(PAUL MIRENGOFF Dartmouth Law Graduate “CONGRESS CONSIDERING NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN” DECEMBER 9, 2013 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/congress-considering-new-sanctions-on-iran.php) Obama will veto the sanctions legislation This will be a minor embarrassment but no more Iran won’t kill the interim deal if Congress passes sanctions but Obama vetoes them. The deal seems too good for Iran to walk away from. , http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iranian-official-on-sanctions/, [AB] Zarif told the PBS Iran would “accept” Obama’s promise to lift sanctions in ongoing rather than holding out for congressional action. As for whether Iran would hold out for the lifting of permanent sanctions against Iran, which requires congressional action Zarif appeared amenable to Obama We understand the constraints that President Obama is facing in getting Congress to act We do not interfere in the internal domestic politics of the United States If promises us to do something, we will accept and respect his promise.”

Obama will veto the sanctions legislation This will be a minor embarrassment but no more Iran won’t kill the interim deal if Congress passes sanctions but Obama vetoes them. The deal seems too good for Iran to walk away from. Zarif appeared amenable to Obama We understand the constraints that President Obama is facing,” in getting Congress to act, do not interfere in the internal domestic politics of the United States

(PAUL MIRENGOFF Dartmouth Law Graduate “CONGRESS CONSIDERING NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN” DECEMBER 9, 2013 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/congress-considering-new-sanctions-on-iran.php) President Obama will no doubt lobby hard against sanctions legislation. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democrats back off, claiming that they will revisit sanctions if no good deal has been reached when the six month negotiating period has expired.¶ If the Dems don’t fold, Obama presumably will veto the sanctions legislation. This will be a minor embarrassment for him and his Party, but no more.¶ Presumably, Iran won’t kill the interim deal if Congress passes sanctions but Obama vetoes them. The deal seems too good for Iran to walk away from. Larisa Epatko 9-19-2014, "Iran would accept Obama bypassing Congress to get sanctions lifted," PBS NewsHour, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iranian-official-on-sanctions/, [AB] Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told the PBS NewsHour’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner on Friday that Iran would “accept” President Barack Obama’s promise to lift sanctions in ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, rather than holding out for congressional action. Negotiations between Iran and the nations known as the P5+1 — the U.S., U.K., China, France, Russia and Germany — took place this week aimed at restricting Iran’s nuclear program. As for whether Iran would hold out for the lifting of permanent sanctions against Iran, which requires congressional action, Zarif appeared amenable to President Barack Obama lifting less restrictive sanctions instead. “We understand the constraints that President Obama is facing,” in getting Congress to act, said Zarif. “As we don’t accept them asking us to do the impossible, we will not ask them to do the impossible. “We do not interfere in the internal domestic politics of the United States. If President Obama promises us to do something, we will accept and respect his promise.”

<h4><strong>Veto doesn’t scuttle the deal</h4><p>Mirengoff 12-9</p><p><u>(PAUL MIRENGOFF Dartmouth Law Graduate “CONGRESS CONSIDERING NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN” DECEMBER 9, 2013 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/congress-considering-new-sanctions-on-iran.php)</p><p></u></strong>President Obama will no doubt lobby hard against sanctions legislation. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democrats back off, claiming that they will revisit sanctions if no good deal has been reached when the six month negotiating period has expired.¶ If the Dems don’t fold, <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> presumably <u><strong><mark>will veto the sanctions legislation</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>This will be a minor</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>embarrassment</u></strong></mark> for him and his Party, <u><strong><mark>but no more</u></strong></mark>.¶ Presumably, <u><strong><mark>Iran won’t kill the interim deal if Congress passes sanctions but Obama vetoes them. The deal seems too good for Iran to walk away from.</p><p></u></strong></mark>Larisa <strong>Epatko 9-19-</strong>2014, "Iran would accept Obama bypassing Congress to get sanctions lifted," PBS NewsHour<u><strong>, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iranian-official-on-sanctions/, [AB]</p><p></u></strong>Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad <u><strong>Zarif told the PBS </u></strong>NewsHour’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner on Friday that <u><strong>Iran would “accept”</u></strong> President Barack <u><strong>Obama’s promise to lift sanctions in ongoing</u></strong> negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, <u><strong>rather than holding out for congressional action. </u></strong>Negotiations between Iran and the nations known as the P5+1 — the U.S., U.K., China, France, Russia and Germany — took place this week aimed at restricting Iran’s nuclear program. <u><strong>As for whether Iran would hold out for the lifting of permanent sanctions against Iran, which requires congressional action</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>Zarif appeared amenable to</u></strong></mark> President Barack <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> lifting less restrictive sanctions instead. “<u><strong><mark>We understand the constraints that President Obama is facing</u></strong>,” <u><strong>in getting Congress to act</u></strong>,</mark> said Zarif. “As we don’t accept them asking us to do the impossible, we will not ask them to do the impossible. “<u><strong>We <mark>do not interfere in the internal domestic politics of the United States</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>If</u></strong> President Obama <u><strong>promises us to do something, we will accept and respect his promise.”</p></u></strong>

2NR

Link Debate

AT Congress Triggers

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Informed statutory interpretation through legal analysis solves the aff better than they do – they don’t solve unless it changes law because prosecutors will continue to charge and convict whomever they wish

Smith 14 A Judicial Cure for the Disease of Overcriminalization

Smith 14 – is Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. (Stephen F., 8-21, “A Judicial Cure for the Disease of Overcriminalization” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/a-judicial-cure-for-the-disease-of-overcriminalization)

The dangers of “overcriminalization” are across the political spectrum critiques fault legislatures alone The problem is not that too many criminal laws are on the books, but that they are poorly defined in ways that give unwarranted sweep to the criminal law changing how they interpret criminal statutes courts can help cure the overcriminalization disease problems associated with overcriminalization are now understood legal professional associations shined a harsh light on the injustices that federal prosecutors have committed overcriminalization threatens the liberty of ordinary citizens Congress have criticized the present state of the law makes everyone a felon Congress has taken no action Congress has created an average of 56 new crimes every year since 2000 Much like the addict who repeatedly breaks promises to quit Congress cannot seem to kick the overcriminalization habit Some addicts seek help through third-party “interventions critiques of overcriminalization hit a brick wall because overcriminalization is understood primarily in quantitative terms reform depend on Congress Absent legislative action federal prosecutors will continue to charge and convict whomever they wish regardless of how innocuous the accused’s behavior is there is another path to reform that does not depend on congressional action This path to reform is informed statutory interpretation in federal criminal cases Once defining criminal liability is understood there is cause for optimism about finally reining in overcriminalization The effort to persuade Congress to reverse course in the use of criminal sanction should continue It is time to broaden the conversation to include the judiciary to be part of the solution to overcriminalization instead of part of the problem critiques of overcriminalization are too broad in scope Arguments that there is too much criminal law stress the fact that new criminal laws are continuously added to the books even when crime rates are low or falling Still expanding criminal code need not jeopardize individual liberty the poor quality of the criminal code and the resulting mismatch between moral culpability and criminal liability are the disease the courts have interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in derogation of the venerable “rule of lenity” these interpretive failures have made federal criminal law even broader and more punitive courts create” federal crimes The root of the problem is the courts adhering to the rule of lenity requires a court to construe ambiguous criminal laws narrowly in favor of the defendant The rule of lenity reflects a democratic society’s “instinctive distaste against men languishing in prison faithful adherence to the rule of lenity would require courts to counteract overcriminalization This would prevent prosecutors from exploiting poorly defined federal crimes The rule of lenity would make poor crime definition an obstacle to expansive applications of federal criminal law the judiciary expanded the reach of overlapping federal crimes to drive up the punishment The end result a worsening of overcriminalization rather than an improvement The solution is for courts to interpret statutes in ways that rectify the qualitative defects that overcriminalization produces in a body of criminal law as sprawling and poorly defined as federal criminal law is New interpretive strategies can help to right this fundamental wrong lenity is the right interpretive default ] a rigidly enforced rule of lenity would giv Congress incentives to make its wishes known ex ante there is no effective lobby for narrowing criminal statutes whereas an overly narrow interpretation is likely to be corrected members of anti-criminal lobbying groups are heavily involved in legislative drafting and can more readily get on the legislative agenda a reinvigorated rule of lenity would promote effective operation of prosecutorial restraint Lenity would dramatically change the calculus by lowering the prosecution’s likelihood of conviction The Court should repudiate the notion that avoiding conviction for morally blameless conduct is the only goal of mens rea doctrine This more robust mens rea doctrine could be the single most important contribution the courts could make to avoiding the problems associated with overcriminalization The effect would not simply prevent unjust punishment would also give the government incentives to give the regulated public notice that such obscure crimes exist overcriminalization is problematic because it tends to degrade the quality of criminal codes jeopardizing the quality of justice the system generates overcriminalization is ultimately prosecutors who exploit incompletely defined crimes The solution is for federal judges to approach their vital interpretive functions with keen sensitivity to the many adverse effects that overcriminalization and the courts’ current, self-defeating interpretive strategies create for federal criminal law legislatures pass criminal laws to benefit the public Statutes outlawing murder, rape, robbery protect all of us

critiques fault legislatures The problem is not that too many laws are on the books, but that they are poorly defined changing how they interpret criminal statutes can cure the overcriminalization disease legal professional s shined light on the injustices Absent legislative action prosecutors will convict whomever they wish regardless of the accused’s behavior there is another path to reform that does not depend on congress This path is informed statutory interpretation in federal criminal cases there is optimism about reining in overcriminalization The effort to persuade Congress to reverse course should continue It is time to include the judiciary to be part of the solution to overcriminalization instead of part of the problem critiques of overcriminalization are too broad Arguments that there is too much law stress that new criminal laws are added to the books even when crime rates are falling expanding criminal code need not jeopardize individual liberty the poor quality of the criminal code are the disease courts create” federal crimes The root of the problem is the courts adhering to the rule of lenity requires court to construe ambiguous laws narrowly in favor of the defendant the rule of lenity would require courts to counteract overcriminalization The solution is for courts to interpret statutes in ways that rectify the defects that overcriminalization produces New interpretive strategies help to right this wrong lenity would giv Congress incentives to make its wishes known ex ante a narrow interpretation is likely to be corrected members of anti-criminal lobbying groups are involved in legislative drafting and can get on the legislative agenda rule of lenity would promote prosecutorial restraint The Court should repudiate that avoiding conviction for morally blameless conduct is the only goal of mens rea doctrine. This more robust mens rea doctrine could be the single most important contribution to avoiding the problems associated with overcriminalization The effect would prevent unjust punishment also give the government incentives to give the public notice that such crimes exist overcriminalization is problematic jeopardizing the justice system criminal laws benefit the public Statutes outlawing murder, rape, robbery protect all of us

Abstract The dangers of “overcriminalization” are widely appreciated across the political spectrum, but confusion remains as to its cause. Standard critiques fault legislatures alone. The problem, however, is not simply that too many criminal laws are on the books, but that they are poorly defined in ways that give unwarranted sweep to the criminal law, raising the danger of punishment absent or in excess of moral blameworthiness. Instead of narrowing ambiguous criminal laws to more appropriate bounds, courts frequently expand them, even when this ratchets up the punishment that offenders face, and fail to insist on proof of sufficiently culpable states of mind to render the resulting punishment just. By changing how they interpret criminal statutes, taking narrow construction principles and state-of-mind requirements more seriously, courts can help to cure the overcriminalization disease. A‌s issues of public policy go, few are as strange as overcriminal‌ization. Once largely the subject only of academic complaint, the problems associated with overcriminalization are now more widely understood. Major think tanks,[1] media outlets,[2] civil libertarian groups,[3] and legal professional associations[4] have shined a harsh light on the injustices that federal prosecutors have committed against people who had no reason to know their actions were wrongful, much less illegal. These are not isolated cases of abusive prosecution; they take place from coast to coast and have ruined the lives and reputations of people who were like other law-abiding citizens except for their misfortune of having attracted the attention of an overzealous federal agent or prosecutor.[5] From left and right of political center to points in between, there is an impressive consensus that overcriminalization gravely threatens the liberty of ordinary citizens. Nevertheless, reports of overcriminalization’s demise would be greatly exaggerated. Congress has repeatedly held hearings on the subject, and members of both parties have criticized the present state of affairs in which the law virtually “makes everyone a felon.”[6] Yet Congress has taken no action. Even that bleak statement is too optimistic: Congress, while at times professing concern over the federalization of crime,[7] has continued to pass new federal criminal laws at a relentless pace. Congress has created an average of 56 new crimes every year since 2000, roughly the same rate of criminalization from the two prior decades.[8] This is no aberration. As Professor John Baker has noted, “for the past 25 years, a period over which the growth of the federal criminal law has come under increasing scrutiny, Congress has been creating over 500 new crimes per decade.”[9] Much like the addict who repeatedly breaks promises to quit, Congress cannot seem to kick the overcriminalization habit. Some addicts eventually seek help through third-party “interventions,” but the federal courts, committed as they are to expansive views of congressional power to define crimes,[10] will not nudge Congress even to curb its reliance on overcriminalization, much less to quit cold turkey. At this point, traditional critiques of overcriminalization hit a brick wall because overcriminalization is understood primarily in quantitative terms: the notion that there are too many criminal laws regulating too many activities. From this view, reform efforts depend entirely on Congress, which needs to narrow and repeal scores of federal criminal laws. Absent such legislative action, federal prosecutors will continue to have free rein to exploit the vagaries of federal law to charge and convict whomever they wish, regardless of how innocuous the accused’s behavior is. Fortunately, there is another path to reform in this area, one that does not depend on congressional action (or heroic self-restraint by federal prosecutors). This path to reform is informed statutory interpretation in federal criminal cases. Legislative overuse and prosecutorial misuse of the criminal sanction need not go unchecked, as many judges seem to think. The courts themselves have an important role in defining crimes, a role that takes on even greater importance as Congress continues to default on its obligation to restrict criminal liability and penalties to sensible bounds. Courts flesh out—and, more often than not, prescribe in the first instance—the state of mind required for conviction. The state-of-mind, or mens rea, requirements are of vital importance in preventing morally undeserved punishment and guaranteeing the fair warning necessary to enable law-abiding citizens to avoid committing crimes. As important as the role of defining the mental element of criminal liability is, however, it is not the judiciary’s only role in this area. The courts also help to define criminal liability by interpreting ambiguous statutes, determining the meaning of laws in which Congress failed to make its intention entirely clear. Once the important role of the federal judiciary in defining criminal liability is understood, there is greater cause for optimism about the prospect of finally reining in overcriminalization. The effort to persuade Congress to reverse course and exercise greater restraint and care in the use of criminal sanction is important and should continue. It is time, however, to broaden the conversation to include the one branch of the federal government—the judiciary—that is most likely to be receptive to long-standing complaints about overcriminalization. As we continue to await legislative reform, it is high time for courts to be part of the solution to overcriminalization instead of part of the problem. The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. The first section seeks to reframe the typical discussion of overcriminalization in terms of the deeper problems stemming from the expansive body of federal criminal law. These problems, which stem fundamentally from poor crime definition, are ones that the federal courts helped to create and thus can remedy on their own without action by Congress. Although comprehensive legislative reform is ultimately needed, the reform effort can and should take place in federal courtrooms as well as in the chambers of Congress. The second and third sections discuss the ways in which courts have worsened—and, by changing interpretive strategies, can counter—the adverse effects of overcriminalization through statutory interpretation. It is not “restraint” for courts to expand ambiguous federal criminal statutes and to water down mens rea requirements. To the contrary, it is “activism” and an abdication of the judiciary’s historic responsibility to promote due process and equal justice for all. To be faithful to its role as a coequal branch of government, the federal judiciary should not be rubber stamps for the Department of Justice’s predictably expansive uses of federal criminal statutes. The judiciary should instead counteract the personal, political, and other considerations that often sway prosecutorial decision making with informed, dispassionate judgment about the proper scope of federal criminal laws in light of statutory text, legislative intent, and enduring principles of criminal law. The sooner federal judges get the message, the sooner overcriminalization’s days will be numbered and the court system can resume the business of dispensing justice instead of merely punishment. Overcriminalization Defined As the term implies, critiques of overcriminalization posit that too many criminal laws are on the books today and, relatedly, that existing criminal prohibitions are too broad in scope. This standard view of overcriminalization is quantitative in that it bemoans the number of criminal laws on the books and the amount of activity that is deemed criminal. Arguments that there is too much criminal law typically stress the fact that new criminal laws are continuously added to the books, even when crime rates are low or falling, and that the expansion often involves “regulatory” offenses. Such offenses punish conduct that is mala prohibita, or wrongful only because it is illegal, and may allow punishment where “consciousness of wrongdoing be totally wanting.”[11] With the continued proliferation of regulatory offenses, conduct that in prior generations might have resulted only in civil fines or tort liability (if that) is now subject to the stigma and punishment of criminal law.[12] Although the quantitative view tends to dominate discussions of overcriminalization, it is unsatisfying on its own terms. While such frequent use of the criminal sanction, especially during election years and times when crime rates are low or falling, may suggest that Congress is legislating for reasons other than legitimate public-safety needs, new criminal legislation might be used, for example, to signal voters that its proponents are “tough” on crime.[13] Alternatively, steady expansion in the reach of federal crimes might signify that Congress does not see (or simply does not care much about) potential misuse of increasingly broad prosecutorial authority.[14] Still, a broad, constantly expanding criminal code need not jeopardize individual liberty or mete out morally undeserved punishment. If the prohibitions and penalties are carefully tailored to appropriate offenses and offenders, a large, expanding code can operate as justly as a code that is smaller and more targeted in its reach. For this reason, the quantitative objection to overcriminalization is, without more, incomplete. The quantitative objection implies a deeper, qualitative objection to overcriminalization in that overcriminalization tends to degrade the quality of the criminal code, producing unjust outcomes. For example, a code that is too large and grows too rapidly will often be poorly organized, structured, and conceived. The crimes may not be readily accessible or comprehensible to those who are subject to their commands. Moreover, a sprawling, rapidly growing criminal code likely contains inadequately defined crimes—crimes, for example, in which the conduct (actus reus) and state of mind (mens rea) elements are incompletely fleshed out, giving unintended and perhaps unwarranted sweep to those crimes. The number and reach of criminal laws may be symptomatic of a broken criminal justice system, but the poor quality of the criminal code and the resulting mismatch between moral culpability and criminal liability are the disease. Overcriminalization as a (Partially) Self-Inflicted Judicial Wound Once overcriminalization’s qualitative aspects are understood, it becomes evident that the blame for overcriminalization cannot be laid entirely at Congress’s doorstep. Regrettably, the courts have played the overcriminalization game with Congress and the Department of Justice. They have done so by expansively interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes in derogation of the venerable “rule of lenity” and by not insisting on mens rea requirements robust enough to rule out morally undeserved punishment. Both of these interpretive failures have made federal criminal law even broader and more punitive. Expansive Interpretations as Judicial Crime Creation. It is often said that courts do not “create” federal crimes, but that simply is not the case. When courts expand the reach of ambiguous criminal laws (laws which, by definition, can reasonably be read to include or exclude the defendant’s conduct), they are essentially creating crimes. They are determining for themselves, within the broad bounds of the terms of an ambiguous statute, whether the defendant’s conduct should be condemned as criminal, and they are doing so after the fact, without prior warning to the defendant charged with a violation. To allow citizens to be convicted and imprisoned based on such judicial determinations transforms federal criminal law into what one scholar has described as “a species of federal common law”[15]—a result fundamentally at odds with the principle that in a democracy, the criminalization decision is reserved for legislatures.[16] The root of the problem is that the courts are notoriously inconsistent in adhering to the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity requires a court to construe ambiguous criminal laws narrowly, in favor of the defendant,[17] not to show lenience to lawbreakers, but to protect important societal interests against the many adverse consequences that the judicial expansion of crimes produces. These consequences include judicial usurpation of the legislative crime-definition function, not to mention potential frustration of legislative purpose and unfair surprise to persons convicted under vague statutes. The rule of lenity therefore reflects, as Judge Henry Friendly memorably said, a democratic society’s “instinctive distaste against men languishing in prison unless the lawmaker has clearly said they should.”[18] More to the point, faithful adherence to the rule of lenity would require courts to counteract overcriminalization. The rule would require courts to narrow the scope of ambiguous criminal laws, adopting expansive interpretations only if compelled by the statutory text. This would prevent prosecutors from exploiting the ambiguities of poorly defined federal crimes either to criminalize conduct that Congress has not specifically declared to be a crime or to redefine—or ratchet up the penalty for—crimes dealt with more specifically in other statutes. The rule of lenity would thus make poor crime definition an obstacle to—not a license for—more expansive applications of federal criminal law, remitting prosecutors seeking more enforcement authority to the democratic process, not an unelected, unaccountable judiciary. Regrettably, the federal courts treat the rule of lenity with suspicion and, at times, outright hostility. While sometimes faithfully applying the rule of lenity, the Supreme Court has frequently either ignored lenity or dismissed it as a principle that applies only when legislative history and other interpretive principles cannot give meaning to an ambiguous statute.[19] Indeed, the federal courts disregard the rule of lenity so frequently that it is questionable whether the rule of lenity can still be accurately described as a rule. As I have previously stated: [T]he courts’ aversion to letting blameworthy conduct slip through the federal cracks has dramatically reversed the lenity presumption. The operative presumption in criminal cases today is that whenever the conduct in question is morally blameworthy, statutes should be broadly construed, in favor of the prosecution, unless the defendant’s interpretation is compelled by the statute…. The rule of lenity, in short, has been converted from a rule about the proper locus of lawmaking power in the area of crime into what can only be described as a “rule of severity.”[20] The results of the judiciary’s haphazard adherence to the rule of lenity are as predictable as they are misguided. Federal judges have repeatedly used ambiguous statutes as a basis for creating new federal crimes.[21] They have also expanded the reach of overlapping federal crimes to drive up the punishment that Congress prescribed for comparatively minor federal crimes.[22] The end result of such assaults on the rule of lenity is necessarily a broader and more punitive federal criminal law—a worsening of overcriminalization rather than an improvement. Inadequate Mens Rea Requirements. The courts have done better—but only slightly—in fleshing out the state-of-mind, or mens rea, requirements for federal criminal liability. As the Supreme Court explained in Morissette v. United States,[23] the concept of punishment based on acts alone without a culpable state of mind is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” In our system, crime is understood as a “compound concept,” requiring both an “evil-doing hand” and an “evil-meaning mind.”[24] The historic role of the mens rea requirement is to exempt from punishment those who are not “blameworthy in mind” and thereby to limit punishment to persons who disregarded notice that their conduct was wrong.[25] Mens rea also serves to achieve proportionality of punishment for blameworthy acts, ensuring that the punishment the law allows “fits” the crime committed by the accused. Mens rea, for example, guarantees that the harsher penalties for intentional homicides will not be applied to accidental homicides.[26] Despite the critical importance of mens rea to the effectiveness and legitimacy of federal criminal law, federal crimes often lack sufficient mens rea elements. Many federal crimes, including serious crimes, contain no express mens rea requirements.[27] Perhaps more commonly, federal crimes include express mens rea requirements for some element of the crime but are silent as to the mens rea (if any) required for the other elements.[28] Here it is evident that Congress intended to require mens rea but unclear whether Congress intended the express mens rea requirement to exclude additional mens rea requirements. In still other situations, even when Congress includes mens rea terms in the definition of crimes, it uses terms such as “willfully” and “maliciously” that have no intrinsic meaning and whose meaning varies widely in different statutory contexts.[29] This confusing state of affairs might be acceptable if the courts employed a consistent method of mens rea selection. However, the courts have been inconsistent in their approach to mens rea questions. On occasion, the Supreme Court stands ready to read mens rea requirements into statutes that are silent in whole or in part as to mens rea because the Court has an interest in making a morally culpable state of mind a prerequisite to punishment.[30] This, however, is not invariably so. Sometimes, courts treat legislative silence concerning mens rea as a legislative signal to dispense with traditional mens rea requirements, especially with respect to regulatory crimes protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Even Morissette v. United States, with its strong emphasis on the usual requirement that a culpable mental state is a prerequisite to punishment, conceded that the requirement may not apply to regulatory or other crimes not derived from the common law.[31] The Court seized on this statement in United States v. Freed[32] as justification for treating a felony punishable by 10 years in prison as a regulatory offense requiring no morally culpable mental state. To be sure, more recent cases cast doubt on Morissette and Freed in this respect. Among these cases are Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States,[33] Ratzlaf v. United States,[34] and Staples v. United States.[35] In each case, the Supreme Court adopted heightened mens rea requirements, and Arthur Andersen and Ratzlaf went so far as to make ignorance of the law a defense.[36] Each time, the Court ratcheted up mens rea requirements for the stated purpose of preventing conviction for morally blameless conduct. These cases, I believe, are best read as making a culpable mental state a prerequisite for punishment for all crimes, even regulatory offenses. As I have explained elsewhere: [T]he Supreme Court has dramatically revitalized the mens rea requirement for federal crimes. The “guilty mind” requirement now aspires to exempt all “innocent” (or morally blameless) conduct from punishment and restrict criminal statutes to conduct that is “inevitably nefarious.” When a literal interpretation of a federal criminal statute could encompass “innocent” behavior, courts stand ready to impose heightened mens rea requirements designed to exempt all such behavior from punishment. The goal of current federal mens rea doctrine, in other words, is nothing short of protecting moral innocence against the stigma and penalties of criminal punishment.[37] The fact remains, however, that Freed and cases like it have never been overturned. Unless that happens, confusion will persist, as will the possibility that a culpable mental state may not be required for some crimes, especially regulatory offenses involving health and safety concerns. One thing, however, is certain: As long as courts fail to make proof of a culpable mental state an unyielding prerequisite to punishment, federal prosecutors will continue to water down mens rea requirements in ways that allow conviction in excess of blameworthiness. That is exactly what prosecutors did in Arthur Andersen during the wave of post-Enron hysteria over corporate fraud. In seeking to convict Enron’s accounting firm of the “corrupt persuasion” form of obstruction of justice, prosecutors—flatly disregarding the lesson of cases like Staples and Ratzlaf—argued for incredibly weak mens rea requirements that, as the Court noted, would have criminalized entirely innocuous conduct.[38] Although the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s efforts and overturned Arthur Andersen’s conviction, the firm has less cause to celebrate than one might think. After being convicted on a prosecution theory so aggressive that it could not win even a single vote from the Justices, the firm—once a Big Five accounting firm—went out of the consulting business. Even now that it no longer stands convicted of a crime, its reputation has likely been damaged beyond repair. Its own conduct in the Enron matter had a lot to do with that, of course, but so did the overzealousness of federal prosecutors in exploiting the serious imperfections in federal mens rea doctrine. The Arthur Andersen episode simultaneously shows the need for substantial mens rea reform and the high cost of not having strong mens rea requirements. The Judicial Path to Overcriminalization Reform Given that overcriminalization has qualitative components—for which courts themselves bear a large share of the blame—courts can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Even if Congress and federal prosecutors continue their unrestrained use of the criminal sanction, courts are not powerless to act. The solution is for courts to interpret statutes in ways that rectify the qualitative defects that overcriminalization produces in a body of criminal law as sprawling and poorly defined as federal criminal law is. New interpretive strategies, tailored to the troubling realities of a criminal justice system characterized by rampant overcriminalization, can help to right this fundamental wrong in federal criminal law.[39] Statutory construction, of course, has its limits and cannot be used to defeat the operation of statutes that plainly encompass the defendant’s conduct. In cases such as these, courts should apply the statutes as written, barring some constitutional infirmity, but even here courts can exercise informed discretion to counteract abusive exercises of prosecutorial discretion. After United States v. Booker,[40] district judges have wide sentencing discretion, and they can and should use that discretion to show suitable lenience toward sympathetic defendants. The President can also use his power to grant pardons or commute sentences—as President Barack Obama recently did to free eight prisoners serving unduly long drug sentences in the wake of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010[41]—to do justice toward defendants who were unfairly convicted or sentenced.[42] Although these important safeguards for the sound administration of criminal justice should not be overlooked, this paper focuses on how courts can interpret criminal statutes to counteract the effects of overcriminalization. Restoring the Rule of Lenity to Its Rightful Place. In light of how often courts interpret criminal statutes expansively, it should be clear that they do not simply let the weights in the interpretive scales determine whether statutes are to be read broadly or narrowly, as academic critics of lenity would have them do.[43] Instead, the balance is heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution when the conduct in question is morally blameworthy, even when a broad interpretation allows prosecutors to drive up considerably the punishment that would otherwise apply or to evade limitations that the legislature included in the definition of the crime in more specific statutes. Whether the law enforcement need for expanded authority is real,[44] minimal,[45] or just silly,[46] the one constant seems to be that courts will go to almost any lengths to keep blameworthy conduct from slipping through the federal cracks. Thus, it is closer to the truth to say that the operative interpretive rule in federal criminal cases is severity: that ambiguous statutes presumptively should be construed broadly to prevent culpable defendants from slipping through the federal cracks. In practice, then, rejecting the rule of lenity tends to look a lot like endorsing anti-lenity (or a rule of severity). That, in turn, affords a substantial justification for taking lenity seriously, even if, as a theoretical matter, an evenhanded approach to the interpretation of criminal statutes might be preferable to a strict-construction default. After all, even critics of lenity do not contend that criminal laws should always be interpreted broadly, recognizing that sometimes courts should narrow the reach of criminal statutes.[47] The obvious assumption is that there is a viable interpretive middle ground between the lenity side of the spectrum (in which ambiguous statutes are always construed narrowly) and the anti-lenity or severity side of the spectrum (in which such statutes are always construed broadly). This assumption is quite difficult to reconcile with the courts’ rather checkered track record in interpreting federal crimes.[48] Given that courts often miss valid reasons for narrowly construing statutes, a consistently applied rule of lenity under which every ambiguous criminal statute is read narrowly is the right interpretive rule. The political economy of criminal law confirms that lenity is the right interpretive default. The relevant question is which interpretive rule would give Congress proper incentives to make its intentions clear concerning the scope and meaning of criminal statutes. To the extent that legislatures generally share prosecutors’ desire for broad criminal prohibitions,[49] a rigidly enforced rule of lenity would operate as an information-forcing default rule, giving Congress added incentives to make its wishes known ex ante. Additionally, once an ambiguity arises in particular settings, as it often does, the question is whether the Department of Justice or groups favoring criminal justice reform are in the best position to convince Congress to pass new legislation resolving the interpretive question. The Justice Department—the 800-pound gorilla in federal criminal law—is undoubtedly best suited to the task of overcoming legislative inertia. As Professor Einer Elhauge explains, “there is no effective lobby for narrowing criminal statutes,” whereas “an overly narrow interpretation is far more likely to be corrected…because prosecutors and other members of anti-criminal lobbying groups are heavily involved in legislative drafting and can more readily get on the legislative agenda.”[50] Strict adherence to the rule of lenity would thus put the burden of overcoming legislative inertia on the shoulders of the party in the best position to persuade Congress to act. Finally, a reinvigorated rule of lenity would promote the more effective operation of prosecutorial restraint. When courts stand ready to expand ambiguous criminal laws to keep blameworthy offenders from slipping through the cracks in federal criminal law, prosecutors can safely “push the envelope” and stretch vague laws to their outer limit. As long as they target blameworthy offenders—and, disturbingly, even if they do not[51]—prosecutors can be confident that courts will ratify their broad readings of criminal laws. Lenity would dramatically change the calculus by lowering the prosecution’s likelihood of conviction, giving prosecutors greater incentives to decline prosecution in cases of blameless or marginally blameworthy offenders potentially guilty only of hypertechnical, victimless crimes—the kind of offenders who tend to become ensnared in the overcriminalization net. The administration of justice in federal prosecutions, therefore, would vastly improve if federal courts started taking the rule of lenity seriously. Proportionality-Based Approaches to Statutory Construction. If federal judges remain fickle in their adherence to the rule of lenity despite its obvious advantages, they should at least take into account the potential sentencing consequences before expanding the reach of a criminal statute. This inquiry would require courts to look past the facts of the cases before them, hypothesize the range of potential applications of the statute,[52] and pay close attention to the penal consequences of an expansive interpretation. In cases in which an expansive interpretation would threaten to visit disproportionate punishment on convicted offenders, as determined against the baseline of other criminal laws (state or federal) proscribing the same criminal act, a narrow reading is the appropriate response unless the statute’s plain meaning commands a broader interpretation.[53] Proportionality considerations should also be factored into mens rea selection. The Supreme Court should repudiate the notion that avoiding conviction for morally blameless conduct is the only goal of mens rea doctrine.[54] A separate, equally vital and proper concern of mens rea doctrine is to ensure that the sanctions available in the event of conviction will be proportional to the blameworthiness of convicted offenders.[55] Imposing punishment in excess of blameworthiness is just as offensive in principle as convicting blameless conduct: Either way, courts are imposing punishment that is not justified by the culpability of the offender and gambling with the moral credibility of the criminal law. Crimes for which Congress has prescribed severe penalties should require correspondingly high levels of mens rea so that offenders will be seriously blameworthy. Only then will convicted offenders be morally deserving of the stiff penalties that federal law affords. Reinvigorate Mens Rea Requirements. Finally, courts should substantially overhaul federal mens rea doctrine. Quite simply, the doctrine is in dire need of reform both in its underlying theory and in its operational details. For the stated purpose of preventing punishment for morally blameless (or “innocent”) conduct,[56] the Supreme Court has made “innocence protection” the driving force in mens rea selection. Heightened mens rea requirements can and should be imposed where (and only where) a federal criminal statute would otherwise potentially reach morally blameless conduct.[57] In addition to making disproportionate punishment a proper concern of mens rea doctrine, courts should free the prevailing federal method of selecting mens rea from the shackles that prevent it from achieving its important goal of aligning punishment and blameworthiness. Once courts detect a potential innocence-protection problem—understood not just as the potential for punishment of blameless acts, but also as disproportionate punishment for blameworthy acts—the courts should impose whatever heightened mens rea requirement is necessary to limit punishment in accordance with blameworthiness. In doing so, courts should not be at all reluctant to require, where necessary to avoid morally undeserved punishment, prosecutors to prove knowledge that the defendant knew his conduct was illegal. This more robust mens rea doctrine could be the single most important contribution the courts could make to avoiding the qualitative problems associated with overcriminalization. Overcriminalization horror stories typically involve prosecutors using obscure regulatory laws as traps for unwary citizens who are understandably unaware either of the existence or the meaning of the law in question.[58] To the extent that judges start demanding proof in these cases, not only of the facts that make the defendants’ conduct illegal, but also of the defendants’ knowledge that they were breaking the law, prosecutors could no longer count on guilty pleas or guilty verdicts. The effect would not simply prevent unjust punishment, although that is a worthy goal in its own right. It would also give the federal government much-needed incentives either to give the regulated public notice that such obscure crimes exist, thereby enabling itself to prove knowing illegality, or, as one scholar helpfully suggests,[59] to use administrative or civil enforcement mechanisms in place of criminal prosecutions to achieve the government’s regulatory goals. In a free society, criminal prosecution—the most coercive and stigmatizing exercise of governmental authority—should be a last resort, reserved for cases in which the government’s legitimate regulatory goals cannot otherwise be achieved. Conclusion As this brief survey of federal criminal law has shown, overcriminalization is a serious problem in the federal system and more generally for American criminal law. The number and scope of criminal laws, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately, overcriminalization is so problematic because it tends to degrade the quality of criminal codes and result in unwarranted punishment, jeopardizing the quality of justice the system generates. While overcriminalization is the order of the day in the federal system, rendering the legislature no longer supreme in matters of crime and punishment, it is ultimately prosecutors who exploit incompletely defined crimes and the redundancy of the criminal code to expand the scope of their enforcement power and ratchet up the punishment that convicted defendants face. As judges decry this state of affairs and scholars hope against hope for bold legislative or constitutional solutions, they have missed something critical. Given that the federal courts helped to make federal criminal law as broad and punitive as it is, there is a ready solution to overcriminalization’s many problems short of legislative self-restraint or judicial activism in the name of the Constitution. The solution is for federal judges to approach their vital interpretive functions with keen sensitivity to the many adverse effects that overcriminalization and the courts’ current, self-defeating interpretive strategies create for federal criminal law. If courts cease giving unwarranted scope to ambiguous criminal laws and redouble their efforts to use mens rea requirements to rule out morally undeserved punishment—understood not merely as punishment for blameless acts, but also as disproportionately severe punishment for blameworthy acts—overcriminalization need not be the disaster that so many with good cause believe it to be-purposes) Most people assume that legislatures pass criminal laws to benefit the public, and most of the time, they are right. Statutes outlawing murder, rape, robbery, and the like protect all of us against a small number of ruffians who would do us harm. But not every statute has that goal. Some protect favored sons and daughters at the expense of the public. When that happens, everyone — except certain cronies — loses. Businesses are not charitable enterprises. If left to their own devices, some would fix prices, lower output, and exclude rivals in order to maximize their profits. What stops them from doing so are the federal antitrust laws, which outlaw such naked efforts to restrain competition. The Justice Department and private parties can sue firms for their anti-competitive conduct, which protects the public in the process. Yet, legislators have favorites and oftentimes pass law to protect the chosen few. A recent article in The Hill quotes Stuart Shapiro, a former staffer at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as noting: “We can’t underestimate the role politics plays in regulatory decisions. It’s important to remember that at the heart of regulations are political decisions.” At the federal level, sugar price supports are a classic example of the government’s exercise of regulatory power to benefit the sugar cartel. A trade law that bans or caps importation of certain goods — cars, food, etc. — is another example of cronyism, this one favoring domestic industries. New environmental regulations may “grandfather” existing facilities, leaving only new entrants into an industry to bear the added costs. All such laws protect a small number of businesses against competition, which raises prices for consumers. What aggravates that problem is that legislators often use the criminal law to protect cronies against competition. Lawmakers try to protect their favored sons and daughters — or campaign contributors — by taking advantage of the public’s respect for the criminal justice system. Adding criminal statutes to a civil regulatory scheme allows legislators to cash in on the leverage that a criminal investigation enjoys with the public and the media. That practice also makes for great reality TV. Law enforcement officers radiate a unique nimbus, and FBI agents wearing “raid jackets” emblazoned with the Bureau’s logo will receive far more respect from the public than civil inspectors will. The prospect of being “raided” also will far more effectively scare off competition than the risk of any civil enforcement action ever could. Local licensing schemes are an especially pernicious example of using the criminal law to protect cronies. Local ordinances often restrict entry into certain lines of work unless a potential entrant satisfies one or more sometimes irrational requirements in order to be deemed qualified to offer a particular service. Consider these examples: legislation requiring a license to practice interior design, to become a barber or manicurist, or to style hair; a statute requiring a license to sell floral arrangements; or a law requiring that a company that manufactures caskets must also be a licensed funeral director in order to sell that product. It is reasonable to ensure that only qualified parties can diagnose disease, prescribe medication or perform surgery. But it is difficult to understand why someone needs “a minimum of 1,200 hours of training” as a barber before he or she may cut someone’s hair. Such restrictive laws ostensibly exist to protect the public welfare against quacks, but their true rationale is cronyism. Statutes prohibiting someone from working as a barber without first having undergone thousands of hours of education and training cannot be defended on the ground that, like surgeons, barbers must prove that they can handle a sharp implement. Parents have cut their children’s hair for centuries without needing any education or training at all. Protectionism is the only rationale for those laws. The bottom line is this: Not all crimes are alike. The public should be wary when the government uses the criminal law to regulate the economy. Legislators may simply be using the criminal law to protect their friends. Legislation like that is not only bad public policy; it is shamelessly dishonest.

<h4>Informed statutory interpretation through legal analysis solves the aff better than they do – they don’t solve unless it changes law because prosecutors will continue to charge and convict whomever they wish</h4><p><strong>Smith 14</strong> – is Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. (Stephen F., 8-21, “<u><strong><mark>A Judicial Cure for the Disease of Overcriminalization</u></strong></mark>” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/a-judicial-cure-for-the-disease-of-overcriminalization) </p><p>Abstract <u><strong>The dangers of “overcriminalization” are</u></strong> widely appreciated <u><strong>across the political spectrum</u></strong>, but confusion remains as to its cause. Standard<u><strong> <mark>critiques fault legislatures</mark> alone</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The problem</u></strong></mark>, however, <u><strong><mark>is not</u></strong></mark> simply <u><strong><mark>that too many</mark> criminal <mark>laws are on the books, but that they are poorly defined</mark> in ways that give unwarranted sweep to the criminal law</u></strong>, raising the danger of punishment absent or in excess of moral blameworthiness. Instead of narrowing ambiguous criminal laws to more appropriate bounds, courts frequently expand them, even when this ratchets up the punishment that offenders face, and fail to insist on proof of sufficiently culpable states of mind to render the resulting punishment just. By <u><strong><mark>changing how they interpret criminal statutes</u></strong></mark>, taking narrow construction principles and state-of-mind requirements more seriously, <u><strong>courts <mark>can</mark> help</u></strong> to <u><strong><mark>cure the overcriminalization disease</u></strong></mark>. A‌s issues of public policy go, few are as strange as overcriminal‌ization. Once largely the subject only of academic complaint, the <u><strong>problems associated with overcriminalization are now</u></strong> more widely <u><strong>understood</u></strong>. Major think tanks,[1] media outlets,[2] civil libertarian groups,[3] and <u><strong><mark>legal professional</mark> a<mark>s</mark>sociations</u></strong>[4] have <u><strong><mark>shined</mark> a harsh <mark>light</mark> <mark>on the injustices</mark> that federal prosecutors have committed</u></strong> against people who had no reason to know their actions were wrongful, much less illegal. These are not isolated cases of abusive prosecution; they take place from coast to coast and have ruined the lives and reputations of people who were like other law-abiding citizens except for their misfortune of having attracted the attention of an overzealous federal agent or prosecutor.[5] From left and right of political center to points in between, there is an impressive consensus that <u><strong>overcriminalization</u></strong> gravely <u><strong>threatens the liberty of ordinary citizens</u></strong>. Nevertheless, reports of overcriminalization’s demise would be greatly exaggerated. <u><strong>Congress</u></strong> has repeatedly held hearings on the subject, and members of both parties <u><strong>have criticized the present state of</u></strong> affairs in which <u><strong>the law </u></strong>virtually “<u><strong>makes everyone a felon</u></strong>.”[6] Yet <u><strong>Congress has taken no action</u></strong>. Even that bleak statement is too optimistic: Congress, while at times professing concern over the federalization of crime,[7] has continued to pass new federal criminal laws at a relentless pace. <u><strong>Congress has created an average of 56 new crimes every year since 2000</u></strong>, roughly the same rate of criminalization from the two prior decades.[8] This is no aberration. As Professor John Baker has noted, “for the past 25 years, a period over which the growth of the federal criminal law has come under increasing scrutiny, Congress has been creating over 500 new crimes per decade.”[9] <u><strong>Much like the addict who repeatedly breaks promises to quit</u></strong>, <u><strong>Congress cannot seem to kick the overcriminalization habit</u></strong>. <u><strong>Some addicts</u></strong> eventually <u><strong>seek help through</u></strong> <u><strong>third-party “interventions</u></strong>,” but the federal courts, committed as they are to expansive views of congressional power to define crimes,[10] will not nudge Congress even to curb its reliance on overcriminalization, much less to quit cold turkey. At this point, traditional <u><strong>critiques of overcriminalization</u></strong> <u><strong>hit a brick wall</u></strong> <u><strong>because overcriminalization is understood primarily in quantitative terms</u></strong>: the notion that there are too many criminal laws regulating too many activities. From this view, <u><strong>reform</u></strong> efforts <u><strong>depend</u></strong> entirely <u><strong>on Congress</u></strong>, which needs to narrow and repeal scores of federal criminal laws. <u><strong><mark>Absent</u></strong></mark> such <u><strong><mark>legislative action</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>federal <mark>prosecutors</mark> <mark>will</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>continue to</u></strong> have free rein to exploit the vagaries of federal law to <u><strong>charge and <mark>convict</mark> <mark>whomever they wish</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>regardless of</mark> how innocuous <mark>the accused’s behavior</mark> is</u></strong>. Fortunately, <u><strong><mark>there is another path to reform</u></strong></mark> in this area, one <u><strong><mark>that does not depend on congress</mark>ional action</u></strong> (or heroic self-restraint by federal prosecutors). <u><strong><mark>This path</mark> to reform <mark>is informed statutory interpretation in federal criminal cases</u></strong></mark>. Legislative overuse and prosecutorial misuse of the criminal sanction need not go unchecked, as many judges seem to think. The courts themselves have an important role in defining crimes, a role that takes on even greater importance as Congress continues to default on its obligation to restrict criminal liability and penalties to sensible bounds. Courts flesh out—and, more often than not, prescribe in the first instance—the state of mind required for conviction. The state-of-mind, or mens rea, requirements are of vital importance in preventing morally undeserved punishment and guaranteeing the fair warning necessary to enable law-abiding citizens to avoid committing crimes. As important as the role of defining the mental element of criminal liability is, however, it is not the judiciary’s only role in this area. The courts also help to define criminal liability by interpreting ambiguous statutes, determining the meaning of laws in which Congress failed to make its intention entirely clear. <u><strong>Once</u></strong> the important role of the federal judiciary in <u><strong>defining criminal liability is understood</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>there is</u></strong></mark> greater <u><strong>cause for <mark>optimism about</u></strong></mark> the prospect of <u><strong>finally <mark>reining in overcriminalization</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>The effort to</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>persuade Congress to reverse course</u></strong></mark> and exercise greater restraint and care <u><strong>in the use of criminal sanction</u></strong> is important and <u><strong><mark>should continue</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>It is time</u></strong></mark>, however, <u><strong><mark>to</mark> broaden the conversation to <mark>include</u></strong></mark> the one branch of the federal government—<u><strong><mark>the judiciary</u></strong></mark>—that is most likely to be receptive to long-standing complaints about overcriminalization. As we continue to await legislative reform, it is high time for courts <u><strong><mark>to be part of the solution to overcriminalization instead of part of the problem</u></strong></mark>. The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. The first section seeks to reframe the typical discussion of overcriminalization in terms of the deeper problems stemming from the expansive body of federal criminal law. These problems, which stem fundamentally from poor crime definition, are ones that the federal courts helped to create and thus can remedy on their own without action by Congress. Although comprehensive legislative reform is ultimately needed, the reform effort can and should take place in federal courtrooms as well as in the chambers of Congress. The second and third sections discuss the ways in which courts have worsened—and, by changing interpretive strategies, can counter—the adverse effects of overcriminalization through statutory interpretation. It is not “restraint” for courts to expand ambiguous federal criminal statutes and to water down mens rea requirements. To the contrary, it is “activism” and an abdication of the judiciary’s historic responsibility to promote due process and equal justice for all. To be faithful to its role as a coequal branch of government, the federal judiciary should not be rubber stamps for the Department of Justice’s predictably expansive uses of federal criminal statutes. The judiciary should instead counteract the personal, political, and other considerations that often sway prosecutorial decision making with informed, dispassionate judgment about the proper scope of federal criminal laws in light of statutory text, legislative intent, and enduring principles of criminal law. The sooner federal judges get the message, the sooner overcriminalization’s days will be numbered and the court system can resume the business of dispensing justice instead of merely punishment. Overcriminalization Defined As the term implies, <u><strong><mark>critiques of overcriminalization</u></strong></mark> posit that too many criminal laws are on the books today and, relatedly, that existing criminal prohibitions <u><strong><mark>are too broad</mark> in scope</u></strong>. This standard view of overcriminalization is quantitative in that it bemoans the number of criminal laws on the books and the amount of activity that is deemed criminal. <u><strong><mark>Arguments that there is too much</mark> criminal <mark>law</u></strong></mark> typically <u><strong><mark>stress</mark> the fact <mark>that new criminal laws are</mark> continuously <mark>added to the books</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>even when crime rates are</mark> low or <mark>falling</u></strong></mark>, and that the expansion often involves “regulatory” offenses. Such offenses punish conduct that is mala prohibita, or wrongful only because it is illegal, and may allow punishment where “consciousness of wrongdoing be totally wanting.”[11] With the continued proliferation of regulatory offenses, conduct that in prior generations might have resulted only in civil fines or tort liability (if that) is now subject to the stigma and punishment of criminal law.[12] Although the quantitative view tends to dominate discussions of overcriminalization, it is unsatisfying on its own terms. While such frequent use of the criminal sanction, especially during election years and times when crime rates are low or falling, may suggest that Congress is legislating for reasons other than legitimate public-safety needs, new criminal legislation might be used, for example, to signal voters that its proponents are “tough” on crime.[13] Alternatively, steady expansion in the reach of federal crimes might signify that Congress does not see (or simply does not care much about) potential misuse of increasingly broad prosecutorial authority.[14] <u><strong>Still</u></strong>, a broad, constantly <u><strong><mark>expanding</mark> <mark>criminal code</u></strong> <u><strong>need not jeopardize individual liberty</u></strong></mark> or mete out morally undeserved punishment. If the prohibitions and penalties are carefully tailored to appropriate offenses and offenders, a large, expanding code can operate as justly as a code that is smaller and more targeted in its reach. For this reason, the quantitative objection to overcriminalization is, without more, incomplete. The quantitative objection implies a deeper, qualitative objection to overcriminalization in that overcriminalization tends to degrade the quality of the criminal code, producing unjust outcomes. For example, a code that is too large and grows too rapidly will often be poorly organized, structured, and conceived. The crimes may not be readily accessible or comprehensible to those who are subject to their commands. Moreover, a sprawling, rapidly growing criminal code likely contains inadequately defined crimes—crimes, for example, in which the conduct (actus reus) and state of mind (mens rea) elements are incompletely fleshed out, giving unintended and perhaps unwarranted sweep to those crimes. The number and reach of criminal laws may be symptomatic of a broken criminal justice system, but <u><strong><mark>the poor quality of the criminal code</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>and the resulting mismatch between moral culpability and criminal liability</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>are the disease</u></strong></mark>. Overcriminalization as a (Partially) Self-Inflicted Judicial Wound Once overcriminalization’s qualitative aspects are understood, it becomes evident that the blame for overcriminalization cannot be laid entirely at Congress’s doorstep. Regrettably, <u><strong>the courts have</u></strong> played the overcriminalization game with Congress and the Department of Justice. They have done so by expansively <u><strong>interpret</u></strong>ing <u><strong>ambiguous criminal statutes in derogation of the venerable “rule of lenity”</u></strong> and by not insisting on mens rea requirements robust enough to rule out morally undeserved punishment. Both of <u><strong>these interpretive failures</u></strong> <u><strong>have made federal criminal law even broader and more punitive</u></strong>. Expansive Interpretations as Judicial Crime Creation. It is often said that <u><strong><mark>courts</u></strong></mark> do not “<u><strong><mark>create” federal crimes</u></strong></mark>, but that simply is not the case. When courts expand the reach of ambiguous criminal laws (laws which, by definition, can reasonably be read to include or exclude the defendant’s conduct), they are essentially creating crimes. They are determining for themselves, within the broad bounds of the terms of an ambiguous statute, whether the defendant’s conduct should be condemned as criminal, and they are doing so after the fact, without prior warning to the defendant charged with a violation. To allow citizens to be convicted and imprisoned based on such judicial determinations transforms federal criminal law into what one scholar has described as “a species of federal common law”[15]—a result fundamentally at odds with the principle that in a democracy, the criminalization decision is reserved for legislatures.[16] <u><strong><mark>The root of the problem is</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>the courts</u></strong></mark> are notoriously inconsistent in <u><strong><mark>adhering to the rule of lenity</u></strong></mark>. The rule of lenity <u><strong><mark>requires</mark> a <mark>court</mark> <mark>to</mark> <mark>construe ambiguous</mark> criminal <mark>laws narrowly</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>in favor of the defendant</u></strong></mark>,[17] not to show lenience to lawbreakers, but to protect important societal interests against the many adverse consequences that the judicial expansion of crimes produces. These consequences include judicial usurpation of the legislative crime-definition function, not to mention potential frustration of legislative purpose and unfair surprise to persons convicted under vague statutes. <u><strong>The rule of lenity</u></strong> therefore <u><strong>reflects</u></strong>, as Judge Henry Friendly memorably said, <u><strong>a democratic society’s “instinctive distaste against men languishing in prison</u></strong> unless the lawmaker has clearly said they should.”[18] More to the point, <u><strong>faithful adherence to <mark>the rule of lenity would require courts to counteract overcriminalization</u></strong></mark>. The rule would require courts to narrow the scope of ambiguous criminal laws, adopting expansive interpretations only if compelled by the statutory text. <u><strong>This would prevent prosecutors from exploiting</u></strong> the ambiguities of <u><strong>poorly defined federal crimes</u></strong> either to criminalize conduct that Congress has not specifically declared to be a crime or to redefine—or ratchet up the penalty for—crimes dealt with more specifically in other statutes. <u><strong>The rule of lenity would</u></strong> thus <u><strong>make poor crime definition an obstacle to</u></strong>—not a license for—more <u><strong>expansive applications of federal criminal law</u></strong>, remitting prosecutors seeking more enforcement authority to the democratic process, not an unelected, unaccountable judiciary. Regrettably, the federal courts treat the rule of lenity with suspicion and, at times, outright hostility. While sometimes faithfully applying the rule of lenity, the Supreme Court has frequently either ignored lenity or dismissed it as a principle that applies only when legislative history and other interpretive principles cannot give meaning to an ambiguous statute.[19] Indeed, the federal courts disregard the rule of lenity so frequently that it is questionable whether the rule of lenity can still be accurately described as a rule. As I have previously stated: [T]he courts’ aversion to letting blameworthy conduct slip through the federal cracks has dramatically reversed the lenity presumption. The operative presumption in criminal cases today is that whenever the conduct in question is morally blameworthy, statutes should be broadly construed, in favor of the prosecution, unless the defendant’s interpretation is compelled by the statute…. The rule of lenity, in short, has been converted from a rule about the proper locus of lawmaking power in the area of crime into what can only be described as a “rule of severity.”[20] The results of <u><strong>the judiciary</u></strong>’s haphazard adherence to the rule of lenity are as predictable as they are misguided. Federal judges have repeatedly used ambiguous statutes as a basis for creating new federal crimes.[21] They have also <u><strong>expanded the reach</u></strong> <u><strong>of overlapping federal crimes to drive up the punishment</u></strong> that Congress prescribed for comparatively minor federal crimes.[22] <u><strong>The end result</u></strong> of such assaults on the rule of lenity is necessarily a broader and more punitive federal criminal law—<u><strong>a worsening of overcriminalization rather than an improvement</u></strong>. Inadequate Mens Rea Requirements. The courts have done better—but only slightly—in fleshing out the state-of-mind, or mens rea, requirements for federal criminal liability. As the Supreme Court explained in Morissette v. United States,[23] the concept of punishment based on acts alone without a culpable state of mind is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” In our system, crime is understood as a “compound concept,” requiring both an “evil-doing hand” and an “evil-meaning mind.”[24] The historic role of the mens rea requirement is to exempt from punishment those who are not “blameworthy in mind” and thereby to limit punishment to persons who disregarded notice that their conduct was wrong.[25] Mens rea also serves to achieve proportionality of punishment for blameworthy acts, ensuring that the punishment the law allows “fits” the crime committed by the accused. Mens rea, for example, guarantees that the harsher penalties for intentional homicides will not be applied to accidental homicides.[26] Despite the critical importance of mens rea to the effectiveness and legitimacy of federal criminal law, federal crimes often lack sufficient mens rea elements. Many federal crimes, including serious crimes, contain no express mens rea requirements.[27] Perhaps more commonly, federal crimes include express mens rea requirements for some element of the crime but are silent as to the mens rea (if any) required for the other elements.[28] Here it is evident that Congress intended to require mens rea but unclear whether Congress intended the express mens rea requirement to exclude additional mens rea requirements. In still other situations, even when Congress includes mens rea terms in the definition of crimes, it uses terms such as “willfully” and “maliciously” that have no intrinsic meaning and whose meaning varies widely in different statutory contexts.[29] This confusing state of affairs might be acceptable if the courts employed a consistent method of mens rea selection. However, the courts have been inconsistent in their approach to mens rea questions. On occasion, the Supreme Court stands ready to read mens rea requirements into statutes that are silent in whole or in part as to mens rea because the Court has an interest in making a morally culpable state of mind a prerequisite to punishment.[30] This, however, is not invariably so. Sometimes, courts treat legislative silence concerning mens rea as a legislative signal to dispense with traditional mens rea requirements, especially with respect to regulatory crimes protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Even Morissette v. United States, with its strong emphasis on the usual requirement that a culpable mental state is a prerequisite to punishment, conceded that the requirement may not apply to regulatory or other crimes not derived from the common law.[31] The Court seized on this statement in United States v. Freed[32] as justification for treating a felony punishable by 10 years in prison as a regulatory offense requiring no morally culpable mental state. To be sure, more recent cases cast doubt on Morissette and Freed in this respect. Among these cases are Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States,[33] Ratzlaf v. United States,[34] and Staples v. United States.[35] In each case, the Supreme Court adopted heightened mens rea requirements, and Arthur Andersen and Ratzlaf went so far as to make ignorance of the law a defense.[36] Each time, the Court ratcheted up mens rea requirements for the stated purpose of preventing conviction for morally blameless conduct. These cases, I believe, are best read as making a culpable mental state a prerequisite for punishment for all crimes, even regulatory offenses. As I have explained elsewhere: [T]he Supreme Court has dramatically revitalized the mens rea requirement for federal crimes. The “guilty mind” requirement now aspires to exempt all “innocent” (or morally blameless) conduct from punishment and restrict criminal statutes to conduct that is “inevitably nefarious.” When a literal interpretation of a federal criminal statute could encompass “innocent” behavior, courts stand ready to impose heightened mens rea requirements designed to exempt all such behavior from punishment. The goal of current federal mens rea doctrine, in other words, is nothing short of protecting moral innocence against the stigma and penalties of criminal punishment.[37] The fact remains, however, that Freed and cases like it have never been overturned. Unless that happens, confusion will persist, as will the possibility that a culpable mental state may not be required for some crimes, especially regulatory offenses involving health and safety concerns. One thing, however, is certain: As long as courts fail to make proof of a culpable mental state an unyielding prerequisite to punishment, federal prosecutors will continue to water down mens rea requirements in ways that allow conviction in excess of blameworthiness. That is exactly what prosecutors did in Arthur Andersen during the wave of post-Enron hysteria over corporate fraud. In seeking to convict Enron’s accounting firm of the “corrupt persuasion” form of obstruction of justice, prosecutors—flatly disregarding the lesson of cases like Staples and Ratzlaf—argued for incredibly weak mens rea requirements that, as the Court noted, would have criminalized entirely innocuous conduct.[38] Although the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s efforts and overturned Arthur Andersen’s conviction, the firm has less cause to celebrate than one might think. After being convicted on a prosecution theory so aggressive that it could not win even a single vote from the Justices, the firm—once a Big Five accounting firm—went out of the consulting business. Even now that it no longer stands convicted of a crime, its reputation has likely been damaged beyond repair. Its own conduct in the Enron matter had a lot to do with that, of course, but so did the overzealousness of federal prosecutors in exploiting the serious imperfections in federal mens rea doctrine. The Arthur Andersen episode simultaneously shows the need for substantial mens rea reform and the high cost of not having strong mens rea requirements. The Judicial Path to Overcriminalization Reform Given that overcriminalization has qualitative components—for which courts themselves bear a large share of the blame—courts can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Even if Congress and federal prosecutors continue their unrestrained use of the criminal sanction, courts are not powerless to act. <u><strong><mark>The solution is for courts to interpret statutes</mark> <mark>in ways that rectify the</mark> qualitative <mark>defects that overcriminalization produces</mark> in a body of criminal law as sprawling and poorly defined as federal criminal law is</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>New interpretive strategies</u></strong></mark>, tailored to the troubling realities of a criminal justice system characterized by rampant overcriminalization, <u><strong>can <mark>help to right this</mark> fundamental <mark>wrong</u></strong></mark> in federal criminal law.[39] Statutory construction, of course, has its limits and cannot be used to defeat the operation of statutes that plainly encompass the defendant’s conduct. In cases such as these, courts should apply the statutes as written, barring some constitutional infirmity, but even here courts can exercise informed discretion to counteract abusive exercises of prosecutorial discretion. After United States v. Booker,[40] district judges have wide sentencing discretion, and they can and should use that discretion to show suitable lenience toward sympathetic defendants. The President can also use his power to grant pardons or commute sentences—as President Barack Obama recently did to free eight prisoners serving unduly long drug sentences in the wake of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010[41]—to do justice toward defendants who were unfairly convicted or sentenced.[42] Although these important safeguards for the sound administration of criminal justice should not be overlooked, this paper focuses on how courts can interpret criminal statutes to counteract the effects of overcriminalization. Restoring the Rule of Lenity to Its Rightful Place. In light of how often courts interpret criminal statutes expansively, it should be clear that they do not simply let the weights in the interpretive scales determine whether statutes are to be read broadly or narrowly, as academic critics of lenity would have them do.[43] Instead, the balance is heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution when the conduct in question is morally blameworthy, even when a broad interpretation allows prosecutors to drive up considerably the punishment that would otherwise apply or to evade limitations that the legislature included in the definition of the crime in more specific statutes. Whether the law enforcement need for expanded authority is real,[44] minimal,[45] or just silly,[46] the one constant seems to be that courts will go to almost any lengths to keep blameworthy conduct from slipping through the federal cracks. Thus, it is closer to the truth to say that the operative interpretive rule in federal criminal cases is severity: that ambiguous statutes presumptively should be construed broadly to prevent culpable defendants from slipping through the federal cracks. In practice, then, rejecting the rule of lenity tends to look a lot like endorsing anti-lenity (or a rule of severity). That, in turn, affords a substantial justification for taking lenity seriously, even if, as a theoretical matter, an evenhanded approach to the interpretation of criminal statutes might be preferable to a strict-construction default. After all, even critics of lenity do not contend that criminal laws should always be interpreted broadly, recognizing that sometimes courts should narrow the reach of criminal statutes.[47] The obvious assumption is that there is a viable interpretive middle ground between the lenity side of the spectrum (in which ambiguous statutes are always construed narrowly) and the anti-lenity or severity side of the spectrum (in which such statutes are always construed broadly). This assumption is quite difficult to reconcile with the courts’ rather checkered track record in interpreting federal crimes.[48] Given that courts often miss valid reasons for narrowly construing statutes, a consistently applied rule of lenity under which every ambiguous criminal statute is read narrowly is the right interpretive rule. The political economy of criminal law confirms that <u><strong><mark>lenity </mark>is the right interpretive default</u></strong>. The relevant question is which interpretive rule would give Congress proper incentives to make its intentions clear concerning the scope and meaning of criminal statutes. To the extent that legislatures generally share prosecutors’ desire for broad criminal prohibitions,[49<u><strong>] a rigidly enforced rule of lenity <mark>would</u></strong></mark> operate as an information-forcing default rule, <u><strong><mark>giv</u></strong></mark>ing <u><strong><mark>Congress</u></strong></mark> added <u><strong><mark>incentives</mark> <mark>to make its wishes known</mark> <mark>ex ante</u></strong></mark>. Additionally, once an ambiguity arises in particular settings, as it often does, the question is whether the Department of Justice or groups favoring criminal justice reform are in the best position to convince Congress to pass new legislation resolving the interpretive question. The Justice Department—the 800-pound gorilla in federal criminal law—is undoubtedly best suited to the task of overcoming legislative inertia. As Professor Einer Elhauge explains, “<u><strong>there is no effective lobby for narrowing criminal statutes</u></strong>,” <u><strong>whereas</u></strong> “<u><strong><mark>a</mark>n overly <mark>narrow interpretation</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>is</u></strong></mark> far more <u><strong><mark>likely to be corrected</u></strong></mark>…because prosecutors and other <u><strong><mark>members of anti-criminal lobbying groups are</mark> heavily <mark>involved in legislative drafting</mark> <mark>and can</mark> more readily <mark>get on the legislative agenda</u></strong></mark>.”[50] Strict adherence to the rule of lenity would thus put the burden of overcoming legislative inertia on the shoulders of the party in the best position to persuade Congress to act. Finally, <u><strong>a reinvigorated <mark>rule of lenity would promote</u></strong></mark> the more <u><strong>effective operation of <mark>prosecutorial restraint</u></strong></mark>. When courts stand ready to expand ambiguous criminal laws to keep blameworthy offenders from slipping through the cracks in federal criminal law, prosecutors can safely “push the envelope” and stretch vague laws to their outer limit. As long as they target blameworthy offenders—and, disturbingly, even if they do not[51]—prosecutors can be confident that courts will ratify their broad readings of criminal laws. <u><strong>Lenity would</u></strong> <u><strong>dramatically</u></strong> <u><strong>change the calculus by lowering the prosecution’s likelihood of conviction</u></strong>, giving prosecutors greater incentives to decline prosecution in cases of blameless or marginally blameworthy offenders potentially guilty only of hypertechnical, victimless crimes—the kind of offenders who tend to become ensnared in the overcriminalization net. The administration of justice in federal prosecutions, therefore, would vastly improve if federal courts started taking the rule of lenity seriously. Proportionality-Based Approaches to Statutory Construction. If federal judges remain fickle in their adherence to the rule of lenity despite its obvious advantages, they should at least take into account the potential sentencing consequences before expanding the reach of a criminal statute. This inquiry would require courts to look past the facts of the cases before them, hypothesize the range of potential applications of the statute,[52] and pay close attention to the penal consequences of an expansive interpretation. In cases in which an expansive interpretation would threaten to visit disproportionate punishment on convicted offenders, as determined against the baseline of other criminal laws (state or federal) proscribing the same criminal act, a narrow reading is the appropriate response unless the statute’s plain meaning commands a broader interpretation.[53] Proportionality considerations should also be factored into mens rea selection. <u><strong><mark>The</u></strong></mark> Supreme <u><strong><mark>Court should repudiate</mark> the notion <mark>that avoiding conviction for</mark> <mark>morally blameless conduct is the only goal of mens rea doctrine</u></strong>.</mark>[54] A separate, equally vital and proper concern of mens rea doctrine is to ensure that the sanctions available in the event of conviction will be proportional to the blameworthiness of convicted offenders.[55] Imposing punishment in excess of blameworthiness is just as offensive in principle as convicting blameless conduct: Either way, courts are imposing punishment that is not justified by the culpability of the offender and gambling with the moral credibility of the criminal law. Crimes for which Congress has prescribed severe penalties should require correspondingly high levels of mens rea so that offenders will be seriously blameworthy. Only then will convicted offenders be morally deserving of the stiff penalties that federal law affords. Reinvigorate Mens Rea Requirements. Finally, courts should substantially overhaul federal mens rea doctrine. Quite simply, the doctrine is in dire need of reform both in its underlying theory and in its operational details. For the stated purpose of preventing punishment for morally blameless (or “innocent”) conduct,[56] the Supreme Court has made “innocence protection” the driving force in mens rea selection. Heightened mens rea requirements can and should be imposed where (and only where) a federal criminal statute would otherwise potentially reach morally blameless conduct.[57] In addition to making disproportionate punishment a proper concern of mens rea doctrine, courts should free the prevailing federal method of selecting mens rea from the shackles that prevent it from achieving its important goal of aligning punishment and blameworthiness. Once courts detect a potential innocence-protection problem—understood not just as the potential for punishment of blameless acts, but also as disproportionate punishment for blameworthy acts—the courts should impose whatever heightened mens rea requirement is necessary to limit punishment in accordance with blameworthiness. In doing so, courts should not be at all reluctant to require, where necessary to avoid morally undeserved punishment, prosecutors to prove knowledge that the defendant knew his conduct was illegal. <u><strong><mark>This more robust mens rea doctrine</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>could be the single most important contribution</mark> the courts could make <mark>to</mark> <mark>avoiding the</u></strong></mark> qualitative <u><strong><mark>problems associated with overcriminalization</u></strong></mark>. Overcriminalization horror stories typically involve prosecutors using obscure regulatory laws as traps for unwary citizens who are understandably unaware either of the existence or the meaning of the law in question.[58] To the extent that judges start demanding proof in these cases, not only of the facts that make the defendants’ conduct illegal, but also of the defendants’ knowledge that they were breaking the law, prosecutors could no longer count on guilty pleas or guilty verdicts. <u><strong><mark>The effect would</mark> not simply <mark>prevent unjust punishment</u></strong></mark>, although that is a worthy goal in its own right. It <u><strong>would <mark>also</mark> <mark>give the</u></strong></mark> federal <u><strong><mark>government</u></strong></mark> much-needed <u><strong><mark>incentives</u></strong></mark> either <u><strong><mark>to give the</mark> regulated <mark>public</mark> <mark>notice that such</mark> obscure <mark>crimes exist</u></strong></mark>, thereby enabling itself to prove knowing illegality, or, as one scholar helpfully suggests,[59] to use administrative or civil enforcement mechanisms in place of criminal prosecutions to achieve the government’s regulatory goals. In a free society, criminal prosecution—the most coercive and stigmatizing exercise of governmental authority—should be a last resort, reserved for cases in which the government’s legitimate regulatory goals cannot otherwise be achieved. Conclusion As this brief survey of federal criminal law has shown, overcriminalization is a serious problem in the federal system and more generally for American criminal law. The number and scope of criminal laws, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately, <u><strong><mark>overcriminalization is</u></strong></mark> so <u><strong><mark>problematic</mark> because it tends to degrade the quality of criminal codes</u></strong> and result in unwarranted punishment, <u><strong><mark>jeopardizing the</mark> quality of</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>justice</mark> the <mark>system</mark> generates</u></strong>. While <u><strong>overcriminalization is</u></strong> the order of the day in the federal system, rendering the legislature no longer supreme in matters of crime and punishment, it is <u><strong>ultimately prosecutors who exploit incompletely defined crimes</u></strong> and the redundancy of the criminal code to expand the scope of their enforcement power and ratchet up the punishment that convicted defendants face. As judges decry this state of affairs and scholars hope against hope for bold legislative or constitutional solutions, they have missed something critical. Given that the federal courts helped to make federal criminal law as broad and punitive as it is, there is a ready solution to overcriminalization’s many problems short of legislative self-restraint or judicial activism in the name of the Constitution. <u><strong>The solution is for federal judges to approach their vital interpretive functions with keen sensitivity to the many adverse effects that overcriminalization and the courts’ current, self-defeating interpretive strategies create for federal criminal law</u></strong>. If courts cease giving unwarranted scope to ambiguous criminal laws and redouble their efforts to use mens rea requirements to rule out morally undeserved punishment—understood not merely as punishment for blameless acts, but also as disproportionately severe punishment for blameworthy acts—overcriminalization need not be the disaster that so many with good cause believe it to be-purposes) Most people assume that <u><strong>legislatures pass <mark>criminal laws </mark>to <mark>benefit the public</u></strong></mark>, and most of the time, they are right. <u><strong><mark>Statutes outlawing</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>murder, rape, robbery</u></strong></mark>, and the like <u><strong><mark>protect all of us</u></strong></mark> against a small number of ruffians who would do us harm. But not every statute has that goal. Some protect favored sons and daughters at the expense of the public. When that happens, everyone — except certain cronies — loses. Businesses are not charitable enterprises. If left to their own devices, some would fix prices, lower output, and exclude rivals in order to maximize their profits. What stops them from doing so are the federal antitrust laws, which outlaw such naked efforts to restrain competition. The Justice Department and private parties can sue firms for their anti-competitive conduct, which protects the public in the process. Yet, legislators have favorites and oftentimes pass law to protect the chosen few. A recent article in The Hill quotes Stuart Shapiro, a former staffer at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as noting: “We can’t underestimate the role politics plays in regulatory decisions. It’s important to remember that at the heart of regulations are political decisions.” At the federal level, sugar price supports are a classic example of the government’s exercise of regulatory power to benefit the sugar cartel. A trade law that bans or caps importation of certain goods — cars, food, etc. — is another example of cronyism, this one favoring domestic industries. New environmental regulations may “grandfather” existing facilities, leaving only new entrants into an industry to bear the added costs. All such laws protect a small number of businesses against competition, which raises prices for consumers. What aggravates that problem is that legislators often use the criminal law to protect cronies against competition. Lawmakers try to protect their favored sons and daughters — or campaign contributors — by taking advantage of the public’s respect for the criminal justice system. Adding criminal statutes to a civil regulatory scheme allows legislators to cash in on the leverage that a criminal investigation enjoys with the public and the media. That practice also makes for great reality TV. Law enforcement officers radiate a unique nimbus, and FBI agents wearing “raid jackets” emblazoned with the Bureau’s logo will receive far more respect from the public than civil inspectors will. The prospect of being “raided” also will far more effectively scare off competition than the risk of any civil enforcement action ever could. Local licensing schemes are an especially pernicious example of using the criminal law to protect cronies. Local ordinances often restrict entry into certain lines of work unless a potential entrant satisfies one or more sometimes irrational requirements in order to be deemed qualified to offer a particular service. Consider these examples: legislation requiring a license to practice interior design, to become a barber or manicurist, or to style hair; a statute requiring a license to sell floral arrangements; or a law requiring that a company that manufactures caskets must also be a licensed funeral director in order to sell that product. It is reasonable to ensure that only qualified parties can diagnose disease, prescribe medication or perform surgery. But it is difficult to understand why someone needs “a minimum of 1,200 hours of training” as a barber before he or she may cut someone’s hair. Such restrictive laws ostensibly exist to protect the public welfare against quacks, but their true rationale is cronyism. Statutes prohibiting someone from working as a barber without first having undergone thousands of hours of education and training cannot be defended on the ground that, like surgeons, barbers must prove that they can handle a sharp implement. Parents have cut their children’s hair for centuries without needing any education or training at all. Protectionism is the only rationale for those laws. The bottom line is this: Not all crimes are alike. The public should be wary when the government uses the criminal law to regulate the economy. Legislators may simply be using the criminal law to protect their friends. Legislation like that is not only bad public policy; it is shamelessly dishonest.</p>

2NC

2NC AT: State Bad

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

GOP Senate would block EPA regulatons

Raju, 8/20

Raju, 8/20

McConnell risks overreaching if he follows through with his pledge to attach policy riders to spending bills. Obama “needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through the funding process said. “He would have to make a decision on a given bill, whether there’s more in it that he likes than dislikes A “good example is adding restrictions to regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Adding riders to spending bills would change the “behavior of the bureaucracy McConnell said calmly a tactic would prompt Obama to veto must-pass appropriations bills

McConnell risks overreaching if he follows through with his pledge to attach policy riders to spending bills. Obama needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through funding A “good example is adding restrictions to regulations from the E P A . Adding riders to spending bills would change the “behavior of the bureaucracy a tactic would prompt Obama to veto must-pass appropriations bills

[Manu (senior congressional reporter at POLITICO, “McConnell’s plan to shut down Obama”, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-election-mitch-mcconnells-barack-obama-confrontation-110154.html, CBE] Meanwhile, McConnell risks overreaching if he follows through with his pledge to attach policy riders to spending bills. If Obama refuses to accept such measures, a government shutdown could ensue. Republicans bore much of the blame for last year’s government shutdown, which was prompted by conservative tactics McConnell opposed, and their fortunes rebounded only when the administration bungled the rollout of Obamacare. But asked about the potential that his approach could spark another shutdown, McConnell said it would be up to the president to decide whether to veto spending bills that would keep the government open. Obama “needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through the funding process,” McConnell said. “He would have to make a decision on a given bill, whether there’s more in it that he likes than dislikes.” A “good example,” McConnell said, is adding restrictions to regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Adding riders to spending bills would change the “behavior of the bureaucracy, which I think has been the single biggest reason this recovery has been so tepid,” he said. “He could,” McConnell said calmly when asked if such a tactic would prompt Obama to veto must-pass appropriations bills. “Yeah, he could.”

<h4><strong>GOP Senate would block EPA regulatons</h4><p>Raju, 8/20</p><p></strong>[Manu (senior congressional reporter at POLITICO, “McConnell’s plan to shut down Obama”, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-election-mitch-mcconnells-barack-obama-confrontation-110154.html, CBE] </p><p>Meanwhile, <u><strong><mark>McConnell</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>risks overreaching if he follows through with his pledge to attach policy riders to spending bills.</u></strong></mark> If Obama refuses to accept such measures, a government shutdown could ensue. Republicans bore much of the blame for last year’s government shutdown, which was prompted by conservative tactics McConnell opposed, and their fortunes rebounded only when the administration bungled the rollout of Obamacare. But asked about the potential that his approach could spark another shutdown, McConnell said it would be up to the president to decide whether to veto spending bills that would keep the government open. <u><strong><mark>Obama</mark> “<mark>needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through </mark>the <mark>funding </mark>process</u></strong>,” McConnell <u><strong>said. “He would have to make a decision on a given bill, whether there’s more in it that he likes than dislikes</u></strong>.” <u><strong><mark>A “good example</u></strong></mark>,” McConnell said, <u><strong><mark>is adding restrictions to regulations from the E</mark>nvironmental <mark>P</mark>rotection <mark>A</mark>gency<mark>. Adding riders to spending bills would change the “behavior of the bureaucracy</u></strong></mark>, which I think has been the single biggest reason this recovery has been so tepid,” he said. “He could,” <u><strong>McConnell said calmly</u></strong> when asked if such <u><strong><mark>a tactic would prompt Obama to veto must-pass appropriations bills</u></strong></mark>. “Yeah, he could.”</p>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

We have an A-Priori ethical obligation to reject the violence of global capitalism.

Zizek and Daly 04

Zizek and Daly 04 [Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek, 2004, p. 14-16]

our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. the gentrification of global liberal capitalism fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix

our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. in order to create a universal system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a gentrification of that system. the gentrification of global liberal capitalism reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and social exclusion remains mystified and nameless our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. universalism would not attempt to conceal or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

<h4><strong>We have an A-Priori ethical obligation to reject the violence of global capitalism. </h4><p>Zizek and Daly 04 </p><p></strong>[Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek, 2004, p. 14-16]</p><p>For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that <u><strong><mark>our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the</mark> constitutive <mark>violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization</mark> / anonymization <mark>of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world.</u></strong></mark> Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that <u><strong><mark>in order to create a universal</mark> global <mark>system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a</mark> kind of <mark>gentrification of that system.</mark> </u></strong>What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that <u><strong><mark>the gentrification of global liberal capitalism</u></strong></mark> is one whose ‘universalism’ <u><strong>fundamentally <mark>reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations.</u></strong></mark> In this way, <u><strong>neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. </u></strong>Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, <u><strong><mark>the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and</mark>,</u></strong> in consequence, <u><strong><mark>social exclusion remains mystified and nameless</u></strong></mark> (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that <u><strong>this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect</u></strong> (or misdirect) <u><strong>social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation.</u></strong> Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this <u><strong>Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that <mark>our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale.</u></strong></mark> While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), <u><strong>what is novel about Zizek’s <mark>universalism</mark> is that it <mark>would not attempt to conceal</mark> this fact <mark>or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix</u></strong>.<strong></mark> </p></strong>

1NC

1NC Cap K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Multiple statistical measures prove a trend towards equality---this isn’t to say that everything is OK, but that falsifiable claims matter for assessing impacts AND that engagement can be effective

Currie 8

Currie 8 http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-11-08/the-long-march-of-racial-progress/¶ Duncan Currie is managing editor of THE AMERICAN. Speechwriter and Policy Advisor in U.S. Senate Washington D.C. Metro Area | Government Administration Current: Speechwriter and Policy Advisor, Office of Senator John Cornyn at United States Senate Past: Editorial Director at The George W. Bush Institute, Deputy Managing Editor at National Review, Managing Editor at The American Enterprise Institu... Education: Harvard University

On balance, race relations in America is one of extraordinary change and transformation black illiteracy dropped literacy increased by 400 percent in thirty-five years the racial attitudes of white Americans have undergone a sea change. The shift toward greater racial tolerance was driven by many factors World War II, ntegration civil rights their views on race were becoming more liberal there are now 41 African Americans serving in the House of Representatives slowly rising incomes produced an important economic change for African Americans majority of blacks were in the economic middle class or above This is an unambiguous sign of racial progress the black-white poverty gap “is much smaller now” Residential and marriage trends are also encouraging

On balance, the story of race relations in America is extraordinary transformation the racial attitudes of white Americans have undergone a sea change. The shift was driven by many factors, including World War II civil rights views on race were becoming more liberal there are now 41 African Americans serving in the House slowly rising incomes produced important economic change for African Americans for the first time, the majority of blacks were in the economic middle class or above This is unambiguous racial progress the black-white poverty gap “is smaller Residential and marriage trends are encouraging

Measuring racial progress is all about perspective. Since Appomattox, the struggle for racial equality has seen triumphs and setbacks alike. On balance, however, the story of race relations in America is one of extraordinary change and transformation. According to Princeton historian James McPherson, the rate of black illiteracy dropped from roughly 90 percent in 1865 to 70 percent in 1880 and to under 50 percent in 1900. “From the perspective of today, this may seem like minimal progress,” McPherson wrote in his 1991 book, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (a collection of essays). “But viewed from the standpoint of 1865 the rate of literacy for blacks increased by 200 percent in fifteen years and by 400 percent in thirty-five years.” McPherson also noted that the share of school-age black children attending school jumped from 2 percent in 1860 to 34 percent in 1880. “During the same period,” he said, “the proportion of white children of school age attending school had grown only from 60 to 62 percent.” In 1908, 100 years before the election of America’s first black president, there was a bloody race riot in Springfield, Illinois, which began when an angry mob surrounded a prison where a black man falsely accused of rape was being held. As columnist George Will has observed, “The siege of the jail, the rioting, the lynching, and mutilating all occurred within walking distance of where, in 2007, Barack Obama announced his presidential candidacy.” Over the past century, the racial attitudes of white Americans have undergone a sea change. The shift toward greater racial tolerance was driven by many factors, including blacks’ participation in World War II, the integration of professional sports and the military, and the civil rights movement. “Even as Americans were voting more conservatively in the 1980s, their views on race were becoming more liberal,” Wall Street Journal senior editor Jonathan Kaufman wrote recently. “More than three quarters of whites in 1972 told pollsters that ‘blacks should not push themselves where they are not wanted.’ Two-thirds of whites that same year said they opposed laws prohibiting racial discrimination in the sale of homes. Forty percent said whites had the right to live in segregated neighborhoods.” However, “By the end of 1980s, all those numbers had fallen markedly and [they] continued to fall through the following decades.” As University of Michigan sociologist Reynolds Farley points out in a new paper, there are now 41 African Americans serving in the House of Representatives, compared to only six when the Kerner Commission issued its famous report on race and poverty in 1968. During the years following the Kerner Report, “The slowly rising incomes of black men and the more rapidly rising incomes of black women produced an important economic change for African Americans,” Farley writes. “In 1996, for the first time, the majority of blacks were in the economic middle class or above, if that means living in a household with an income at least twice the poverty line.” According to Farley, “Only three percent of African Americans could be described as economically comfortable in 1968. That has increased to 17 percent at present. This is an unambiguous sign of racial progress: one black household in six could be labeled financially comfortable.” He notes that the black-white poverty gap “is much smaller now” than it was in the late 1960s. Residential and marriage trends are also encouraging. “The trend toward less residential segregation that emerged in the 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s continues in this century,” says Farley. Meanwhile, interracial marriage rates have increased dramatically. “At the time of the Kerner Report, about one black husband in 100 was enumerated with a white spouse. By 2006, about 14 percent of young black husbands were married to white women.”

<h4>Multiple statistical measures prove a trend towards equality---this isn’t to say that everything is OK, but that <u>falsifiable claims</u><strong> matter for assessing impacts AND that engagement can be effective </h4><p>Currie 8</p><p></strong>http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-11-08/the-long-march-of-racial-progress/¶ Duncan Currie is managing editor of THE AMERICAN. Speechwriter and Policy Advisor in U.S. Senate Washington D.C. Metro Area | Government Administration Current: Speechwriter and Policy Advisor, Office of Senator John Cornyn at United States Senate Past: Editorial Director at The George W. Bush Institute, Deputy Managing Editor at National Review, Managing Editor at The American Enterprise Institu... Education: Harvard University</p><p>Measuring racial progress is all about perspective. Since Appomattox, the struggle for racial equality has seen triumphs and setbacks alike. <u><strong><mark>On balance,</u></strong></mark> however, <mark>the story of <u><strong>race relations in America is</mark> one of <mark>extraordinary</mark> change and <mark>transformation</u></strong></mark>. According to Princeton historian James McPherson, the rate of <u><strong>black illiteracy dropped</u></strong> from roughly 90 percent in 1865 to 70 percent in 1880 and to under 50 percent in 1900. “From the perspective of today, this may seem like minimal progress,” McPherson wrote in his 1991 book, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (a collection of essays). “But viewed from the standpoint of 1865 the rate of <u><strong>literacy </u></strong>for blacks <u><strong>increased by</u></strong> 200 percent in fifteen years and by <u><strong>400 percent in thirty-five years</u></strong>.” McPherson also noted that the share of school-age black children attending school jumped from 2 percent in 1860 to 34 percent in 1880. “During the same period,” he said, “the proportion of white children of school age attending school had grown only from 60 to 62 percent.” In 1908, 100 years before the election of America’s first black president, there was a bloody race riot in Springfield, Illinois, which began when an angry mob surrounded a prison where a black man falsely accused of rape was being held. As columnist George Will has observed, “The siege of the jail, the rioting, the lynching, and mutilating all occurred within walking distance of where, in 2007, Barack Obama announced his presidential candidacy.” Over the past century, <u><strong><mark>the racial attitudes of white Americans have undergone a sea change.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>The shift</mark> toward greater racial tolerance <mark>was driven by many factors</u></strong>,</mark> <mark>including</mark> blacks’ participation in <u><strong><mark>World War II</mark>,</u></strong> the i<u><strong>ntegration </u></strong>of professional sports and the military, and the <u><strong><mark>civil rights</u></strong></mark> movement. “Even as Americans were voting more conservatively in the 1980s, <u><strong>their <mark>views on race were becoming more liberal</u></strong></mark>,” Wall Street Journal senior editor Jonathan Kaufman wrote recently. “More than three quarters of whites in 1972 told pollsters that ‘blacks should not push themselves where they are not wanted.’ Two-thirds of whites that same year said they opposed laws prohibiting racial discrimination in the sale of homes. Forty percent said whites had the right to live in segregated neighborhoods.” However, “By the end of 1980s, all those numbers had fallen markedly and [they] continued to fall through the following decades.” As University of Michigan sociologist Reynolds Farley points out in a new paper, <u><strong><mark>there are now 41 African Americans serving in the House</mark> of Representatives</u></strong>, compared to only six when the Kerner Commission issued its famous report on race and poverty in 1968. During the years following the Kerner Report, “The <u><strong><mark>slowly rising incomes</u></strong></mark> of black men and the more rapidly rising incomes of black women <u><strong><mark>produced</mark> an <mark>important economic change for African Americans</u></strong></mark>,” Farley writes. “In 1996, <mark>for the first time, the <u><strong>majority of blacks were in the economic middle class or above</u></strong></mark>, if that means living in a household with an income at least twice the poverty line.” According to Farley, “Only three percent of African Americans could be described as economically comfortable in 1968. That has increased to 17 percent at present. <u><strong><mark>This is</mark> an <mark>unambiguous</mark> sign of <mark>racial progress</u></strong></mark>: one black household in six could be labeled financially comfortable.” He notes that <u><strong><mark>the black-white poverty gap “is</mark> much <mark>smaller</mark> now”</u></strong> than it was in the late 1960s. <u><strong><mark>Residential and marriage trends are</mark> also <mark>encouraging</u></strong></mark>. “The trend toward less residential segregation that emerged in the 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s continues in this century,” says Farley. Meanwhile, interracial marriage rates have increased dramatically. “At the time of the Kerner Report, about one black husband in 100 was enumerated with a white spouse. By 2006, about 14 percent of young black husbands were married to white women.”</p>

2NC

2NC AT: State Bad

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No nuclear terror

Mueller and Stewart 12 ]

Mueller and Stewart 12 [John Mueller is Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Mark G. Stewart is Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia, “The Terrorism Delusion”, International Security, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Summer 2012), pp. 81–110, Chetan] It seems increasingly likely that the official and popular reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been substantially deluded—massively disproportionate to the threat that al-Qaida has ever actually presented either as an international menace or as an inspiration or model to homegrown amateurs. Applying the extensive datasets on terrorism that have been generated over the last decades, we conclude that the chances of an American perishing at the hands of a terrorist at present rates is one in 3.5 million per year—well within the range of what risk analysts hold to be “acceptable risk.”40 Yet, despite the importance of responsibly communicating risk and despite the costs of irresponsible fearmongering, just about the only official who has ever openly put the threat presented by terrorism in some sort of context is New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who in 2007 pointed out that people should “get a life” and that they have a greater chance of being hit by lightning than of being a victim of terrorism—an observation that may be a bit off the mark but is roughly accurate.41 (It might be noted that, despite this unorthodox outburst, Bloomberg still managed to be re-elected two years later.) Indeed, much of the reaction to the September 11 attacks calls to mind Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of delusion, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” in which con artists convince the emperor’s court that they can weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns from the delicate silk and purest gold thread they are given. These stuffs, they further convincingly explain, have the property of remaining invisible to anyone who is unusually stupid or unfit for office. The emperor finds this quite appealing because not only will he have splendid new clothes, but he will be able to discover which of his officials are unfit for their posts—or in today’s terms, have lost their effectiveness. His courtiers, then, have great professional incentive to proclaim the stuffs on the loom to be absolutely magnificent even while mentally justifying this conclusion with the equivalent of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Unlike the emperor’s new clothes, terrorism does of course exist. Much of the reaction to the threat, however, has a distinctly delusionary quality. In Carle’s view, for example, the CIA has been “spinning in self-referential circles” in which “our premises were flawed, our facts used to fit our premises, our premises determined, and our fears justified our operational actions, in a self-contained process that arrived at a conclusion dramatically at odds with the facts.” The process “projected evil actions where there was, more often, muddled indirect and unavoidable complicity, or not much at all.” These “delusional ratiocinations,” he further observes, “were all sincerely, ardently held to have constituted a rigorous, rational process to identify terrorist threats” in which “the avalanche of reporting confirms its validity by its quantity,” in which there is a tendency to “reject incongruous or contradictory facts as erroneous, because they do not conform to accepted reality,” and in which potential dissenters are not-so-subtly reminded of career dangers: “Say what you want at meetings. It’s your decision. But you are doing yourself no favors.”42 Consider in this context the alarming and profoundly imaginary estimates of U.S. intelligence agencies in the year after the September 11 attacks that the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States was between 2,000 and 5,000.43 Terrorist cells, they told reporters, were “embedded in most U.S. cities with sizable Islamic communities,” usually in the “run-down sections,” and were “up and active” because electronic intercepts had found some of them to be “talking to each other.”44 Another account relayed the view of “experts” that Osama bin Laden was ready to unleash an “11,000 strong terrorist army” operating in more than sixty countries “controlled by a Mr. Big who is based in Europe,” but that intelligence had “no idea where thousands of these men are.”45 Similarly, FBI Director Robert Mueller assured the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11, 2003, that, although his agency had yet to identify even one al-Qaida cell in the United States, “I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing,” a sentence rendered in bold lettering in his prepared text. Moreover, he claimed that such unidentified entities presented “the greatest threat,” had “developed a support infrastructure” in the country, and had achieved both the “ability” and the “intent” to inflict “signi ficant casualties in the US with little warning.”46 Over the course of time, such essentially delusionary thinking has been internalized and institutionalized in a great many ways. For example, an extrapolation of delusionary proportions is evident in the common observation that, because terrorists were able, mostly by thuggish means, to crash airplanes into buildings, they might therefore be able to construct a nuclear bomb. Brian Jenkins has run an internet search to discover how often variants of the term “al-Qaida” appeared within ten words of “nuclear.” There were only seven hits in 1999 and eleven in 2000, but the number soared to 1,742 in 2001 and to 2,931 in 2002.47 By 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was assuring a congressional committee that what keeps every senior government leader awake at night is “the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”48 Few of the sleepless, it seems, found much solace in the fact that an al-Qaida computer seized in Afghanistan in 2001 indicated that the group’s budget for research on weapons of mass destruction (almost all of it focused on primitive chemical weapons work) was $2,000 to $4,000.49 In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, officials now have many more al-Qaida computers, and nothing in their content appears to suggest that the group had the time or inclination, let alone the money, to set up and staff a uranium-seizing operation, as well as a fancy, super-high-technology facility to fabricate a bomb. This is a process that requires trusting corrupted foreign collaborators and other criminals, obtaining and transporting highly guarded material, setting up a machine shop staffed with top scientists and technicians, and rolling the heavy, cumbersome, and untested finished product into position to be detonated by a skilled crew—all while attracting no attention from outsiders.50 If the miscreants in the American cases have been unable to create and set off even the simplest conventional bombs, it stands to reason that none of them were very close to creating, or having anything to do with, nuclear weapons—or for that matter biological, radiological, or chemical ones. In fact, with perhaps one exception, none seems to have even dreamed of the prospect; and the exception is José Padilla (case 2), who apparently mused at one point about creating a dirty bomb—a device that would disperse radiation—or even possibly an atomic one. His idea about isotope separation was to put uranium into a pail and then to make himself into a human centrifuge by swinging the pail around in great arcs.51 Even if a weapon were made abroad and then brought into the United States, its detonation would require individuals in-country with the capacity to receive and handle the complicated weapons and then to set them off. Thus far, the talent pool appears, to put mildly, very thin.

<h4>No nuclear terror</h4><p><strong>Mueller and Stewart 12</strong> [John Mueller is Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Mark G. Stewart is Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia, “The Terrorism Delusion”, International Security, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Summer 2012), pp. 81–110, Chetan<u><strong>] </p><p></u></strong>It seems increasingly likely that <u><strong>the official and popular <mark>reaction to</u></strong></mark> the terrorist attacks of <u><strong><mark>September 11</u></strong></mark>, 2001, <u><strong><mark>has been substantially deluded</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong><mark>massively disproportionate to the threat</mark> that al-Qaida has ever actually presented</u></strong> either as an international menace or as an inspiration or model to homegrown amateurs. <u><strong><mark>Applying</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>extensive datasets</mark> on terrorism</u></strong> that have been generated over the last decades, <u><strong><mark>we conclude</u></strong></mark> that the chances of an American perishing at the hands of a terrorist at present rates is one in 3.5 million per year—well within the range of what risk analysts hold to be “acceptable risk.”40 Yet, despite the importance of responsibly communicating risk and despite the costs of<u><strong> <mark>irresponsible fearmongering</mark>,</u></strong> just about the only official who has ever openly put the threat presented by terrorism in some sort of context is New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who in 2007 pointed out that <u><strong><mark>people</u></strong></mark> should “get a life” and that they <u><strong><mark>have a greater chance of being hit by lightning</mark> than of being a victim of terrorism—</u></strong>an observation that may be a bit off the mark but is roughly accurate.41 (It might be noted that, despite this unorthodox outburst, Bloomberg still managed to be re-elected two years later.) Indeed, much of the reaction to the September 11 attacks calls to mind Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of delusion, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” in which con artists convince the emperor’s court that they can weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns from the delicate silk and purest gold thread they are given. These stuffs, they further convincingly explain, have the property of remaining invisible to anyone who is unusually stupid or unfit for office. The emperor finds this quite appealing because not only will he have splendid new clothes, but he will be able to discover which of his officials are unfit for their posts—or in today’s terms, have lost their effectiveness. His courtiers, then, have great professional incentive to proclaim the stuffs on the loom to be absolutely magnificent even while mentally justifying this conclusion with the equivalent of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Unlike the emperor’s new clothes<u><strong>, terrorism does of course exist. Much of the reaction to the threat, however, has a distinctly delusionary quality.</u></strong> In Carle’s view, for example, the CIA has been “spinning in self-referential circles” in which “<u><strong>our premises were flawed</u></strong>, our facts used to fit our premises, our premises determined, and <u><strong><mark>our fears justified our operational actions</mark>, in a</u></strong> self-contained <u><strong>process that arrived at a conclusion dramatically at odds with the facts.”</u></strong> The process “projected evil actions where there was, more often, muddled indirect and unavoidable complicity, or not much at all.” These “delusional ratiocinations,” he further observes, “were all sincerely, ardently held to have constituted a rigorous, rational process to identify terrorist threats” in which “the avalanche of reporting confirms its validity by its quantity,” in which there is a tendency to “reject incongruous or contradictory facts as erroneous, because they do not conform to accepted reality,” and in which potential dissenters are not-so-subtly reminded of career dangers: “Say what you want at meetings. It’s your decision. But you are doing yourself no favors.”42 Consider in this context the alarming and profoundly imaginary estimates of U.S. intelligence agencies in the year after the September 11 attacks that the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States was between 2,000 and 5,000.43 Terrorist cells, they told reporters, were “embedded in most U.S. cities with sizable Islamic communities,” usually in the “run-down sections,” and were “up and active” because electronic intercepts had found some of them to be “talking to each other.”44 Another account relayed the view of “experts” that Osama bin Laden was ready to unleash an “11,000 strong terrorist army” operating in more than sixty countries “controlled by a Mr. Big who is based in Europe,” but that intelligence had “no idea where thousands of these men are.”45 Similarly, <u><strong><mark>FBI Director</u></strong></mark> Robert Mueller <u><strong><mark>assured</mark> the</u></strong> Senate <u><strong>Intelligence Committee</u></strong> on February 11, 2003, <u><strong>that, although <mark>his agency had yet to identify even one al-Qaida cell in the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates, “I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing,</u></strong>” a sentence rendered in bold lettering in his prepared text. Moreover, <u><strong>he claimed that such unidentified entities presented “the greatest threat,”</u></strong> had “developed a support infrastructure” in the country, and had achieved both the “ability” and the “intent” to inflict “signi ficant casualties in the US with little warning.”46 Over the course of time, <u><strong><mark>such</mark> essentially <mark>delusionary thinking has been internalized</mark> and institutionalized in a great many ways</u></strong>. For example, <u><strong>an <mark>extrapolation of delusionary proportions is evident</mark> in the common observation that, <mark>because terrorists were able</mark>, mostly by thuggish means, <mark>to crash airplanes </mark>into buildings,<mark> they might</mark> therefore be able to <mark>construct a </mark>nuclear <mark>bomb</mark>. </u></strong>Brian Jenkins has run an internet search to discover how often variants of the term “al-Qaida” appeared within ten words of “nuclear.” There were only seven hits in 1999 and eleven in 2000, but the number soared to 1,742 in 2001 and to 2,931 in 2002.47 By 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was assuring a congressional committee that what keeps every senior government leader awake at night is “the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”48 Few of the sleepless, it seems, found much solace in the fact that an al-Qaida computer seized in Afghanistan in 2001 indicated that the group’s budget for research on weapons of mass destruction (almost all of it focused on primitive chemical weapons work) was $2,000 to $4,000.49 <u><strong>In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, <mark>officials </mark>now <mark>have </mark>many more <mark>al-Qaida computers, and nothing</mark> in their content appears to <mark>suggest</mark> that <mark>the group had the </mark>time or <mark>inclination</mark>, let alone the <mark>money, to set up </mark>and staff <mark>a uranium-</mark>seizing <mark>operation, as well as a</mark> fancy, super-high-technology <mark>facility to fabricate a bomb. This</mark> is a process that <mark>requires trusting </mark>corrupted foreign <mark>collaborators</mark> and other criminals, obtaining and<mark> transporting highly guarded material, setting up a machine shop</mark> staffed <mark>with top scientists</mark> and technicians, <mark>and rolling the</mark> heavy, cumbersome, and <mark>untested</mark> finished <mark>product into position to be detonated</mark> by a skilled crew—all <mark>while attracting no attention from outsiders</mark>.</u></strong>50 If the miscreants in the American cases have been unable to create and set off even the simplest conventional bombs, it stands to reason that <u><strong><mark>none of them were very close to</mark> creating, or <mark>having anything to do with, nuclear weapons—or for that matter biological</mark>, radiological, <mark>or chemical ones</u></strong></mark>. In fact, with perhaps one exception, <u><strong><mark>none seems to have even dreamed of the prospect</mark>;</u></strong> and the exception is José Padilla (case 2), who apparently mused at one point about creating a dirty bomb—a device that would disperse radiation—or even possibly an atomic one. His idea about isotope separation was to put uranium into a pail and then to make himself into a human centrifuge by swinging the pail around in great arcs.51<u><strong> <mark>Even if a weapon were made</mark> abroad <mark>and then brought into the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates, <mark>its detonation would require individuals</mark> in-country <mark>with the capacity to</mark> receive and <mark>handle the complicated weapons and then to set them off</u></strong>.</mark> Thus far, <u><strong><mark>the talent pool appears</u></strong></mark>, to put mildly, <u><strong><mark>very thin</mark>.</p><p></u></strong> </p>

2NR

Link Debate

2NC No Terror Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

EPA regulations key to solve warming—impact’s extinction.

McCabe 14 (Janet McCabe is the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation for the EPA – taken from congressional testimony, “Opening Statement of Janet McCabe; Acting Assistant Administrator; Office of Air and Radiation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” June 19 2014, http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-McCabe-EP-EPA-Carbon-Dioxide-Regulations-Power-Plants-2014-6-19.pdf)//JHH

McCabe 6-19-2014 (Janet McCabe is the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation for the EPA – taken from congressional testimony, “Opening Statement of Janet McCabe; Acting Assistant Administrator; Office of Air and Radiation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” June 19 2014, http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-McCabe-EP-EPA-Carbon-Dioxide-Regulations-Power-Plants-2014-6-19.pdf)//JHH

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It already threatens human health and welfare and economic well- being, and if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the planet. The science is clear. The risks are clear. And the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act. EPA’s proposed Clean Power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants. Together these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens uses a national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated. And second, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges It threatens human health and welfare left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the planet. The science is clear. the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act EPA’s proposed Clean Power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants. a national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It already threatens human health and welfare and economic well- being, and if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. The science is clear. The risks are clear. And the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act. That’s why President Obama laid out a Climate Action Plan and why on June 2 the Administrator signed the proposed Clean Power Plan—to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient nation, and lead the world in our global climate fight. Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. While the United States has limits in place for the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are currently no national limits on carbon pollution levels. EPA’s proposed Clean Power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants. Together these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens, including our children. The Clean Power Plan is a critical step forward. Our plan is built on advice and information from states, cities, businesses, utilities, and thousands of people about the actions they are already taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy sources by doing two things: First, it uses a national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated. And second, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals.

<h4>EPA regulations key to solve warming—impact’s extinction.</h4><p><strong>McCabe</strong> 6-19-20<strong>14<u> (Janet McCabe is the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation for the EPA – taken from congressional testimony, “Opening Statement of Janet McCabe; Acting Assistant Administrator; Office of Air and Radiation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” June 19 2014, http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-McCabe-EP-EPA-Carbon-Dioxide-Regulations-Power-Plants-2014-6-19.pdf)//JHH</p><p><mark>Climate change is one of the greatest challenges</mark> of our time. <mark>It</mark> already <mark>threatens human health and welfare</mark> and economic well- being, and if <mark>left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on</u></strong></mark> the United States and <u><strong><mark>the planet. The science is clear.</mark> The risks are clear. And <mark>the high costs of climate inaction are clear. We must act</mark>.</u></strong> That’s why President Obama laid out a Climate Action Plan and why on June 2 the Administrator signed the proposed Clean Power Plan—to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient nation, and lead the world in our global climate fight. Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. While the United States has limits in place for the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are currently no national limits on carbon pollution levels. <u><strong><mark>EPA’s proposed Clean Power plan will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants from existing power plants.</mark> Together these reductions will provide important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens</u></strong>, including our children. The Clean Power Plan is a critical step forward. Our plan is built on advice and information from states, cities, businesses, utilities, and thousands of people about the actions they are already taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Plan aims to cut energy waste and leverage cleaner energy sources by doing two things: First, it <u><strong>uses <mark>a national framework to set achievable state-specific goals to cut carbon pollution per megawatt hour of electricity generated.</mark> And second, it empowers the states to chart their own, customized path to meet their goals.</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Progressivism is possible, and it depends on effective decision-making, so T turns the case

Clark 95

Clark 95 Clark, professor of law – Catholic University, ‘95¶ (Leroy D., 73 Denv. U.L. Rev. 23)

I must address the thesis that there has been no progress for blacks Blacks will never gain full equality, and "eve herculean efforts will produce no more than temporary 'peaks of progress Progress has never been "automatic if that refers to some natural process Nor has progress ever been linear" in terms of unvarying improvement, because combatants on either side of the struggle have varied over time in their energies, resources, capacities, and quality of their plans. With these qualifications, and a long view of history, blacks achieved two profound and qualitatively different leaps forward toward equality end of slavery and the Civil Rights Act despite open and covert resistance black progress has never been shoved back, in a qualitative sense, to the powerlessness and abuse of periods preceding

I must address the thesis that there has been no progress for blacks Progress has never been "automatic, Nor linear because combatants on either side have varied in their energies, resources, capacities, and quality of plans. With qualifications, and a long view of history, blacks achieved profound and qualitatively different leaps end of slavery, and the Civil Rights Act despite resistance, black progress has never been shoved back to periods preceding

I must now address the thesis that there has been no evolutionary progress for blacks in America. Professor Bell concludes that blacks improperly read history if we believe, as Americans in general believe, that progress--racial, in the case of blacks--is "linear and evolutionary." n49 According to Professor Bell, the "American dogma of automatic progress" has never applied to blacks. n50 Blacks will never gain full equality, and "even those herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than temporary 'peaks of progress,' short-lived victories that slide into irrelevance." n51¶ Progress toward reducing racial discrimination and subordination has never been "automatic," if that refers to some natural and inexorable process without struggle. Nor has progress ever been strictly "linear" in terms of unvarying year by year improvement, because the combatants on either side of the equality struggle have varied over time in their energies, resources, capacities, and the quality of their plans. Moreover, neither side could predict or control all of the variables which accompany progress or non-progress; some factors, like World War II, occurred in the international arena, and were not exclusively under American control.¶ With these qualifications, and a long view of history, blacks and their white allies achieved two profound and qualitatively different leaps forward toward the goal of equality: the end of slavery, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moreover, despite open and, lately, covert resistance, black progress has never been shoved back, in a qualitative sense, to the powerlessness and abuse of periods preceding these leaps forward. n52

<h4>Progressivism is possible, and it depends on <u>effective decision-making</u><strong>, so T turns the case</h4><p>Clark 95</p><p></strong>Clark, professor of law – Catholic University, ‘95¶ (Leroy D., 73 Denv. U.L. Rev. 23) </p><p><u><strong><mark>I must</u></strong></mark> now <u><strong><mark>address the thesis that there has been no</u></strong></mark> evolutionary <u><strong><mark>progress for blacks</u></strong></mark> in America. Professor Bell concludes that blacks improperly read history if we believe, as Americans in general believe, that progress--racial, in the case of blacks--is "linear and evolutionary." n49 According to Professor Bell, the "American dogma of automatic progress" has never applied to blacks. n50 <u><strong>Blacks will never gain full equality, and "eve</u></strong>n those <u><strong>herculean efforts</u></strong> we hail as successful <u><strong>will produce no more than temporary 'peaks of progress</u></strong>,' short-lived victories that slide into irrelevance." n51¶ <u><strong><mark>Progress</u></strong></mark> toward reducing racial discrimination and subordination <u><strong><mark>has never been "automatic</u></strong>,</mark>" <u><strong>if that refers to some natural</u></strong> and inexorable <u><strong>process</u></strong> without struggle. <u><strong><mark>Nor</mark> has progress ever been</u></strong> strictly "<u><strong><mark>linear</mark>" in terms of unvarying</u></strong> year by year <u><strong>improvement, <mark>because</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>combatants on either</u></strong> <u><strong>side</mark> of the</u></strong> equality <u><strong>struggle <mark>have varied</mark> over time <mark>in their energies, resources, capacities, and</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>quality of</mark> their <mark>plans.</u></strong></mark> Moreover, neither side could predict or control all of the variables which accompany progress or non-progress; some factors, like World War II, occurred in the international arena, and were not exclusively under American control.¶ <u><strong><mark>With</mark> these <mark>qualifications, and a long view of history, blacks</u></strong></mark> and their white allies <u><strong><mark>achieved</mark> two <mark>profound and qualitatively different leaps</mark> forward</u></strong> <u><strong>toward</u></strong> the goal of <u><strong>equality</u></strong>: the <u><strong><mark>end of slavery</u></strong>, <u><strong>and the Civil Rights Act</u></strong></mark> of 1964. Moreover, <u><strong><mark>despite</mark> open and</u></strong>, lately, <u><strong>covert <mark>resistance</u></strong>, <u><strong>black progress has never been shoved back</mark>, in a qualitative sense, <mark>to</mark> the powerlessness and abuse of</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>periods preceding</u></strong></mark> these leaps forward. n52</p>

2NC

2NC AT: State Bad

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The alternative is to challenge the neoliberal assumptions of the 1AC and REFUSE to be blackmailed by the states attempt at reform.

Graeber 13 , AB)

Graeber 13 (David Graeber is an American anthropologist, political activist and author, “A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse”, http://www.thebaffler.com/past/practical_utopians_guide, AB)

Revolutions were seizures of power by forces to transform the political, social, and economic system in the country we live in an age when if rebel armies do come sweeping into a city, or mass uprisings overthrow a dictator, it’s unlikely to have any such implications when profound social transformation does occur it’s likely to take an entirely different form contemporary revolutionaries rarely think they can bring them into being by some modern-day equivalent of storming the Bastille.¶ Revolutions are planetary phenomena they transform basic assumptions about what politics is ultimately about. ideas that had been considered veritably lunatic fringe quickly become the accepted currency of debate. Before the French Revolution, the ideas that change is good, that government policy is the proper way to manage it, and that governments derive their authority from an entity called “the people” were considered the sorts of things one might hear from crackpots and demagogues The revolution whether it took the form it did in China, of a revolt by students and young cadres supporting Mao’s call for a Cultural Revolution; or in Berkeley and New York, where it marked an alliance of students, dropouts, and cultural rebels; or even in Paris, where it was an alliance of students and workers—was a rebellion against bureaucracy, conformity, or anything that fettered the human imagination, a project for the revolutionizing of not just political or economic life, but every aspect of human existence. As a result, in most cases, the rebels didn’t even try to take over the apparatus of state; they saw that apparatus as itself the problem It’s fashionable nowadays to view the social movements of the late sixties as an embarrassing failure .¶ Is it possible that this preemptive attitude toward social movements What if those currently running the system are—consciously or unconsciously obsessed by the prospect of revolutionary social movements once again challenging prevailing common sense?¶ In most of the world, the last thirty years has come to be known as the age of neoliberalism But global economic performance over the last thirty years has been decidedly mediocre If, on the other hand, we stop taking world leaders at their word and instead think of neoliberalism as a political project, it suddenly looks spectacularly effective in convincing the world that capitalism—and not just capitalism, but exactly the financialized, semifeudal capitalism we happen to have right now—is the only viable economic system. most of the economic innovations of the last thirty years make more sense politically than economically. Eliminating guaranteed life employment for precarious contracts doesn’t really create a more effective workforce, but it is extraordinarily effective in destroying unions and otherwise depoliticizing labor. The same can be said of endlessly increasing working hours. No one has much time for political activity if they’re working sixty-hour weeks.¶ whenever there is a choice between one option that makes capitalism seem the only possible economic system, and another that would actually make capitalism a more viable economic system, neoliberalism means always choosing the former. as a result of putting virtually all their efforts in one political basket, we are left in the bizarre situation of watching the capitalist system crumbling before our very eyes, at just the moment everyone had finally concluded no other system would be possible.¶ Normally, when you challenge the conventional wisdom—that the current economic and political system is the only possible one—the first reaction you are likely to get is a demand for a detailed architectural blueprint of how an alternative system would work, down to the nature of its financial instruments, energy supplies, and policies of sewer maintenance. Next, you are likely to be asked for a detailed program of how this system will be brought into existence Historically, this is ridiculous. When has social change ever happened according to someone’s blueprint? It’s not as if a small circle of visionaries in Renaissance Florence conceived of something they called “capitalism,” figured out the details of how the stock exchange and factories would someday work, and then put in place a program to bring their visions into reality. the idea is so absurd we might well ask ourselves how it ever occurred to us to imagine this is how change happens to begin We cannot really conceive of the problems that will arise when we start trying to build a free society. There are innumerable X-factors.¶ The most obvious is technology. it’s absurd to imagine activists in Renaissance Italy coming up with a model for a stock exchange and factories—what happened was based on all sorts of technologies that they couldn’t have anticipated, but which in part only emerged because society began to move in the direction that it did. I am less interested in deciding what sort of economic system we should have in a free society than in creating the means by which people can make such decisions for themselves. What might a revolution in common sense actually look like? Labor should be renegotiated. Submitting oneself to labor discipline does not make one a better person. it’s only when we reject the idea that such labor is virtuous in itself that we can start to ask what is virtuous about labor A renegotiated definition of productivity should make it easier to reimagine the very nature of what work is What would remain is the kind of work only human beings will ever be able to do: those forms of caring and helping labor What would happen if we stopped acting as if the primordial form of work is laboring at a production line, or wheat field, or iron foundry, or even in an office cubicle, and instead started from a mother, a teacher, or a caregiver? We might be forced to conclude that the real business of human life is not contributing toward something called “the economy” but the fact that we are all, and have always been, projects of mutual creation.¶ At the moment, probably the most pressing need is simply to slow down the engines of productivity you consider the overall state of the world, the conclusion becomes obvious. We seem to be facing two insoluble problems. On the one hand, we have witnessed an endless series of global debt crises, which have grown only more and more severe since the seventies, to the point where the overall burden of debt—sovereign, municipal, corporate, personal—is obviously unsustainable. On the other, we have an ecological crisis, a galloping process of climate change that is threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war. The two might ultimately are the same even current levels are clearly unsustainable. They are precisely what’s destroying the planet, at an ever-increasing pace.¶ At the moment, the planet might seem poised more for a series of unprecedented catastrophes than for the kind of broad moral and political transformation that would open the way to such a world. But if we are going to have any chance of heading off those catastrophes, we’re going to have to change our ways of thinking as the events of 2011 reveal, the age of revolutions is by no means over. The human imagination stubbornly refuses to die. And the moment any significant number of people simultaneously shake off the shackles that have been placed on that collective imagination, even our most deeply inculcated assumptions about what is and is not politically possible have been known to crumble overnight.

Revolutions are planetary phenomena they transform basic assumptions about politics ideas that had been considered lunatic fringe become the accepted currency of debate the ideas that government policy is proper and governments derive authority from the people were considered things one might hear from crackpots The revolution whether it took the form in China of a revolt by students or Berkeley where it marked an alliance of students or Paris where it was a rebellion against bureaucracy, conformity anything that fettered the human imagination a project for the revolutionizing every aspect of human existence rebels didn’t try to take the apparatus of state that apparatus as itself the problem those running the system are obsessed by the prospect of revolutionary movements the last thirty years has come to be known as the age of neoliberalism But global economic performance has been decidedly mediocre. If, we think of neoliberalism as a political project, it suddenly looks spectacularly effective in convincing the world that capitalism is the only viable system we are left in the bizarre situation of watching the capitalist system crumbling at just the moment everyone concluded no other system would be possible when you challenge conventional wisdom the first reaction you get is a demand for a detailed architectural blueprint of an alt Historically, this is ridiculous. It’s not as if visionaries in Florence conceived of capitalism,” figured out the details and then put in place a program I am less interested in deciding what economic system we should have than in creating the means by which people can make such decisions for themselves. What might a revolution in common sense look like? Labor should be renegotiated it’s only when we reject the idea that labor is virtuous in itself we can start to ask what is virtuous about labor. What would remain is forms of caring and helping labor we stop acting as if the primordial form of work is laboring at a production line, and instead started from a mother, a teacher, or a caregiver the real business of human life is not contributing toward the economy but the fact that we are all, projects of mutual creation. At the moment the most pressing need is to slow the engines of productivity we witness an endless series of debt crises, an ecological crisis galloping climate change threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war. current levels are clearly unsustainable At the moment, the planet might seem poised more for a series of unprecedented catastrophes than broad moral and political transformation if we are going to have any chance of heading off those catastrophes, we’re going to have to change our ways of thinking the age of revolutions is by no means over. the moment any significant number of people simultaneously shake off the shackles that have been placed on that collective imagination, even our most deeply inculcated assumptions about what is and is not politically possible crumble overnight

What is a revolution? We used to think we knew. Revolutions were seizures of power by popular forces aiming to transform the very nature of the political, social, and economic system in the country in which the revolution took place, usually according to some visionary dream of a just society. Nowadays, we live in an age when, if rebel armies do come sweeping into a city, or mass uprisings overthrow a dictator, it’s unlikely to have any such implications; when profound social transformation does occur—as with, say, the rise of feminism—it’s likely to take an entirely different form. It’s not that revolutionary dreams aren’t out there. But contemporary revolutionaries rarely think they can bring them into being by some modern-day equivalent of storming the Bastille.¶ ¶ At moments like this, it generally pays to go back to the history one already knows and ask: Were revolutions ever really what we thought them to be? For me, the person who has asked this most effectively is the great world historian Immanuel Wallerstein. He argues that for the last quarter millennium or so, revolutions have consisted above all of planetwide transformations of political common sense.¶ Already by the time of the French Revolution, Wallerstein notes, there was a single world market, and increasingly a single world political system as well, dominated by the huge colonial empires. As a result, the storming of the Bastille in Paris could well end up having effects on Denmark, or even Egypt, just as profound as on France itself—in some cases, even more so. Hence he speaks of the “world revolution of 1789,” followed by the “world revolution of 1848,” which saw revolutions break out almost simultaneously in fifty countries, from Wallachia to Brazil. In no case did the revolutionaries succeed in taking power, but afterward, institutions inspired by the French Revolution—notably, universal systems of primary education—were put in place pretty much everywhere. Similarly, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was a world revolution ultimately responsible for the New Deal and European welfare states as much as for Soviet communism. The last in the series was the world revolution of 1968—which, much like 1848, broke out almost everywhere, from China to Mexico, seized power nowhere, but nonetheless changed everything. This was a revolution against state bureaucracies, and for the inseparability of personal and political liberation, whose most lasting legacy will likely be the birth of modern feminism.¶ A quarter of the American population is now engaged in “guard labor”—defending property, supervising work, or otherwise keeping their fellow Americans in line.¶ Revolutions are thus planetary phenomena. But there is more. What they really do is transform basic assumptions about what politics is ultimately about. In the wake of a revolution, ideas that had been considered veritably lunatic fringe quickly become the accepted currency of debate. Before the French Revolution, the ideas that change is good, that government policy is the proper way to manage it, and that governments derive their authority from an entity called “the people” were considered the sorts of things one might hear from crackpots and demagogues, or at best a handful of freethinking intellectuals who spend their time debating in cafés. A generation later, even the stuffiest magistrates, priests, and headmasters had to at least pay lip service to these ideas. Before long, we had reached the situation we are in today: that it’s necessary to lay out the terms for anyone to even notice they are there. They’ve become common sense, the very grounds of political discussion.¶ Until 1968, most world revolutions really just introduced practical refinements: an expanded franchise, universal primary education, the welfare state. The world revolution of 1968, in contrast—whether it took the form it did in China, of a revolt by students and young cadres supporting Mao’s call for a Cultural Revolution; or in Berkeley and New York, where it marked an alliance of students, dropouts, and cultural rebels; or even in Paris, where it was an alliance of students and workers—was a rebellion against bureaucracy, conformity, or anything that fettered the human imagination, a project for the revolutionizing of not just political or economic life, but every aspect of human existence. As a result, in most cases, the rebels didn’t even try to take over the apparatus of state; they saw that apparatus as itself the problem.¶ It’s fashionable nowadays to view the social movements of the late sixties as an embarrassing failure. A case can be made for that view. It’s certainly true that in the political sphere, the immediate beneficiary of any widespread change in political common sense—a prioritizing of ideals of individual liberty, imagination, and desire; a hatred of bureaucracy; and suspicions about the role of government—was the political Right. Above all, the movements of the sixties allowed for the mass revival of free market doctrines that had largely been abandoned since the nineteenth century. It’s no coincidence that the same generation who, as teenagers, made the Cultural Revolution in China was the one who, as forty-year-olds, presided over the introduction of capitalism. Since the eighties, “freedom” has come to mean “the market,” and “the market” has come to be seen as identical with capitalism—even, ironically, in places like China, which had known sophisticated markets for thousands of years, but rarely anything that could be described as capitalism.¶ The ironies are endless. While the new free market ideology has framed itself above all as a rejection of bureaucracy, it has, in fact, been responsible for the first administrative system that has operated on a planetary scale, with its endless layering of public and private bureaucracies: the IMF, World Bank, WTO, trade organizations, financial institutions, transnational corporations, NGOs. This is precisely the system that has imposed free market orthodoxy, and opened the world to financial pillage, under the watchful aegis of American arms. It only made sense that the first attempt to recreate a global revolutionary movement, the Global Justice Movement that peaked between 1998 and 2003, was effectively a rebellion against the rule of that very planetary bureaucracy.¶ Future Stop¶ In retrospect, though, I think that later historians will conclude that the legacy of the sixties revolution was deeper than we now imagine, and that the triumph of capitalist markets and their various planetary administrators and enforcers—which seemed so epochal and permanent in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991—was, in fact, far shallower.¶ I’ll take an obvious example. One often hears that antiwar protests in the late sixties and early seventies were ultimately failures, since they did not appreciably speed up the U.S. withdrawal from Indochina. But afterward, those controlling U.S. foreign policy were so anxious about being met with similar popular unrest—and even more, with unrest within the military itself, which was genuinely falling apart by the early seventies—that they refused to commit U.S. forces to any major ground conflict for almost thirty years. It took 9/11, an attack that led to thousands of civilian deaths on U.S. soil, to fully overcome the notorious “Vietnam syndrome”—and even then, the war planners made an almost obsessive effort to ensure the wars were effectively protest-proof. Propaganda was incessant, the media was brought on board, experts provided exact calculations on body bag counts (how many U.S. casualties it would take to stir mass opposition), and the rules of engagement were carefully written to keep the count below that.¶ The problem was that since those rules of engagement ensured that thousands of women, children, and old people would end up “collateral damage” in order to minimize deaths and injuries to U.S. soldiers, this meant that in Iraq and Afghanistan, intense hatred for the occupying forces would pretty much guarantee that the United States couldn’t obtain its military objectives. And remarkably, the war planners seemed to be aware of this. It didn’t matter. They considered it far more important to prevent effective opposition at home than to actually win the war. It’s as if American forces in Iraq were ultimately defeated by the ghost of Abbie Hoffman.¶ Clearly, an antiwar movement in the sixties that is still tying the hands of U.S. military planners in 2012 can hardly be considered a failure. But it raises an intriguing question: What happens when the creation of that sense of failure, of the complete ineffectiveness of political action against the system, becomes the chief objective of those in power?¶ ¶ The thought first occurred to me when participating in the IMF actions in Washington, D.C., in 2002. Coming on the heels of 9/11, we were relatively few and ineffective, the number of police overwhelming. There was no sense that we could succeed in shutting down the meetings. Most of us left feeling vaguely depressed. It was only a few days later, when I talked to someone who had friends attending the meetings, that I learned we had in fact shut them down: the police had introduced such stringent security measures, canceling half the events, that most of the actual meetings had been carried out online. In other words, the government had decided it was more important for protesters to walk away feeling like failures than for the IMF meetings to take place. If you think about it, they afforded protesters extraordinary importance.¶ Is it possible that this preemptive attitude toward social movements, the designing of wars and trade summits in such a way that preventing effective opposition is considered more of a priority than the success of the war or summit itself, really reflects a more general principle? What if those currently running the system, most of whom witnessed the unrest of the sixties firsthand as impressionable youngsters, are—consciously or unconsciously (and I suspect it’s more conscious than not)—obsessed by the prospect of revolutionary social movements once again challenging prevailing common sense?¶ It would explain a lot. In most of the world, the last thirty years has come to be known as the age of neoliberalism—one dominated by a revival of the long-since-abandoned nineteenth-century creed that held that free markets and human freedom in general were ultimately the same thing. Neoliberalism has always been wracked by a central paradox. It declares that economic imperatives are to take priority over all others. Politics itself is just a matter of creating the conditions for growing the economy by allowing the magic of the marketplace to do its work. All other hopes and dreams—of equality, of security—are to be sacrificed for the primary goal of economic productivity. But global economic performance over the last thirty years has been decidedly mediocre. With one or two spectacular exceptions (notably China, which significantly ignored most neoliberal prescriptions), growth rates have been far below what they were in the days of the old-fashioned, state-directed, welfare-state-oriented capitalism of the fifties, sixties, and even seventies. By its own standards, then, the project was already a colossal failure even before the 2008 collapse.¶ If, on the other hand, we stop taking world leaders at their word and instead think of neoliberalism as a political project, it suddenly looks spectacularly effective. The politicians, CEOs, trade bureaucrats, and so forth who regularly meet at summits like Davos or the G20 may have done a miserable job in creating a world capitalist economy that meets the needs of a majority of the world’s inhabitants (let alone produces hope, happiness, security, or meaning), but they have succeeded magnificently in convincing the world that capitalism—and not just capitalism, but exactly the financialized, semifeudal capitalism we happen to have right now—is the only viable economic system. If you think about it, this is a remarkable accomplishment.¶ Debt cancellation would make the perfect revolutionary demand.¶ How did they pull it off? The preemptive attitude toward social movements is clearly a part of it; under no conditions can alternatives, or anyone proposing alternatives, be seen to experience success. This helps explain the almost unimaginable investment in “security systems” of one sort or another: the fact that the United States, which lacks any major rival, spends more on its military and intelligence than it did during the Cold War, along with the almost dazzling accumulation of private security agencies, intelligence agencies, militarized police, guards, and mercenaries. Then there are the propaganda organs, including a massive media industry that did not even exist before the sixties, celebrating police. Mostly these systems do not so much attack dissidents directly as contribute to a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, life insecurity, and simple despair that makes any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy. Yet these security systems are also extremely expensive. Some economists estimate that a quarter of the American population is now engaged in “guard labor” of one sort or another—defending property, supervising work, or otherwise keeping their fellow Americans in line. Economically, most of this disciplinary apparatus is pure deadweight.¶ In fact, most of the economic innovations of the last thirty years make more sense politically than economically. Eliminating guaranteed life employment for precarious contracts doesn’t really create a more effective workforce, but it is extraordinarily effective in destroying unions and otherwise depoliticizing labor. The same can be said of endlessly increasing working hours. No one has much time for political activity if they’re working sixty-hour weeks.¶ It does often seem that, whenever there is a choice between one option that makes capitalism seem the only possible economic system, and another that would actually make capitalism a more viable economic system, neoliberalism means always choosing the former. The combined result is a relentless campaign against the human imagination. Or, to be more precise: imagination, desire, individual creativity, all those things that were to be liberated in the last great world revolution, were to be contained strictly in the domain of consumerism, or perhaps in the virtual realities of the Internet. In all other realms they were to be strictly banished. We are talking about the murdering of dreams, the imposition of an apparatus of hopelessness, designed to squelch any sense of an alternative future. Yet as a result of putting virtually all their efforts in one political basket, we are left in the bizarre situation of watching the capitalist system crumbling before our very eyes, at just the moment everyone had finally concluded no other system would be possible.¶ Work It Out, Slow It Down¶ Normally, when you challenge the conventional wisdom—that the current economic and political system is the only possible one—the first reaction you are likely to get is a demand for a detailed architectural blueprint of how an alternative system would work, down to the nature of its financial instruments, energy supplies, and policies of sewer maintenance. Next, you are likely to be asked for a detailed program of how this system will be brought into existence. Historically, this is ridiculous. When has social change ever happened according to someone’s blueprint? It’s not as if a small circle of visionaries in Renaissance Florence conceived of something they called “capitalism,” figured out the details of how the stock exchange and factories would someday work, and then put in place a program to bring their visions into reality. In fact, the idea is so absurd we might well ask ourselves how it ever occurred to us to imagine this is how change happens to begin.¶ This is not to say there’s anything wrong with utopian visions. Or even blueprints. They just need to be kept in their place. The theorist Michael Albert has worked out a detailed plan for how a modern economy could run without money on a democratic, participatory basis. I think this is an important achievement—not because I think that exact model could ever be instituted, in exactly the form in which he describes it, but because it makes it impossible to say that such a thing is inconceivable. Still, such models can be only thought experiments. We cannot really conceive of the problems that will arise when we start trying to build a free society. What now seem likely to be the thorniest problems might not be problems at all; others that never even occurred to us might prove devilishly difficult. There are innumerable X-factors.¶ The most obvious is technology. This is the reason it’s so absurd to imagine activists in Renaissance Italy coming up with a model for a stock exchange and factories—what happened was based on all sorts of technologies that they couldn’t have anticipated, but which in part only emerged because society began to move in the direction that it did. This might explain, for instance, why so many of the more compelling visions of an anarchist society have been produced by science fiction writers (Ursula K. Le Guin, Starhawk, Kim Stanley Robinson). In fiction, you are at least admitting the technological aspect is guesswork.¶ Myself, I am less interested in deciding what sort of economic system we should have in a free society than in creating the means by which people can make such decisions for themselves. What might a revolution in common sense actually look like? I don’t know, but I can think of any number of pieces of conventional wisdom that surely need challenging if we are to create any sort of viable free society. I’ve already explored one—the nature of money and debt—in some detail in a recent book. I even suggested a debt jubilee, a general cancellation, in part just to bring home that money is really just a human product, a set of promises, that by its nature can always be renegotiated.¶ ¶ Labor, similarly, should be renegotiated. Submitting oneself to labor discipline—supervision, control, even the self-control of the ambitious self-employed—does not make one a better person. In most really important ways, it probably makes one worse. To undergo it is a misfortune that at best is sometimes necessary. Yet it’s only when we reject the idea that such labor is virtuous in itself that we can start to ask what is virtuous about labor. To which the answer is obvious. Labor is virtuous if it helps others. A renegotiated definition of productivity should make it easier to reimagine the very nature of what work is, since, among other things, it will mean that technological development will be redirected less toward creating ever more consumer products and ever more disciplined labor, and more toward eliminating those forms of labor entirely.¶ What would remain is the kind of work only human beings will ever be able to do: those forms of caring and helping labor that are at the very center of the crisis that brought about Occupy Wall Street to begin with. What would happen if we stopped acting as if the primordial form of work is laboring at a production line, or wheat field, or iron foundry, or even in an office cubicle, and instead started from a mother, a teacher, or a caregiver? We might be forced to conclude that the real business of human life is not contributing toward something called “the economy” (a concept that didn’t even exist three hundred years ago), but the fact that we are all, and have always been, projects of mutual creation.¶ It’s as if American forces in Iraq were ultimately defeated by the ghost of Abbie Hoffman.¶ At the moment, probably the most pressing need is simply to slow down the engines of productivity. This might seem a strange thing to say—our knee-jerk reaction to every crisis is to assume the solution is for everyone to work even more, though of course, this kind of reaction is really precisely the problem—but if you consider the overall state of the world, the conclusion becomes obvious. We seem to be facing two insoluble problems. On the one hand, we have witnessed an endless series of global debt crises, which have grown only more and more severe since the seventies, to the point where the overall burden of debt—sovereign, municipal, corporate, personal—is obviously unsustainable. On the other, we have an ecological crisis, a galloping process of climate change that is threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war. The two might seem unrelated. But ultimately they are the same. What is debt, after all, but the promise of future productivity? Saying that global debt levels keep rising is simply another way of saying that, as a collectivity, human beings are promising each other to produce an even greater volume of goods and services in the future than they are creating now. But even current levels are clearly unsustainable. They are precisely what’s destroying the planet, at an ever-increasing pace.¶ Even those running the system are reluctantly beginning to conclude that some kind of mass debt cancellation—some kind of jubilee—is inevitable. The real political struggle is going to be over the form that it takes. Well, isn’t the obvious thing to address both problems simultaneously? Why not a planetary debt cancellation, as broad as practically possible, followed by a mass reduction in working hours: a four-hour day, perhaps, or a guaranteed five-month vacation? This might not only save the planet but also (since it’s not like everyone would just be sitting around in their newfound hours of freedom) begin to change our basic conceptions of what value-creating labor might actually be.¶ Occupy was surely right not to make demands, but if I were to have to formulate one, that would be it. After all, this would be an attack on the dominant ideology at its very strongest points. The morality of debt and the morality of work are the most powerful ideological weapons in the hands of those running the current system. That’s why they cling to them even as they are effectively destroying everything else. It’s also why debt cancellation would make the perfect revolutionary demand.¶ All this might still seem very distant. At the moment, the planet might seem poised more for a series of unprecedented catastrophes than for the kind of broad moral and political transformation that would open the way to such a world. But if we are going to have any chance of heading off those catastrophes, we’re going to have to change our accustomed ways of thinking. And as the events of 2011 reveal, the age of revolutions is by no means over. The human imagination stubbornly refuses to die. And the moment any significant number of people simultaneously shake off the shackles that have been placed on that collective imagination, even our most deeply inculcated assumptions about what is and is not politically possible have been known to crumble overnight.

<h4>The alternative is to challenge the neoliberal assumptions of the 1AC and REFUSE to be blackmailed by the states attempt at reform. </h4><p><strong>Graeber 13</strong> (David Graeber is an American anthropologist, political activist and author, “A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse”, http://www.thebaffler.com/past/practical_utopians_guide<u><strong>, AB)</p><p></u></strong>What is a revolution? We used to think we knew. <u><strong>Revolutions were seizures of power by</u></strong> popular <u><strong>forces</u></strong> aiming <u><strong>to transform</u></strong> the very nature of <u><strong>the political, social, and economic system in the country</u></strong> in which the revolution took place, usually according to some visionary dream of a just society. Nowadays, <u><strong>we live in an age when</u></strong>, <u><strong>if rebel armies do come sweeping into a city, or mass uprisings overthrow a dictator, it’s unlikely to have any such implications</u></strong>; <u><strong>when profound social transformation does occur</u></strong>—as with, say, the rise of feminism—<u><strong>it’s likely to take an entirely different form</u></strong>. It’s not that revolutionary dreams aren’t out there. But <u><strong>contemporary revolutionaries rarely think they can bring them into being by some modern-day equivalent of storming the Bastille.¶</u></strong> ¶ At moments like this, it generally pays to go back to the history one already knows and ask: Were revolutions ever really what we thought them to be? For me, the person who has asked this most effectively is the great world historian Immanuel Wallerstein. He argues that for the last quarter millennium or so, revolutions have consisted above all of planetwide transformations of political common sense.¶ Already by the time of the French Revolution, Wallerstein notes, there was a single world market, and increasingly a single world political system as well, dominated by the huge colonial empires. As a result, the storming of the Bastille in Paris could well end up having effects on Denmark, or even Egypt, just as profound as on France itself—in some cases, even more so. Hence he speaks of the “world revolution of 1789,” followed by the “world revolution of 1848,” which saw revolutions break out almost simultaneously in fifty countries, from Wallachia to Brazil. In no case did the revolutionaries succeed in taking power, but afterward, institutions inspired by the French Revolution—notably, universal systems of primary education—were put in place pretty much everywhere. Similarly, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was a world revolution ultimately responsible for the New Deal and European welfare states as much as for Soviet communism. The last in the series was the world revolution of 1968—which, much like 1848, broke out almost everywhere, from China to Mexico, seized power nowhere, but nonetheless changed everything. This was a revolution against state bureaucracies, and for the inseparability of personal and political liberation, whose most lasting legacy will likely be the birth of modern feminism.¶ A quarter of the American population is now engaged in “guard labor”—defending property, supervising work, or otherwise keeping their fellow Americans in line.¶ <u><strong><mark>Revolutions are</u></strong></mark> thus <u><strong><mark>planetary phenomena</u></strong></mark>. But there is more. What <u><strong><mark>they</u></strong></mark> really do is <u><strong><mark>transform basic assumptions about</mark> what <mark>politics</mark> is ultimately about. </u></strong>In the wake of a revolution,<u><strong> <mark>ideas that had been considered</mark> veritably <mark>lunatic fringe</mark> quickly <mark>become</mark> <mark>the accepted currency of debate</mark>. Before the French Revolution, <mark>the ideas that</mark> change is good, that <mark>government policy is </mark>the <mark>proper </mark>way to manage it, <mark>and</mark> that <mark>governments</mark> <mark>derive</mark> their <mark>authority</mark> <mark>from</mark> an entity called “<mark>the people</mark>” <mark>were considered</mark> the sorts of <mark>things</mark> <mark>one might hear from crackpots</mark> and demagogues</u></strong>, or at best a handful of freethinking intellectuals who spend their time debating in cafés. A generation later, even the stuffiest magistrates, priests, and headmasters had to at least pay lip service to these ideas. Before long, we had reached the situation we are in today: that it’s necessary to lay out the terms for anyone to even notice they are there. They’ve become common sense, the very grounds of political discussion.¶ Until 1968, most world revolutions really just introduced practical refinements: an expanded franchise, universal primary education, the welfare state. <u><strong><mark>The</u></strong></mark> world <u><strong><mark>revolution</u></strong></mark> of 1968, in contrast—<u><strong><mark>whether it took the form</mark> it did <mark>in China</mark>, <mark>of a revolt by students</mark> and young cadres supporting Mao’s call for a Cultural Revolution; <mark>or</mark> in <mark>Berkeley</mark> and New York, <mark>where it marked an alliance of students</mark>, dropouts, and cultural rebels; <mark>or</mark> even in <mark>Paris</mark>, <mark>where it was</mark> an alliance of students and workers—was <mark>a rebellion against bureaucracy, conformity</mark>, or <mark>anything that fettered the human imagination</mark>, <mark>a project for the revolutionizing</mark> of not just political or economic life, but <mark>every aspect of human existence</mark>. As a result, in most cases, the <mark>rebels</mark> <mark>didn’t</mark> even <mark>try to take</mark> over <mark>the apparatus of state</mark>; they saw <mark>that apparatus as itself the problem</u></strong></mark>.¶ <u><strong>It’s fashionable nowadays to view the social movements of the late sixties as an embarrassing failure</u></strong>. A case can be made for that view. It’s certainly true that in the political sphere, the immediate beneficiary of any widespread change in political common sense—a prioritizing of ideals of individual liberty, imagination, and desire; a hatred of bureaucracy; and suspicions about the role of government—was the political Right. Above all, the movements of the sixties allowed for the mass revival of free market doctrines that had largely been abandoned since the nineteenth century. It’s no coincidence that the same generation who, as teenagers, made the Cultural Revolution in China was the one who, as forty-year-olds, presided over the introduction of capitalism. Since the eighties, “freedom” has come to mean “the market,” and “the market” has come to be seen as identical with capitalism—even, ironically, in places like China, which had known sophisticated markets for thousands of years, but rarely anything that could be described as capitalism.¶ The ironies are endless. While the new free market ideology has framed itself above all as a rejection of bureaucracy, it has, in fact, been responsible for the first administrative system that has operated on a planetary scale, with its endless layering of public and private bureaucracies: the IMF, World Bank, WTO, trade organizations, financial institutions, transnational corporations, NGOs. This is precisely the system that has imposed free market orthodoxy, and opened the world to financial pillage, under the watchful aegis of American arms. It only made sense that the first attempt to recreate a global revolutionary movement, the Global Justice Movement that peaked between 1998 and 2003, was effectively a rebellion against the rule of that very planetary bureaucracy.¶ Future Stop¶ In retrospect, though, I think that later historians will conclude that the legacy of the sixties revolution was deeper than we now imagine, and that the triumph of capitalist markets and their various planetary administrators and enforcers—which seemed so epochal and permanent in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991—was, in fact, far shallower<u><strong>.¶</u></strong> I’ll take an obvious example. One often hears that antiwar protests in the late sixties and early seventies were ultimately failures, since they did not appreciably speed up the U.S. withdrawal from Indochina. But afterward, those controlling U.S. foreign policy were so anxious about being met with similar popular unrest—and even more, with unrest within the military itself, which was genuinely falling apart by the early seventies—that they refused to commit U.S. forces to any major ground conflict for almost thirty years. It took 9/11, an attack that led to thousands of civilian deaths on U.S. soil, to fully overcome the notorious “Vietnam syndrome”—and even then, the war planners made an almost obsessive effort to ensure the wars were effectively protest-proof. Propaganda was incessant, the media was brought on board, experts provided exact calculations on body bag counts (how many U.S. casualties it would take to stir mass opposition), and the rules of engagement were carefully written to keep the count below that.¶ The problem was that since those rules of engagement ensured that thousands of women, children, and old people would end up “collateral damage” in order to minimize deaths and injuries to U.S. soldiers, this meant that in Iraq and Afghanistan, intense hatred for the occupying forces would pretty much guarantee that the United States couldn’t obtain its military objectives. And remarkably, the war planners seemed to be aware of this. It didn’t matter. They considered it far more important to prevent effective opposition at home than to actually win the war. It’s as if American forces in Iraq were ultimately defeated by the ghost of Abbie Hoffman.¶ Clearly, an antiwar movement in the sixties that is still tying the hands of U.S. military planners in 2012 can hardly be considered a failure. But it raises an intriguing question: What happens when the creation of that sense of failure, of the complete ineffectiveness of political action against the system, becomes the chief objective of those in power?¶ ¶ The thought first occurred to me when participating in the IMF actions in Washington, D.C., in 2002. Coming on the heels of 9/11, we were relatively few and ineffective, the number of police overwhelming. There was no sense that we could succeed in shutting down the meetings. Most of us left feeling vaguely depressed. It was only a few days later, when I talked to someone who had friends attending the meetings, that I learned we had in fact shut them down: the police had introduced such stringent security measures, canceling half the events, that most of the actual meetings had been carried out online. In other words, the government had decided it was more important for protesters to walk away feeling like failures than for the IMF meetings to take place. If you think about it, they afforded protesters extraordinary importance.¶ <u><strong>Is it possible that this preemptive attitude toward social movements</u></strong>, the designing of wars and trade summits in such a way that preventing effective opposition is considered more of a priority than the success of the war or summit itself, really reflects a more general principle? <u><strong>What if</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>those </mark>currently <mark>running the system</u></strong></mark>, most of whom witnessed the unrest of the sixties firsthand as impressionable youngsters, <u><strong><mark>are</mark>—consciously or unconsciously</u></strong> (and I suspect it’s more conscious than not)—<u><strong><mark>obsessed by the prospect of revolutionary</mark> social <mark>movements</mark> once again challenging prevailing common sense?¶</u></strong> It would explain a lot. <u><strong>In most of the world, <mark>the last thirty years has come to be known as the age of neoliberalism</u></strong></mark>—one dominated by a revival of the long-since-abandoned nineteenth-century creed that held that free markets and human freedom in general were ultimately the same thing. Neoliberalism has always been wracked by a central paradox. It declares that economic imperatives are to take priority over all others. Politics itself is just a matter of creating the conditions for growing the economy by allowing the magic of the marketplace to do its work. All other hopes and dreams—of equality, of security—are to be sacrificed for the primary goal of economic productivity. <u><strong><mark>But global economic performance</mark> over the last thirty years <mark>has been decidedly mediocre</u></strong>.</mark> With one or two spectacular exceptions (notably China, which significantly ignored most neoliberal prescriptions), growth rates have been far below what they were in the days of the old-fashioned, state-directed, welfare-state-oriented capitalism of the fifties, sixties, and even seventies. By its own standards, then, the project was already a colossal failure even before the 2008 collapse.¶<u><strong> <mark>If,</mark> on the other hand, <mark>we</mark> stop taking world leaders at their word and instead <mark>think of neoliberalism as a political project, it suddenly looks spectacularly effective</u></strong></mark>. The politicians, CEOs, trade bureaucrats, and so forth who regularly meet at summits like Davos or the G20 may have done a miserable job in creating a world capitalist economy that meets the needs of a majority of the world’s inhabitants (let alone produces hope, happiness, security, or meaning), but they have succeeded magnificently <u><strong><mark>in convincing the world that capitalism</mark>—and not just capitalism, but exactly the financialized, semifeudal capitalism we happen to have right now—<mark>is the only viable</mark> economic <mark>system</mark>.</u></strong> If you think about it, this is a remarkable accomplishment.¶ Debt cancellation would make the perfect revolutionary demand.¶ How did they pull it off? The preemptive attitude toward social movements is clearly a part of it; under no conditions can alternatives, or anyone proposing alternatives, be seen to experience success. This helps explain the almost unimaginable investment in “security systems” of one sort or another: the fact that the United States, which lacks any major rival, spends more on its military and intelligence than it did during the Cold War, along with the almost dazzling accumulation of private security agencies, intelligence agencies, militarized police, guards, and mercenaries. Then there are the propaganda organs, including a massive media industry that did not even exist before the sixties, celebrating police. Mostly these systems do not so much attack dissidents directly as contribute to a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, life insecurity, and simple despair that makes any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy. Yet these security systems are also extremely expensive. Some economists estimate that a quarter of the American population is now engaged in “guard labor” of one sort or another—defending property, supervising work, or otherwise keeping their fellow Americans in line. Economically, most of this disciplinary apparatus is pure deadweight.¶ In fact, <u><strong>most of the economic innovations of the last thirty years make more sense politically than economically. Eliminating guaranteed life employment for precarious contracts doesn’t really create a more effective workforce, but it is extraordinarily effective in destroying unions and otherwise depoliticizing labor. The same can be said of endlessly increasing working hours. No one has much time for political activity if they’re working sixty-hour weeks.¶</u></strong> It does often seem that, <u><strong>whenever there is a choice between one option that makes capitalism seem the only possible economic system, and another that would actually make capitalism a more viable economic system, neoliberalism means always choosing the former.</u></strong> The combined result is a relentless campaign against the human imagination. Or, to be more precise: imagination, desire, individual creativity, all those things that were to be liberated in the last great world revolution, were to be contained strictly in the domain of consumerism, or perhaps in the virtual realities of the Internet. In all other realms they were to be strictly banished. We are talking about the murdering of dreams, the imposition of an apparatus of hopelessness, designed to squelch any sense of an alternative future. Yet <u><strong>as a result of putting virtually all their efforts in one political basket, <mark>we are left in the bizarre situation of watching the capitalist system crumbling</mark> before our very eyes, <mark>at just the moment everyone</mark> had finally <mark>concluded no other system would be possible</mark>.¶</u></strong> Work It Out, Slow It Down¶ <u><strong>Normally, <mark>when you challenge</mark> the <mark>conventional wisdom</mark>—that the current economic and political system is the only possible one—<mark>the first reaction you</mark> are likely to <mark>get is a demand for a detailed architectural blueprint of</mark> how <mark>an alt</mark>ernative system would work, down to the nature of its financial instruments, energy supplies, and policies of sewer maintenance. Next, you are likely to be asked for a detailed program of how this system will be brought into existence</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Historically, this is ridiculous.</mark> When has social change ever happened according to someone’s blueprint? <mark>It’s not as if</mark> a small circle of <mark>visionaries in </mark>Renaissance <mark>Florence conceived of</mark> something they called “<mark>capitalism,” figured out the details</mark> of how the stock exchange and factories would someday work, <mark>and then put in place a program</mark> to bring their visions into reality.</u></strong> In fact, <u><strong>the idea is so absurd we might well ask ourselves how it ever occurred to us to imagine this is how change happens to begin</u></strong>.¶ This is not to say there’s anything wrong with utopian visions. Or even blueprints. They just need to be kept in their place. The theorist Michael Albert has worked out a detailed plan for how a modern economy could run without money on a democratic, participatory basis. I think this is an important achievement—not because I think that exact model could ever be instituted, in exactly the form in which he describes it, but because it makes it impossible to say that such a thing is inconceivable. Still, such models can be only thought experiments. <u><strong>We cannot really conceive of the problems that will arise when we start trying to build a free society.</u></strong> What now seem likely to be the thorniest problems might not be problems at all; others that never even occurred to us might prove devilishly difficult. <u><strong>There are innumerable X-factors.¶ The most obvious is technology.</u></strong> This is the reason <u><strong>it’s</u></strong> so <u><strong>absurd to imagine activists in Renaissance Italy coming up with a model for a stock exchange and factories—what happened was based on all sorts of technologies that they couldn’t have anticipated, but which in part only emerged because society began to move in the direction that it did. </u></strong>This might explain, for instance, why so many of the more compelling visions of an anarchist society have been produced by science fiction writers (Ursula K. Le Guin, Starhawk, Kim Stanley Robinson). In fiction, you are at least admitting the technological aspect is guesswork.¶ Myself, <u><strong><mark>I am less interested in deciding what</mark> sort of <mark>economic system we should</mark> <mark>have</mark> in a free society <mark>than in creating the means by which people can make such decisions for themselves. What might a revolution in common sense</mark> actually <mark>look like?</mark> </u></strong>I don’t know, but I can think of any number of pieces of conventional wisdom that surely need challenging if we are to create any sort of viable free society. I’ve already explored one—the nature of money and debt—in some detail in a recent book. I even suggested a debt jubilee, a general cancellation, in part just to bring home that money is really just a human product, a set of promises, that by its nature can always be renegotiated.¶ ¶ <u><strong><mark>Labor</u></strong></mark>, similarly, <u><strong><mark>should be renegotiated</mark>. Submitting oneself to labor discipline</u></strong>—supervision, control, even the self-control of the ambitious self-employed—<u><strong>does not make one a better person. </u></strong>In most really important ways, it probably makes one worse. To undergo it is a misfortune that at best is sometimes necessary. Yet <u><strong><mark>it’s only when we reject the idea that</mark> such <mark>labor is virtuous in itself</mark> that <mark>we can start to ask what is virtuous about labor</u></strong>.</mark> To which the answer is obvious. Labor is virtuous if it helps others. <u><strong>A renegotiated definition of productivity should make it easier to reimagine the very nature of what work is</u></strong>, since, among other things, it will mean that technological development will be redirected less toward creating ever more consumer products and ever more disciplined labor, and more toward eliminating those forms of labor entirely.¶<u><strong> <mark>What would remain is</mark> the kind of work only human beings will ever be able to do: those <mark>forms of caring and helping labor</mark> </u></strong>that are at the very center of the crisis that brought about Occupy Wall Street to begin with. <u><strong>What would happen if <mark>we stop</mark>ped <mark>acting as if the primordial form of work is laboring at a production line,</mark> or wheat field, or iron foundry, or even in an office cubicle, <mark>and instead started from a mother, a teacher, or a caregiver</mark>? We might be forced to conclude that <mark>the real business of human life is not contributing toward</mark> something called “<mark>the economy</mark>”</u></strong> (a concept that didn’t even exist three hundred years ago), <u><strong><mark>but the fact that we are all,</mark> and have always been, <mark>projects of mutual creation.</mark>¶</u></strong> It’s as if American forces in Iraq were ultimately defeated by the ghost of Abbie Hoffman.¶ <u><strong><mark>At the moment</mark>, probably <mark>the most pressing need is</mark> simply <mark>to slow</mark> down <mark>the</mark> <mark>engines of productivity</u></strong></mark>. This might seem a strange thing to say—our knee-jerk reaction to every crisis is to assume the solution is for everyone to work even more, though of course, this kind of reaction is really precisely the problem—but if <u><strong>you consider the overall state of the world, the conclusion becomes obvious. We seem to be facing two insoluble problems. On the one hand, <mark>we</mark> have <mark>witness</mark>ed <mark>an endless series of</mark> global <mark>debt crises,</mark> which have grown only more and more severe since the seventies, to the point where the overall burden of debt—sovereign, municipal, corporate, personal—is obviously unsustainable. On the other, we have <mark>an ecological crisis</mark>, a <mark>galloping</mark> process of <mark>climate change</mark> that is <mark>threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war.</mark> The two might</u></strong> seem unrelated. But <u><strong>ultimately</u></strong> they <u><strong>are the same</u></strong>. What is debt, after all, but the promise of future productivity? Saying that global debt levels keep rising is simply another way of saying that, as a collectivity, human beings are promising each other to produce an even greater volume of goods and services in the future than they are creating now. But <u><strong>even <mark>current levels are clearly unsustainable</mark>. They are precisely what’s destroying the planet, at an ever-increasing pace.¶ </u></strong>Even those running the system are reluctantly beginning to conclude that some kind of mass debt cancellation—some kind of jubilee—is inevitable. The real political struggle is going to be over the form that it takes. Well, isn’t the obvious thing to address both problems simultaneously? Why not a planetary debt cancellation, as broad as practically possible, followed by a mass reduction in working hours: a four-hour day, perhaps, or a guaranteed five-month vacation? This might not only save the planet but also (since it’s not like everyone would just be sitting around in their newfound hours of freedom) begin to change our basic conceptions of what value-creating labor might actually be.¶ Occupy was surely right not to make demands, but if I were to have to formulate one, that would be it. After all, this would be an attack on the dominant ideology at its very strongest points. The morality of debt and the morality of work are the most powerful ideological weapons in the hands of those running the current system. That’s why they cling to them even as they are effectively destroying everything else. It’s also why debt cancellation would make the perfect revolutionary demand.¶ All this might still seem very distant. <u><strong><mark>At the moment, the planet might seem poised more</mark> <mark>for a series of unprecedented catastrophes than</mark> for the kind of <mark>broad moral and political transformation</mark> that would open the way to such a world. But <mark>if we are going to have any chance of heading off those catastrophes, we’re going to have to change our</mark> </u></strong>accustomed<u><strong> <mark>ways of thinking</u></strong></mark>. And <u><strong>as the events of 2011 reveal, <mark>the age of revolutions is by no means over.</mark> The human imagination stubbornly refuses to die. And <mark>the moment any significant number of people simultaneously shake off the shackles that have been placed on that collective imagination, even our most deeply inculcated assumptions about what is and is not politically possible</mark> have been known to <mark>crumble overnight</mark>.</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC Cap K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx