Port Sec: Impact: solves human/drug trafficking (TOP PRIORITY) -> u=human trafficking results in Balkan conflict/instability (crimes

there never dealt with, nurtured instead; instab in gov, organized polit crime)-> WW3 (spread to rest of Eur) Drug Adv: -comes through maritime vessels, influx cocaine-> destroy Amazon-> extinction-> turns soil erosion, climate, atmosphere, water, disease, food, energy, species, and nuclear war -US key; most profitable->attracts most aggressive drug traffickers-> anti-terrorist measures solve traficcking. Fem K Adv: - Attempts to solve human rights that dont begin with gender are doomed to failure such practices and conventions silence women through an invisible gender hierarchy IMPACT: systemic patriarchy- our framing is a pre-requisite to solving their impacts Nuclear Terrorism: -US is reducing nuclear terror defenses- terrorist wil have easier access to materials - Recent budget cuts make it easier for Al Qaeda to get nuclear devices and decrease detection efforts at overseas ports. Hedge: -ports=milit equip->key to pwr projection (ports for consumer goods also supply w/ milit stuff) - Accessible ports are key to military deployments and readiness the military depends on the use of ships to transport equipment, containers, aircraft and vehicles -critical to milit defense (doesnt have impact for this) Dredging: -destroys habitats, coral reefs, endangered species (no impact) -cant ban dredging b/c kills US econ Voters: (fem) only by taking into account the experiences of women can we start examining human rights focusing on gender enables new avenues for promoting the rights of everyone -failure to do so results in doomed stat quo - Purely empirical epistemologies are flawed feminist perspective key - womens subordinate status means our kritik is based on a more accurate view of the world Extra: (their answers in 2ac) -TIGER funds are insufficient; that DA cant solve for econ (is an answer to a DA) SPENDING (their anws) - The USFG already spends $3 billion on ineffective port security programs -Cross Apply Hillyard- the plan is the most fiscally responsible approach to port security. You should prefer our offshore port specific evidence because it is comparative with status quo security measures. -Cross Apply Glauser- current security measures are bankrupting the country and are the root cause of excessive spending. Plan implements creative security solutions that solve this threat and save money.

-Empirically Denied: we had a major economic decline in 2008, but there was no WWIII. Proves that their impact has low probability. -We solve the terminal impact- a terrorist attack on a port would destroy the economy by disrupting trade. Thats Rugy - No Link: plan pays for itself fully through tariffs and increased economic activity. Thats Wampler Their answ to politics: -Non-unique and link turn- Port security bill just passed this week and was massively popular -Other issues thump the link even if the plan is unpopular other controversies will inevitably come up between now and November -Non unique- Romney is winning in polls - Plan will be spun as job creation- means there will be no opposition and will win over voters -Funding Transportation Infrastructure is popular and can determine elections our evidence assumes likely voters prefer it - No internal link Regulations dont solve China and India emissions: - The Aff solves the terminal impact- Plan is key to offshore wind which is necessary to solve warming. -Elections not key to EPA regulations- their evidence indicates that congress will try to roll back EPA regulations regardless of election outcome. It also indicates EPA is mandated to act on emissions by the Supreme Court