7/30/005 -- Republican Humor, North Korea, Energy Bill

Yadda, yadda. Papers. Life. I lack time.

Campus Taboos: Republicans
I've been thinking about sneaking into the college Republican meetings just out of curiousity. I'd like to know how "the other side lives" and what draws them to become campus pariahs, to stand around on sidewalks hoisting giant, yellow flip-flops instead of doing what most of us cynics do and ignoring everything except for the occaisional snide remark.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=3461
I like this article talking about the pure, underepresented class. Having been in several classes that devolve into screaming matched between the fifty hippies and the one Bushy, I am tired of hearing lectures on tolerance from those who can't even listen to a list of reasons why the war on Iraq might have been justified without spitting fire. There was a lost of frustration over Jon Stewart's recent interview with Rick Santorum, though I liked it. I thought Jon Stewart managed to show a lot of respect to a person whom he disagreed with. There are some fights you will never win, and not much point in winning them even so since Stewart's crowd ain't exactly leaning to the right. If we could discuss our views with more rationality, maybe we could get along better.

Still, I can't help being amused by Repblican hate. Futile gestures of resistance against the dominating power.
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/humor/browse/Ntt-Sex_Ntk-All_N-10040_pv-shittoshinola.25820079_D-Sex_Ne-10036_bt-1
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/politics31_html.htm
http://web.infoave.net/~dennmac/reich-wing/antigoptaglines.html

"Why do republicans wear earmuffs?
To avoid the draft."

Heh. Puns.

North Korea Policy Shift
Rove isn't the only one in this adminsitration who knows a little something about twisting words.

Bilateral (dictionary.com): Affecting or undertaken by two sides equally; binding on both parties.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan (way to find a backbone, press). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050728-3.html

Q Scott, the U.S. has now had three lengthy bilateral meetings in China with the North Koreans. Are you now having direct talks with the North Koreans?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't say "now." Let me back up and remind you that we have met with the North Korean delegation and other delegations within the context of the six-party talks. It is something we have done in each of the round of talks. So I would disagree with you saying "now." North Korea's nuclear weapons program is a concern of all nations in the region. That is why the President pursued a multilateral diplomatic approach. And in terms of the bilateral discussions that are going on, those are discussions that relate to the modalities of the talks, and it's a way for us, also, to understand North Korea's position and for us to explain our views, as well. But we have had, previously, bilateral discussions with other delegations within the context of the six-party talks --

Q Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and this is happening within the context of the six-party talks.

What I think it's important to keep in mind, and this might be what Helen is grumbling about, is that -- (laughter.)

Q You have rejected time and time again.

MR. McCLELLAN: We have -- we have no intention of negotiating any bilateral agreement with North Korea. That approach was tried and it failed. North Korea, I will remind you, violated the '94 agreed framework.

Q What do you see in this joint statement that the two sides, or the six sides are working on?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I'll let the Assistant Secretary Chris Hill talk about it. We want to see progress made toward the goal of a denuclearized peninsula. He's been talking about it. This is something that is going to be a deliberative, methodical process. It's going to take time, as Chris Hill said earlier today. There's a lot of work to do. But we are committed to making progress, and we think the other parties are committed to making progress in this round of talks. And we'll just have to see as the talks continue. But they continue at this point.

Q Since the first time, now, you've had three separate meetings where the North Koreans and Americans have met together alone, in private.

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all the delegations.

Q It's the first -- pardon?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all of the delegations.

Q I know, but this is not -- it's not comparable. North Korea is the issue, and we have met privately with them. But we've always said we weren't going to. Why do you keep rejecting the whole idea that there's a possibility for rapprochement? There are negotiations going on, obviously. We have heard their side now, and we are telling them what we think, and so forth.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the place to negotiate is in the context of the six-party talks and with all parties at the table. All parties that are involved in this share the concern. All of us want to see a nuclear-free peninsula, and that's why the President --

Q I'm asking you a specific question. The two sides are getting together privately. Why don't you admit that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just said it.

Q No, you only say it within -- you're so afraid --

MR. McCLELLAN: Did I not just say that? I think I did.

Q There's always a -- you're afraid to say there's been a change --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David. Have a question?

Q -- that's what you're afraid to say.

MR. McCLELLAN: There has been change. We're pursuing this in a multilateral format with all six parties in it, but not in terms of negotiations.

Q They just go together -- (laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get the last word in here....


Anyone remember the Presidential debates? (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html)

"The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind." - George W. Bush.

Interview from the Newshour: (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/rice_7-28.html)

"...we've always talked to the North Koreans within the context of the six-party talks, one-on-one, if necessary in bilaterals...We're going to concentrate on the policy goal here and the policy goal is that within a six-party framework -- in other words not as a bilateral agreement between the United States and North Korea..." -Condoleeza Rice.

The distinction between talking in bilaterals in context of the sixty-party talks and bilateral talks in the context of bilateral talk is that, in one, the other parties will be involved in the deal. To put more pressure on North Korea. Either way, I think talking's a good start, even if they adminstration's dancing around what it means to be "bilateral."

New Republic Article Supporting Bilateral Talks (from 2003):
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_3_67/ai_99818429

Energy Bill
No one was going to be completely fond of this bill, but I think most of it's a travesty, side-stepping any real progress or help in favor of throwing money at corporate donors.

Editorials:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/30/new_energy_bill_doesnt_do_enough/
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3288530
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51035

Environmental Groups' Responses:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/7/emw267521.htm
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=1033

Fun Quote:

"...what people object to in these kinds of bills is they pick winners and losers among industries, but this time they solved that problem by making everybody a winner. Everybody gets a subsidy. The only people who lose are taxpayers. It seems to me that if there's been a crisis of not subsidizing enough energy producers and corporate America, well that crisis is now fully solved."
-Ramesh Ponnuru (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sp_7-29.html)