PBS Newshour on the Jeremy Lin Phenomenom

Thank you, PBS Newshour. You have presented a piece on rising basketball star Jeremy Lin that hits almost* every point I would have wanted to make about "Linsanity" and what it all means, that you saved me the time and trouble of doing so myself. Bonus points for doing so without using increasingly ridiculous puns like "Linsanity."

Watch The Jeremy Lin Phenomenon on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

* The one thing they didn't really cover is the racially/ethnically insensitive way Jeremy Lin has been presented by some media outlets (e.g., ESPN and their "chink in the armor" crack). Indeed, it is part and parcel of a long-established
 characteristic of American media where Asians are okay to mock and ridicule for perceived exoticness, alienness, un-Americanness, and lack of masculinity. 

...

What's on Kushibo's iPod: miscellaneous Newshour pieces

All right, this is what's left for now, the stuff that doesn't fit into the economic, military, and political categories. At least not exactly. A lot of environmental stuff and education-related stories (for which I should make their own category in the future).

The first one, about a touching documentary on North Korean refugees and how they escape, is worth looking at as a preview to the actual documentary, which is a must-see.

• 'Kimjongilia' Film Highlights Harrowing Stories of Escape From North Korea

• Classroom Culprits? Invasive Crayfish Threaten Western Waterways

• Laura Bush, Melinda Gates, CARE President on Women's Issues, U.S. Foreign Aid

• Transportation Secretary: Electronic Issue Not Cause of Toyota Recall Woes

• Chicagoland Students See Success Hitting the Gym, Then Hitting the Books

• In California, a Rescue Mission for 'Iconic' Franciscan Manzanita Plant

• Big Sky Country Struggles With Yellowstone Oil Spill Aftermath

• Oil Spill Probe Reveals Need to Balance Precautions, Profits

• After Haiti Quake, Using Science to Build Sturdier Buildings

• Robert MacNeil on Jim Lehrer's 'Stealth' Exit

• The Films Are Alive With the Art of Foley

• Photographer Alec Soth on a Life of Approaching Strangers

• New York Times' Brantley Previews Upcoming Theater Season

• Weekly Poem: 'The Winter's Wife'

• Abigail Washburn Uses Banjo as Tool for Diplomacy

What's on Kushibo's iPod: the Newshour economic reader

I'm still in the process of clearing out my SAVE list on iTunes. These are podcasts — almost all of the Newshour pieces — that I think are worth a listen (or a viewing, since they're actually original from television). The first few are very recent, although toward the bottom some of the are from much earlier in the year, when Obama's presidency was just around two years old but the Republicans were already beginning to say he'd been in charge for "almost three years." 

• What Happens if Lawmakers Don't Reach Debt-Ceiling Deal by Deadline?

• Obama's $86 Million Haul Leaves GOP Competitors Far Behind

• Strategic Default: Immoral or Not?

• Is a College Diploma Worth the Soaring Student Debt?

• 'Last In, First Out' Among Teacher Layoff Policies Under Scrutiny

• Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?

• Rand Paul: 'Our Whole Economy Is Equal to Our Debt Now'

• Tax Breaks for Oil Companies: Good for Business or Unfair Advantage?

• Oscar-Winning 'Inside Job' Director Attacks Economists' Ties to Financial Sector

• Ode to Germany: Merle Hazard, Backed by Beethoven

• Making Sen$e: 'Feelin' Lousy' - Financially Groovy In Song

What's on Kushibo's iPod (July 11, 2011 edition)

Every now and then I like to share what I'm listening to on my iPod Shuffle during my daily run. All of today's are from PBS's Newshour, what I consider to be the single best program for getting a thought-provoking, informative, and (most importantly) objective perspective on a wide breadth of political and social issues of the day.

• North Koreans Risk Lives to Escape Via Underground Railroad

• Bachmann Enters GOP Field With Jolt of Tea Party Energy

• PBS NewsHour: Huntsman Joins GOP 2012 Field, Touting Varied Resume, Hobbies

• After N.Y. Passes Same-Sex Marriage Law, What's Next for Proponents, Foes?

• Ghana Looks to Give Citizens a Voice in Their Economic Future

• 'Just One More Thing': Remembering Peter Falk, TV's 'Columbo'

• Obama on Afghan War Drawdown: 'The Tide of War Is Receding'

• Al Gore's Critique Sparks Debate Over Obama's Record on Global Warming

• Cigarette Warnings Get Graphic, but Will Smokers Be Deterred?

• Amid Push for Talks With Taliban, Where Do Rights of Afghan Women Fit In?

• Boeing Battle: Was Dreamliner Move to S.C. Legal or Strike Retaliation?'

• Sesame Street' Tells You How to Get to Sunnier Days Financially

• Apple Unveils New iCloud Music Service, but Privacy Issues May Lurk

• Why Does Yale Cost $55,000 a Year?

• 'Up in Smoke' Film Examines Perils of Slash and Burn Agriculture

• Self-Controlled Kids Prosper as Adults: 'Fatalistically Depressing'?

• Twitter Is Everywhere Now, but Can It Make Money?

• Puerto Rico Gov. Fortuño on Obama Visit, Ongoing Statehood Debate

• Broadway Holds Its Breath as 'Spider-Man' Musical Officially Debuts

• 'Fracking' for Natural Gas Continues to Raise Health Concerns

What's on Kushibo's iPod (July 10, 2011 edition)

Every now and then I like to share what I'm listening to on my iPod Shuffle during my daily run. Most of it is from PBS's Newshour, what I consider to be the single best program for getting a thought-provoking, informative, and (most importantly) objective perspective on a wide breadth of political and social issues of the day. Others are from other public broadcasting shows, lately I've been listening a lot to On the Media, which has a unique perspective as well.

• FCC Report says Local Reporting in Crisis

• The Echo Chamber Revisited Transcript

• Oceans Face Mass Extinctions, New Report Warns

• Condolence Letter Policy Shift Opens Conversation on Military Suicides

• Computing “That’s What She Said”

• Schoolhouse Shock: Report Finds Widespread Cheating by Atlanta Educators

• N.Y. Teacher Takes Students on a Virtual Trip to Learn Realities of Refugee Life

• Raze the Roof: Cleveland Levels Vacant Homes to Revive Neighborhoods

• Vietnam's 'Haunting' of Post-War Presidents Explored in New Book

• 'My Perestroika' Reveals Personal History of Last Soviet Generation

• Cambodia Teaches New Generation About Khmer Rouge Atrocities

• How an English Investor Dabbled in Cleveland Real Estate...and Got Burned

• The Dramatic Re-Enactment (this one mentions Korea)

• Protecting Its Fannie: How Mortgage Giant Primed the Bubble, Covered Its Assets

PBS Newshour on the economic battles faced by returning vets

I've mentioned this many times, but I'll say it again: PBS's Newshour is probably the single best source of objective and comprehensive information on news and current issues in the United States.

They turn their attention to the challenges faced by veterans as they separate from the US military after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and enter a very tough job market where their skills and experience are not always well advertised or appreciated.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

The Big List: PBS Newshour segments worth listening to (March 2, 2011 edition)

In my daily runs I listen mostly to PBS NewsHour, and I make a note of individual stories I'd like to blog about. They either carry some key information, delve into an important issue in a smart way, or give a very comprehensive overview of some issue.

Unfortunately, my blogging time has been limited lately, so I decided to just clear these on out. Take a listen to these if you have time. Download them to your iPod or whatever.

• Discovery's Launch Marks Beginning of End for NASA Shuttle Program (Feb. 24, 2011)
• With family members having worked extensively on the Space Shuttle, it holds a special place in my heart. 

• Govs. Daniels, Schweitzer on Looming Federal Government Shutdown (Feb. 25, 2011)

• Shields, Brooks on Collective Bargaining's Future, Shutdown Chances, Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)

• For Somali Pirates, Killing 4 U.S. Hostages an Abnormal Action (Feb. 22, 2011)
• This provides a good overview of who the hostages are and why it's hard to track them down.

• For Egypt's Women, Harassment Remains Part of Daily Life (Feb. 21, 2011)
• I should blog on this later: It's a story that, in light of the sexual assault on CBS's Lara Logan, it highlights the routine sexual harassment that Egyptian women must endure.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I've Got a Lot of Problems With the President's Budget' (Feb. 16, 2011)
• This gives a good overview of what liberal Democrats think is wrong with President Obama's budget (though Sanders is actually an independent). 

• A: This Computer Could Defeat You at 'Jeopardy!' Q: What is Watson? (Feb. 14, 2011)

• Social Media and Satellite TV: A One-Two Punch Against Mubarak (Feb. 14, 2011)
• Though the Jasmine Revolution has finished washing over Egypt, this gives insight into the technological factors that made the movement possible.

• How-To Economics: Irrational Assurance Tips for Valentine's Day

• Chicagoland Students See Success Hitting the Gym, Then Hitting the Books (Feb. 11, 2011)

PBS Newshour gets it wrong on the KORUS FTA

I've made no secret that I love PBS's Newshour and I recommend it as the single best layperson's source of comprehensive, objective, nonpartisan, and dispassionate analysis of the important political, economic, and social issues facing the United States and much of the world (that, Sesame Street, and low-calorie cranberry-walnut muffin recipes is why we should support public broadcasting).

But every now and then they do get it wrong, and this "News wrap" piece mentioning the FTA, I feel, was a misrepresentation of what's actually going on:

The U.S. and South Korea have reached agreement on the largest trade deal in more than a decade. The announcement today said the U.S. will lift a tariff on Korean autos over five years. In turn, South Korea will allow imports of thousands of American-made cars. The South Koreans also agreed to lift a heavy tariff on U.S. beef.

Listening to that, someone otherwise uninformed about ROK-US trade might get the impression that prior to now, the import of American-made cars is simply not allowed. In fact, there are loads of American cars on the streets and highways of South Korea — they are imported with an 8% tariff — though they don't do nearly as well as Lexus, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, and Volvo.

What Kwame Holman should have stated was that the pact would allow each US automaker to export 25,000 cars that do not meet ROK safety standards but do meet US safety standards.

Quoting the Los Angeles Times article about President Obama's praise for the deal:

South Korea would allow the U.S. to lift a 2.5 percent tariff on Korean cars in five years, instead of cutting the tariff right away. Each U.S. automaker could export 25,000 cars to South Korea as long as they met U.S. safety standards; disputes over safety standards had effectively stood as a barrier to U.S. auto exports into Korea. A U.S. tariff on Korean trucks would be phased out and South Korea would eliminate its tariff on U.S. trucks immediately.

Ford and Chrysler have claimed that ROK safety standards amount to a non-tariff trade barrier, even though Japanese, German, and Swedish automakers have had no real trouble meeting them. Detroit, for all practical purposes, wanted special consideration for US-made automobiles: Let American-cars into the South Korean market based not on South Korean laws but on American laws. I can imagine the outcry from Detroit if Hyundai and Kia were to have done the reverse with their cars (although actually, Hyundai and Kia are making most of their cars for the US market in the US).

The idea behind the 25K-per-automaker deal is for Chrysler and Ford to be able to break into the South Korean market without making expensive adjustments for which they don't know if there is going to be a payoff down the road (if the cars meet ROK safety standards, there is no limit).

If the South Korean public decides they want F150s, Mustangs, Escapes, and Equinoxes, then it will be worthwhile for Ford and Chrysler to retool some of their output specifically for the South Korean market, just as South Korean automakers (and everyone else) do for California. (I suppose this benefits GM, as well, but since GM already has a sizable presence in South Korea with ownership of GM Daewoo, it's not exactly the same situation).

All in all, despite Montana's Democratic US Senator Max Baucus being "deeply disappointed" that beef was not addressed, the end result isn't a bad one. I don't like the idea of big, polluting vehicles roaming Seoul streets, but I think the "streamlining" compromise sounds reasonable.

Ben Muse of the Korea-US FTA Blog has more on the details of the re-agreement of the FTA.

Victor Cha on PBS's Newshour on the North Korean attacks

Stateside, the North Korean attack on Yŏnpyŏng-do Island [aka Yeonpyeong] has been the lead-in story since it happened. Yesterday's broadcast of NBC Nightly News, for example, spent nearly half of the entire broadcast on the subject. It's natural, then, that PBS's Newshour would call in some big guns to discuss what this all means and what might happen next.

The headliner was Victor Cha, who was on the National Security Council staff under Bush43. He was joined by Sung-Yoon Lee, an adjunct professor at the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University. Here are some highlights, coming in right after Victor Cha dismissed the idea (put forward by Jimmy Carter) that this is all about Pyongyang trying to get Washington to come and talk to them:

JIM LEHRER: So, then, if it is not aimed at getting people back at a table, what is it -- what is North Korea up to?

VICTOR CHA: I think that we have to sort of think about what's going on internally in the North.

And as your lead piece said, there is a leadership transition that is in progress. We don't know if it is at the end of the leadership transition or at the beginning. We do know it's an accelerated process, because the North Korean leader is quite ill.

And, in North Korea, when you have a new leader -- it's only their third leader -- you have to build a myth and an ideology around this leader based on the strength of the state. And, in that sense, I think a lot of these provocations, and in particular the last one, could be seen not as tit for tat for South Korean exercises or a negotiating ploy.

It's part of establishing the new mythology around this young potential leader for the country.

JIM LEHRER: Professor Lee, how do you see that as a possible motive here?

SUNG-YOON LEE: North Korea does have a great incentive to build up the heir apparent, the 26-year-old, Jong-un, who has no credentials. He was appointed four-star general, yes, recently, but he has no achievements under his belt.

So, North Korea faces a great challenge of power succession, an inherently difficult task, especially for a regime beset by severe economic stresses. So, North Korea does have a need to build him up, yes. And on the eve, in the days and weeks and months leading up to Kim Jong-un's birthday, which is January 8 -- in North Korea, the birthdays of the founding dictator, April 15, and the current leader, February 16, are the biggest national holidays.

So, in the weeks leading up to early January, North Korea will have even a greater incentive to raise the stakes. Conventionally, one would think that resorting to provocative acts, attacking South Korea and so forth, wouldn't be indicative of North Korea's will to return to negotiations.

In the case of North Korea, perversely, this has been an effective way of really painting Washington and Seoul into a corner and driving them to engage North Korea once again.

Anyone who knows what I've been harping about will not be surprised that I don't completely agree with what Drs Cha and Lee and saying. I've made clear that the transition to Kim Jong-un is something Kim Jong-il wants and he has put his son on the road to achieving, but acceptance of that transition is by no means a done deal and, moreover, it has not accelerated to the degree the Western media has made it out to be. Contrary to reports that Kim Jong-un is being deified and held up to the people of North Korea as their next leader, his appearance in official North Korean media is very subdued low-profile. As I've become fond of saying lately, he's the Kim Who Wasn't There.

But that doesn't mean Drs Cha and Lee are wrong. To some degree the Yŏnpyŏng-do attack, I agree, is probably more about scaring cash, goods, and services out of Seoul's pockets. But it is more likely the attack is about shoring up support. Not support for Kim Jong-un, but hardening support for the military side of the regime. It's about preserving their power and prestige — or even strengthening it — by showing their might and how much they're needed. North Korea has all but spelled this out in very recent editorials saying that North Korea must strike a blow to the imperialists in the name of Songun policy.

They have the power to wag the dog. They have the power to rally the people in the face of an enemy threat (which they engineered). They have means at their disposal that the political apparatus does not, and the party apparatchiki had best not forget that during any transitions that might occur in North Korea's future. In the scheme of things, therefore, Kim Jong-un's role is incidental. This is not about him.

While Drs Cha and Lee bring some good insight, they ultimately offer no good solution. The end of the discussion is that Seoul is in such a bad position that we really can't do anything. North Korea has made it clear that doing nothing invites aggression the same as doing something, and we fear that really doing something will invite even more aggression. 

Writing in the International Herald-Tribune, Professor Andrei Lankov does much the same thing: He paints an accurate picture of what's really going on, but admits there is no real solution (more on that here). 

In the wake of the Ch'ŏnan sinking, I also counseled a non-military response. But North Korea's attack on undisputed ROK territory and the shelling of civilians makes clear that may no longer be prudent. We need an aggressive response, a military one, or perhaps a non-military one that also takes aim at China and its role with the monster they've created (more on that later, too). 

David Brooks on "The Gospel of Wealth"

In my daily three-mile jogs runs, my iPod plays NPR News's 7 a.m. broadcast, the New York Times's Front Page podcast, and the PBS "Newshour" podcasts that most interest me. In today's America, where many say that the "mainstream media" is too liberal and that Faux News (with all its distortions, outright fabrications, and focus on non-issues) is a necessary antidote, I say give PBS's news programs a shot, particularly "Newshour." Politically balanced, relevant, thorough, comprehensive, and substantive. Edifying and decidedly un-shrill.

David Brooks often represents the conservative side in discussions, usually positioned against "liberal" counterpart Mark Shields of the Washington Post. Actually both are somewhat moderate, and I while I find myself agreeing more often with the left-of-center Mr Shields, I learn a lot from right-of-center Mr Brooks.

And thus it is no surprise to me that I enjoyed this column by Mr Brooks, on how America's runaway love of wealth may be pulling the country away from its values, that I sent it to my mom. The same mom who chides me for taking too long in grad school and not going after the big bucks and the big house like my siblings or cousins have, something she has admitted to me she sees as some sort of failure. (Never mind that I may actually be happier than my siblings or cousins, saddled with far less debt since I'm not living so far outside of my means).

Anyway, a snippet:

The tension between good and plenty, God and mammon, became the central tension in American life, propelling ferocious energies and explaining why the U.S. is at once so religious and so materialist. Americans are moral materialists, spiritualists working on matter.

[Minister David Platt] is in the tradition of those who don’t believe these two spheres can be reconciled. The material world is too soul-destroying. “The American dream radically differs from the call of Jesus and the essence of the Gospel,” he argues. The American dream emphasizes self-development and personal growth. Our own abilities are our greatest assets.

But the Gospel rejects the focus on self: “God actually delights in exalting our inability.” The American dream emphasizes upward mobility, but “success in the kingdom of God involves moving down, not up.”

Platt calls on readers to cap their lifestyle. Live as if you made $50,000 a year, he suggests, and give everything else away. Take a year to surrender yourself. Move to Africa or some poverty-stricken part of the world. Evangelize.

Platt’s arguments are old, but they emerge at a postexcess moment, when attitudes toward material life are up for grabs. His book has struck a chord. His renunciation tome is selling like hotcakes. Reviews are warm. Leaders at places like the Southern Baptist Convention are calling on citizens to surrender the American dream.

I don't expect any of my relatives to give up or give away their Lincoln Navigator (so named because when you drive it you feel like you're piloting a boat) anytime soon, but I hope they'll at least consider a Honda CR-V or a Hyundai Santa Fe the next time around.

Is this what's wrong with America?

I was listening to PBS's "Newshour" this morning when they had a discussion about public outrage over the BP oil spill and the outpouring of ideas about how to fix it. It had Bill Nye the Science Guy on it, so it had a little less of the serious air a typical "Newshour" segment might have, but this comment by Amy Jaffe, a senior energy analyst at Rice University struck me:

Even myself, who has been in the -- watching the industry and writing about industry for 30 years, I just couldn't believe that people would go out there and drill these wells, and they didn't have a backup plan. I mean, I understand they had good prevention systems, but they didn't have a backup plan.

And now we're all watching in horror over the fact that there is no backup plan. And it does raise this question — I — I like what our other guests are saying — I work at a university that's known for its math and science departments and its engineering. And it — we find it very depressing that a lot of young people who are good in mathematics in this country have chosen to use that to develop financial derivatives that have actually hurt our economy — and we see it here in Houston with all the people who rushed to work for Enron — instead of going into concrete science that could be used today to shut this pipeline.

If we had more American children sticking with math and science and going to engineering, there might just be some young bright person out there who could come up with an idea of how to do this in a way that isn't the way we did it on land 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

We really need more science capability in this country.

I was a biology major back at UCI, and I was assured told that I would have permanent job security if I went into science teaching — not because it was in such high demand (demand is a static function based on the number of students, who are required to take science classes) but because the supply of willing and able science teachers was so low.

Contrast that with the situation in places like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, where the Gini coefficient is low (31.3, 38.1, and 33, respectively, versus 45 in the US), indicating a more equal distribution of wealth. Some would argue that creates a situation where people can move into — and be attracted by — professions that pay wildly insane amounts of money, perhaps beyond or even counter to their social value.

That is to say, South Koreans, Japanese, and Taiwanese have less of a financial disincentive to pursue science- or math-based careers. Much is made of the incentive toward creativity in the American work place (and up to a point, I agree that it is a major factor), but you can only go so far with creativity when the underlying math and science skills are missing.

The school and work situation in South Korea (and I believe in Japan and Taiwan as well) is highly competitive, with a large number of qualified people pursuing a small number of spots. While this can lead to over-qualified (or rather, underutilized) people in some lower-level service industry positions, it also means that the businesses that can offer comfort and prestige (e.g., the chaebol) are flush with very smart people, which compensates for at least some of the creativity-sapping corporate structure (where it exists).

While South Korea could dial down the hyper-competitiveness a little (or a lot), it risks going off the rails if it does so too much (or too rapidly). On the other hand, the US needs to return to an era of Sputnik fear where students with promise in math and science were revered and rewarded.

I'll step down from my soapbox now.

Selig Harrison peddles his wariness on PBS's "Newshour" (and Balbina Hwang slaps him down, ever so politely)

My iPod listenings during my daily five-km jog consist of NPR's 7 a.m. newscast, the New York Times Front Page podcast, and then the various segments from PBS's "Newshour," in order of interest. The latter, I've often said, is one of the best programs in America for getting a full-spectrum, objective look at important domestic and international issues.

Yesterday, "Newshour" addressed President Lee's announcement that South Korea will shut down all trade with North Korea (except Kaesŏng), with a discussion between guests Selig Harrison on the left and Balbina Hwang on planet Earth (preceded by this news story).

They started off with Mr Harrison, the contempt for whom by the likes of people like Joshua Stanton I can clearly understand. Mr Harrison is almost Bruce Cumings-like in his ability to downplay the North's transgressions while highlighting to the point of distortion every conceivable and imagined transgression by the South.

Indeed, when it comes to North Korea, both are so far to the left you can't see them because of the curvature of the Earth. I dare say I half suspect that Mr Harrison is on the take from the chinboistas, if he is not an actual fifth columnist himself (and if we're ever both in Seoul at the same time, sue me for defamation, mutherfu¢ker!). [Edit: my, that wasn't very professional of me.]

He started out by essentially blaming South Korea for North Korea's murder of nearly four dozen sailors. In response to host Judy Woodruff's question about whether President Lee's response was appropriate:

No, I don't think so. I think that the problem is that South Korea abrogated agreements that were made -- an agreement that was made between North Korea and South Korea in June 2000, when the former president, Kim Dae-jung, went and had a summit with Kim Jong Il, and they made an agreement that the two countries would coexist and that South Korea's -- what North Korea considered South Korea's past objective of trying to bring about the collapse and the absorption of North Korea by the South would end with a new period that has been called the sunshine policy of Kim Dae-jung.

Now, what happened was when -- when became Lee Myung-Bak became the president, he repudiated this agreement. ... came into office and repudiated what had been done by his two predecessors, which had created the peaceful situation, where there was no military tension at all for eight years.

Fortunately, Ms Hwang called him out on this, including a mention of the deadly 2002 incident in the Yellow Sea that occurred two years after the 2000 Kim-Kim summit:

First of all, it is not true that there was absolutely no military provocations in the eight years of the sunshine policy. It's actually 10 years. In 2002, there was a very distressing naval incident in which I believe 12 South Korean sailors were killed and maimed.

Okay, back to the abrogation. During my jog I kept thinking "proportionate response, proportionate response": Even if everything Mr Harrison said about President Lee reneging on Sunshine Policy is valid, does that justify or invite such a brazen act of murder?

Such denial and distortions are not new for Mr Harrison, who seems to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker of the idea that South Korea's conservatives are forcing Kim Jong-il behave badly. "Context," he tells us, must be understood in order to grasp the meaning of this murder:

What I am saying is, you have to look at this in the context of what has been going on before. It's not -- this is not something that just came out of the blue. This is the climax of two years of a completely different policy on the part of South Korea, which has really spooked North Korea.

Ms Hwang goes on to set the record straight, calling President Lee's announcement "absolutely the correct response" (a notable point since vocal North Korea opponents like Joshua Stanton were not too terribly impressed by President Lee's announcement). She also reminded viewers that the conservative president did not actually repudiate Sunshine Policy and has been "very careful about not doing so."

Moreover, she also underscored that "it's very clear who has instigated this" — in the face of Mr Harrison's suggestion that North Korea might not actually be behind the attack —  calling it "a surprise attack" and "a violation of the armistice agreement."

She also made an intriguing point about why President Lee might not have called out Kim Jong-il by name as being responsible:

What is very interesting about President Lee Myung-Bak's statement here is that he is actually giving the North Koreans a face-saving way out, actually providing a way to de-escalate.

What he didn't do was declare that this was the personal responsibility of the dear leader, Kim Jong Il. What he said was, the North Korean regime should find those responsible and punish them. That actually allows the regime then to scapegoat or to actually pinpoint exactly who was responsible and does provide a way out.

Mr Harrison insisted again on obfuscating Pyongyang's responsibility for this murderous attack:

I don't think that this can be solved through North-South diplomacy, except in one important area, which is the negotiations on the sea boundary in the Yellow Sea, which is disputed, and which was involved in the episode that you referred to before and is involved in this episode.

And, you know, the U.N. ordained a certain boundary between North and South Korea in the Yellow Sea after the Korean [War], which North Korea never accepted. So, you need diplomacy on the sea boundary between North and South Korea. You need the return to the six-party talks, where this whole issue could be brought up, but where denuclearization should also be brought up.

The dispute over the Northern Limit Line (NLL, that disputed maritime border), was only peripherally involved in the sinking of the Chonan, since it was sunk in waters off an island both Pyongyang and Seoul recognize as South Korea's, what would be undisputed waters (Ms Hwang makes that point as well).

At any rate, with nearly four dozen killed, we are beyond merely "bringing it up" as one of several topics to discuss yet again, although Ms Hwang and Mr Harrison both agree that this should be handled diplomatically.

I often recommend "Newshour" for the way it deftly presents the two main sides of an issue, giving a fair listen to both, but one must be prepared to hear some galling stuff from the side you don't agree with. Like when Mr Harrison shines the shadow of doubt on the Chonan investigation's conclusions:

SELIG HARRISON: Secretary Clinton used the word precarious. It is dangerous, because I don't know whether North Korea did this. I wouldn't be surprised if they did it, because of — I think that they...

JUDY WOODRUFF: You don't know whether North Korea...

SELIG HARRISON: I don't feel that we have had this evidence laid out, that it hasn't been — it is, after all, evidence that a South Korean investigation produced.

BALBINA HWANG: It — no, it was actually an international effort.

SELIG HARRISON: They brought in international people, but this wasn't conducted by an international — and I'm not saying that they didn't do it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right.

All right, indeed. Unless you are going to make a "Gulf of Tonkin" or "Remember the Maine" sort of claim, stop it with the insidious "we don't know if they really did it" insinuations.

In the end, I wish Ms Woodruff had gone with Ms Hwang first so that her airtime wouldn't be wasted mopping up after Mr Harrison's mess.

There's a bit more to the interview, so even though I ended up including more of it in this fisking than I'd intended (and I really didn't mean to do a fisking), go give it a listen.