Nuke War Outweighs The risk of extinction via nuclear war outweighs all – ethics demands you evaluate our disad Seeley 86. [Robert Seeley, Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, 1986, The Handbook of Non-Violence, p. 269-70] Supporters of U. S. and Soviet nuclear policy have argued that projections of human extinction, extensive environmental damage, and so on are not conclusively established. This is true, but it does not follow, as nuclear supporters suggest, that we are thereby made morally free to choose our current suicidal policies. In moral reasoning prediction of consequences is nearly always impossible. One balances the risks of an action against its benefits; one also considers what known damage the action would do. Thus a surgeon in deciding whether to perform an operation weighs the known effects (the loss of some nerve function, for example) and risks (death) against the benefits, and weighs also the risks and benefits of not performing surgery. Morally, however, human extinction is unlike any other risk. No conceivable human good could be worth the extinction of the race, for in order to be a human good it must be experienced by human beings. Thus extinction is one result we dare not—risk. Though not conclusively established, the risk of extinction is real enough to make nuclear war utterly impermissible under any sane moral code.
1NC: Yes Value to Life There’s always value to life –Prefer our ev because of Frankl’s subject position. Coontz 1. [Phyllis D., PhD Graduate School of Public and International Affairs University of Pittsburgh, et al, JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSING, 2001, 18(4), 235-246 – J-Stor] In the 1950s, psychiatrist and theorist Viktor Frankl (1963) described an existential theory of purpose and meaning in life. Frankl, a long-time prisoner in a concentration camp, re- lated several instances of transcendent states that he experienced in the midst of that terri- ble suffering using his own experiences and observations. He believed that these experi- ences allowed him and others to maintain their sense of dignity and self-worth. Frankl (1969) claimed that transcendence occurs by giving to others, being open to others and the environment, and coming to accept the reality that some situations are un- changeable. He hypothesized that life always has meaning for the individual; a person can always decide how to face adversity. Therefore, self-transcendence provides mean- ing and enables the discovery of meaning for a person (Frankl, 1963). Expanding Frankl's work, Reed (1991b) linked self-transcendence with mental health. Through a developmental process individuals gain an increasing understanding of who they are and are able to move out beyond themselves despite the fact that they are ex- periencing physical and mental pain. This expansion beyond the self occurs through in- trospection, concern about others and their well-being, and integration of the past and fu- ture to strengthen one's present life (Reed, 1991b).
Obama Good Link: Funding Distribution Fights over funding distribution. Dilger 11. [Robert Jay, Senior Specialist in American National Government, “Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present” Congressional Research Service -- January 5 -- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40431.pdf] Several bills have been introduced during previous Congresses that would fundamentally change existing federal, state, and local government roles and responsibilities in surface transportation policy. For example, Senator Jim DeMint and Representative Jeff Flake introduced legislation during the 109 th Congress and Senator DeMint introduced legislation in the 110 th Congress (S. 2823) that would phase-out most of the federal fuel and excise taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund over five years; preserve federal responsibility for interstate highways, transportation facilities on public lands, national transportation research and safety programs, and emergency transportation assistance; and devolve most other surface transportation programs to states. 3 In addition, during previous reauthorizations some congressional Members from “donor” states (states whose highway users pay more in estimated federal highway tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund than that state receives from the program) advocated program devolution as a means to achieve program efficiencies and to address what they viewed as an inequitable distribution of federal surface transportation funds to states. 4 As will be discussed, recent reauthorizations have focused a great deal of attention on resolving disagreements among donor and donee states concerning the distribution of the program’s funds. Because many donor states are located in the South and the Mid-West and many donee states are located in the Northeast, Pacific Rim, and sparsely populated Western states, recent reauthorizations have taken on a regional perspective, pitting states from one region against another. Although most governors and state legislative leaders have been united in their advocacy of additional federal funding with minimal restrictions on the use of those funds, the donor-donee debates in recent reauthorizations have divided them.
inefficient and ineffective. The idea has taken hold among many transportation professionals that public transit is a subsidized monopoly which is inherently inefficient. Numerous studies suggest that public transit subsidies have been siphoned off by higher labor costs and inefficient service expansions. Indeed, such transit “efficiency” studies conducted in the later 1970s and early 1980s so impressed transit policy boards and transit managers that nearly 20 years later transit managers still think of little else. A valid concern for efficiency has eclipsed interest in transit’s public policy missions.