The Dartmouth Observer

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares

Thursday, August 22, 2002
 
That Tongue-Clicking Sound of the Kalaha...Washington Bushmen

In the 18 August edition of the best newspaper in the world, also known as The New York Times, Edmund L. Andrews asks Why Isn't Fast Track...Faster? I don't really give a damn about Trade Promotion Authority - what I do care about is the latest bit of hypocrisy from my good friend down the road at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I'd just like to quote from the article here, briefly:


But the plan has met with a chilly reception in Europe, mainly because the United States would be reducing its barriers much less than most other countries. While annual American farm subsidies would fall by almost half, by Mr. Zoellick's estimate, European Union subsidies would drop by about 80 percent, to $12 billion from $60 billion.

"I do not see these proposals as a basis for compromise," said Franz Fischler, the European Union's commissioner for agriculture, denouncing the plan as "unbalanced."

American officials and American farm groups, which back the proposal, say it would simply force the biggest reductions in countries that have the biggest protection.

"This is a totally defensible position," Mr. Zoellick said. "Is it wrong to say that those who provide more support should also cut more?"


Now take a look at the same few lines, having been Eisenmanized:


But the plan has met with a chilly reception in the US, mainly because the United States would be reducing its emissions by much more than most other countries. While annual European emissions would fall by almost half, by an estimate, American emissions would drop by about 80 percent, to 12 billion tons from 60 billion tons.

"I do not see these proposals as a basis for compromise," said George W. Bush, the President of the United States, denouncing the plan as "unbalanced."

European officials and European environmentalists, which back the proposal, say it would simply force the biggest reductions in countries that have the biggest production.

"This is a totally defensible position," -insert name here- said. "Is it wrong to say that those who produce more emissions should also cut more?"


Of course, the numbers included are not representative, but I think the point comes across anyway.