Requiem for a dream of hope and change

I'm walking back to my dorm room from the parking. I'm dictating a blog post as I'm doing it. I'm gleeful from the debate earlier in the day.

I'll make no bones about it: I do not want Romney to win the election. Back in 2008, I didn't mind if John McCain won, but I was rooting for Obama. Even though I didn't vote for him

Romney simply seems to be regurgitating right-wing talking points that have no factual basis. They seem to be mean-spirited and, more importantly, they are utterly lacking in factual basis.

Obamacare repeal would not save any money. In fact, it would cost money.

More importantly, it would cost lives. And Romney knows this, because he put in place nearly the exact same program when he was governor of Massachusetts. And it is the worst kind of politics that someone would know that and yet run against it simply because his own party is so vehemently against it.

Obama is not a perfect president, but he is close to the mark or right on the mark on just about every issue. If people are disappointed in him, it is usually not based in something that is verifiable reality. He was right in his handling of Libya, he was right in his handling of Syria, he is deftly handling China, and North Korea, and he is working strongly with all of our allies.

His policies put the brakes on a freefall, the worst economic situation of the last 80 years. The problem is not that he doesn't know what he's doing, but that his opponents are counting on people to not realize just how bad things were, or that they would forget how bad things were.

Even worse, they deliberately muddle the dates things happened in order to blame Obama for things that happened because of Bush or under Bush. This is how they come up with the idea that Obama tripled the deficit, when in fact he has reduced it by 35%. This is how they get their followers to think that Obama has raised taxes on the middle class, when in fact he has lowered their taxes. In fact, this is part of his stimulus package.

If we did not bring the unemployment rate down to 5% or 6%, this is because the Congress, the Republicans in Congress, were hell-bent on preventing him from getting a second term rather than working to get America back on its feet. And that is disgusting.

Obama deserves a second term. He will finish what he started in a second term. The people who seem to have no clue how we got into this mess are asking you to turn around and vote against Obama. That would be a mistake.

Moreover, Obama having only one term would be rewarding those who have engaged in the most atrocious of smear campaigns. The people who would derail this country just for the sake of political gain. That cannot stand.

And now I'm home. Good night.

WaPo: South Korea outpaces the U.S. in engineering degrees

As every American from Obama on down bemoans the US's slipping standards, the WaPo points out a huge skills gap that could (mostly) bode well for Korea's future but poorly for America's: South Korea outpaces the US in engineering degrees, with one in four Korean college students majoring in engineering, compared to one in 20 in the United States.

How the ROK got there and what it means is the focus of the Washington Post story:

South Korea far outpaces the United States in the percentage of young adults with college degrees—63 versus 41 percent—and its K-12 students routinely outperform U.S. children on international assessments. While South Korean leaders have begun to fret that their young people—raised among skyscrapers and affluence—are pursuing higher-paying jobs outside technical fields, the workforce remains highly tech-savvy: One in four South Korean college students majors in engineering, compared to one in 20 in the U.S.

The reason for the glut of engineers can be summed up easily: South Korea’s education system was designed to produce them.

As Lee explained, “My path has been set since elementary school.”

South Korea’s school system—unlike the American system—is centralized and regulated according to economic demands. The national ministry of education and the ministry of science and technology are one and the same, and the president’s vision for economic development can have immediate reverberations in schools.

For decades, South Korea’s strategy for success has been to outsmart its more powerful neighbors. In a country with few natural resources, the next technological breakthrough is sometimes referred to in Korean as the next “meal.”

Of course, with an abysmally low birth rate, kids growing up without a childhood, and increasing household debt (much of it spent on extracurricular education and overseas study), some would say that South Korea is paying the price for this "over-education" strategy.

Nevertheless, perhaps there is a lesson for Americans to learn if they really want to, as Obama puts it, "win the future." I'm not one of those people who likes to rail against fictitious majors in underwater basket weaving or master's degrees in The Vagina Monocles, but I do agree the US may need a few more people with solid science and skills.

Sure, while it's true you can only go so far without creativity and critical thinking (the popular — though often unfounded — criticism of South Korean education being that it fails to provide this), the converse is also true that if you've got creativity coming out your orifices but little in terms of math and science acumen and ability (or solid reading and writing skills) on which to base it.

...

On student loans and public health responsibilities (alternate title: It's things like this that make it impossible for me to vote Republican)

Republicans and Democrats both supposedly agree that it would be a bad idea for interest rates on student loans to suddenly double from the three-percent range to 6.8 percent. But it is the Republicans' plans for how to pay for this that has me scratching my head and wondering what planet they live on:

The Obama administration today threatened to veto the GOP-proposed House version of a student loan bill because it would repeal a fund for preventive health services.

“This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves,” the White House said in a statement. “If the president is presented with H.R. 4628, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.”

The $5.9 billion bill, which the House is debating today, would prevent interest rates on student loans from doubling July 1. To pay for it, however, the GOP version would cut the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program created as part of the president’s health care reform act.

“Women, in particular, will benefit from this Prevention Fund, which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer,” according to the White House.

The veto threat comes after the president spent the week publicly campaigning for Congress to extend a 2007 law that cut student loan rates to 3.4 percent. If Congress does not act, interest rates will double to 6.8 percent this summer.

Seriously, this is wrong on so many levels. First of all, after the trillion-dollar-plus war in Iraq, when did the GOP get so picky about a mere $5.9 billion, hardly a drop in the bucket.

Second, how can it possibly help them in the upcoming election if they're trying to look sinister and out of touch. I mean, really, cutting preventive care? Can you get any more evil?

Third, by cutting a component of Obamacare that helps keep health care costs down and provides maximum benefit not just in terms of expenditures but also in quality of life, you're highlighting the positive elements of this plan that so many Americans are on the fence about precisely because they don't know about stuff like this.

At the same time, you're showing that you are more interested in helping oil companies (the subsidies for whom President Obama would want to eliminate in order to pay for the cheap student loan rates). Forcing the American people to choose between affordable college or preventing breast cancer is about the stupidest thing they can do.

It also makes your crusade against Obamacare look wrongheaded, foolish, and petty.

Do I need to go on?

Anyway, to switch gears, the one thing I would like to say is that to truly reform the whole college cost thing, we may actually need a reduction of student loans in favor of grants, scholarships, and other pay packages (divvied out on the basis of need and/or merit at the neighborhood level).

Student loans drive up the cost of education (even after adjusting for inflation, college costs are three times what they were three decades ago). Universities charge what the market will bear, and it bears more because students (and their parents) are getting free money now that they will have to pay off in some distant future. Of course they'll take the money and pay the tuition that has shot up 10% from the previous year, itself a rise of 8 percent from the year before that, etc., etc.

If it were up to me, I'd create national service universities, or at least national service scholarships, where the students work twenty hours a week (or more) running the university in various capacities in order to cover tuition. Perhaps room and board could be part of that or on a separate track, but offered at a reasonable cost. Alternatively, contracts that put them in teaching jobs or other socially beneficial work after graduation could be a means of paying for college.

Universities would have incentives to keep costs down, since they can't rely on atrocious tuition increases each year, and they could earn money to pay for professor salaries, buildings, overhead, etc., through government or private grants for research and the selling of services (provided by students) or use of facilities.

This is not terribly unlike what happens in some other countries (including Korea, in some universities), and it would put an end to the absurd notion of having fresh college grads in their early twenties saddled with $100,000 of debt (or more) that prevents them from buying a home or doing other economically productive activities, while forcing themselves to lock into a money-paying job early on rather than exploring other opportunities that might benefit themselves or society at large.

Certainly for some, a college education paid for with student loans is a far better choice than not going to college at all. But they would benefit even further if they were able to go to college and get out on the other end debt free.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer.

...

And NONE of them are Korean...

Clockwise, from bottom:
Mitt Romney, Mrs Romney,
Rick Santorum, the American
electorate, Ron Paul.

If I were to write a serious version of the hit 1990s NBC comedy Third Rock From the Sun, the character of Dick Solomon, the intelligent alien leader who is hopelessly clueless about normal life on Earth, would seem a lot like Mitt Romney.

Outwardly he seems like a normal human being, but if you talk with him just a little bit you can see he's not one of us: his awkward use of descriptive sentences when he doesn't know common words is an indicator that he's a visitor to the world of the common man and isn't familiar with the familiar, while he boasts of engaging in things that most people would find kinda sorta appalling.

Like transporting your dog in a small kennel strapped to the top of the car and insisting that Mitt's mutt loved it. Or expressing glee about firing people. Or bragging of how many personal vehicles one has. You've no doubt heard this list.

The dog thing really seemed cringeworthy (that word does not trigger the spellcheck!) to a lot of people, making them wonder if he's kinda sorta lacking compassion for humans or canines.

The story has legs. Months later, people are still talking about it, and that has prompted the Romney campaign to react by making President Obama seem like an even worse offender in the eyes of people who bought Marley & Me on DVD.

And what could that be? President Barack Hussein Obama, the guy with the funny name whose father was from a strange country and who grew up in a different strange country and attended a madrassa, has eaten dog:

The Romney campaign signaled Tuesday night that they are not about to cede any ground when it comes to a candidate’s odd past with man’s best friend.

And the Obama campaign shot back, with a spokesman suggesting the Romney team was attacking a child, since the Obama act in question took place when he was a kid.

The Daily Caller noted that in President Obama’s best-selling memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy),” the president wrote. “Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”

After his mother married Soetoro, Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 until 1971, from roughly the age of 6 through 10.

The discovery that the president had eaten dog meat prompted wise-cracks on twitter (hashtag — #ObamaDogRecipes) and this tweet from Romney strategist Eric Fehrstrom, who re-tweeted Axelrod’s original message with a different take on the picture of the president and Bo.

“@EricFehrn: In hindsight, a chilling photo,” he wrote.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt tweeted in response: “@BenLaBolt What’s the next attack @EricFerhn and the RNC will surface on a 6-10 year old?”

Democrats and supporters of the president’s forcefully took to twitter Tuesday night and Wednesday morning to challenge the notion that Obama as a boy eating food given to him by his stepfather could be compared to actions Romney took as an adult. Republicans pushed back, saying that the dog-eating tale underlines how any discussion of dogs at a time of massive unemployment, with troops in harm’s way, is silly.

I have to agree with the Democratic operatives that there is something ridiculous about comparing Romney's own deliberate acts as an adult to those of a kid being fed something over which he had no control. I mean, one was thirty-seven and the other was seven.

[source]

This reminds me of George W. Bush's felony drunk driving conviction, which he tried to brush off as a "youthful indiscretion" even though he was older than I was. That's right: our actions as an adult tell us a lot more about our impulses, drives, flaws, and convictions much more than what was thrust upon us as children.

Anyway, I wonder if Obama's elementary school eating experiences will gain any traction. Already some are suggesting that it is proof he's not a real American:

I don't know ANY natural born American boy who would ever eat Spot, even if coerced by his mooslim stepfather. Thanks for the further proof that Barry ain't really an American. Eatin' dogs ain't an American value. Hell, he acts like he's proud he did it! Where's the regret?

That's an argument that would hardly hold up in court (right here is a natural born American from Long Island who loves himself some dog meat — as an adult) but it might hold sway in the ballot box. But I think those who already loathe President B. Hussein Obama are the only ones really expressing outrage at a kid being "introduced to dog meat" in another country. Heck, I might go back to Korea and eat some dog meat on principle! (While wearing my hoodie, if that's still a thing.)

Anyway, if this story does take off, the association of some East Asian country with canine cuisine might shift from Korea to Indonesia. Here's hoping.

This one's a keeper.

UPDATE:
Over at the Marmot's Hole (I'm all about K-blog cross-pollination), there's a discussion on the recent discovery of a Mad Cow case in America, which includes mention of Obama's youthful canophagic proclivities, including this video:




...

Jim Yong Kim elected President of World Bank

I first mentioned Dr Kim of Dartmouth University in this post, when the Obama administration first nominated the M.D. doctor to head the world's premier development agency. Unlike past nominations, Dr Kim's was unusual in that (a) he is not an economist by training and (b) he had some notable opposition.

The Economist, which supported the finance minister from Nigeria for the position (insert joke about 419 scam here), had an interesting post-election rundown on Dr Kim's rise to this very important position:

Jim Yong Kim, currently head of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, will take over from Robert Zoellick in July. But the contest has raised awkward questions both about the bank and Mr Kim himself which will not be laid to rest so smoothly.

The contest was unprecedented from the start, not least in that it was a contest. For the first time, America’s favourite was challenged by two serious contenders, both from emerging markets. They were Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the finance minister of Nigeria, and José Antonia Ocampo of Colombia, who pulled out late in the day. A group of American professors and development experts, led by William Easterly of New York University and Lant Pritchett of Harvard’s Kennedy School, criticised Mr Kim for having too narrow a field of expertise to run the world’s premier development institution. (The Economist also supported Mrs Okonjo-Iweala.) Members of the administration and Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University who was himself nominated for the World Bank job, supported Mr Kim vigorously.

Frankly, I'm not too terribly concerned about Dr Kim's "narrow field of expertise." The World Bank is full of economists and analysts who can do the number crunching on the finance side if Dr Kim is not up to the task. What I like about Dr Kim is what he brings to the table. The grand projects of the IMF, the World Bank, and various other developmental agencies and NGOs often fail to consider the human side of the equation, either as an asset and an engine or as a casualty. The premise-on-faith seems to be that a rising tide will lift all boats, when they don't consider that so many millions are tethered to the lowest point of the seabed.

Dr Kim has a grand vision, as we can see in the health projects he's worked on, but I expect that his background might make him see that the big picture is made up of a whole heckuva lot of little pictures. Maybe it's the public health person in me that imagines Dr Kim will see the pixel-view of the developing world in the same way that (I hope) I do.

The Economist saw things in similar terms:

Michael Woolcock, a World Bank staffer, suggests that two rather different models of development have been pitted against one another in the contest for president. On the one hand is what he calls Big Development, whose aim is the transformation of entire countries through investments in national education, justice and public health. Governments are essential to Big Development because they are responsible for the overall policy. And the World Bank is pre-eminently a Big Development institution. On the other hand is Small Development. “Inspired less by transformational visions of entire countries,” Mr Woolcock argues, “and more by the immediate plight of particular demographic groups (AIDS orphans, child soldiers, 'the poor') living in particular geographic places (disaster zones, refugee camps, urban slums), Small Development advocates focus not on building systems in the medium run but on compensating for the failure of systems in the short run. ‘Development’ thus becomes an exercise in advocacy, in accurate targeting, in identifying particular ‘tools’ that ‘work’”.

In this scheme of things Mrs Okonjo-Iweala, the former finance minister, represented Big Development; Dr Kim, a public-health advocate, Small. Dr Kim was almost certainly picked because of his passport. But if his background is any guide, his tenure as chief is likely to shift the bank more towards Small Development. Whether that is a good thing on balance remains to be seen.

Despite my support for having a health-oriented person in the driver's seat at the World Bank, I think Nigeria’s Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala might also have done a fine job if she were able to bring the same anti-corruption and pro-transparency experience from Nigeria and make it work on the international stage.

...

Picture of the day: Obama seeing red at the DMZ

US President Barack Obama is visiting South Korea for the nuclear summit, and he has decided to take a side trip to the demilitarized zone, aka the DMZ, his first trip to the de facto border between the two Koreas.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The visit was Obama's first to the demilitarized zone that has divided North and South Korea for nearly 60 years, and comes at yet another tense point in relations with the secretive nuclear power in the north.

Obama met with South Korean and U.S. troops, and like presidents before him, stood in a camouflaged bunker peering through binoculars to inspect the rough, wooded mountains of a nation that has frustrated the West for decades.

The president is in South Korea to attend a global summit on securing loose nuclear weapons. But as his Sunday schedule shows, the status of the rogue nuclear program in North Korea is likely to outshine the formal agenda. The DMZ visit was his first stop. ...

But first the president headed north about 25 miles from Seoul, beyond the roadblock, mine field and barbed wire fencing to a windswept watch station 25 meters from the demarcation line. Obama looked out from behind bulletproof glass at the two small villages on each side of the line -- Tae Sung Dong, the tiny South Korean town dubbed Freedom Village and Gi Jong Dong, known as Propaganda Village for its fake buildings and speakers that once blared messages trying to lure soldiers to the north.

The messages no longer play. And Sunday, Obama looked out in cold quiet as a North Korean flag flew over the village, lowered to mark the end of the 100-day mourning period for the late leader.

"There's something about this spot in particular," Obama said in his remarks to U.S. troops. "where there's such a clear line and there's such an obvious impact that you have for the good each and every day that should make all of you proud."

The DMZ has long made a dramatic backdrop for a presidential visit, as a rare reminder of Cold War anxiety and America's continued reach. The trip has been one that all of Obama's recent predecessors have made. (President George H.W. Bush visited as vice president.)

President George W. Bush visited the DMZ in February 2002, at another tense time in relations. Bush had just included North Korea in the "axis of evil," a remark that unnerved South Koreans worried about the increasingly bellicose rhetoric. Bush then delivered a toned-down speech and expressed sympathy for the plight of North Koreans.

Obama arrived on much better terms with South Korean leaders. During his three-day visit, he's expected to emphasize solidarity with Seoul and make his first comments on the status of the food aid pact.

I've been to the DMZ probably a half dozen times at least. It's a very sobering trip, and a must-see for any American visiting South Korea.

One thing, though, I wouldn't describe the surrounding hills of North Korea as "rough, wooded mountains." Rough, yes. Mountains, sure. But wooded? Not really. You can see from the southern side how denuded the terrain is on that side. I'm not sure if that's by design (don't give an invading military any cover) or if it's because things have been so tough up north for so long that they have burned away any potential fuel source, including the once numerous trees. We certainly saw something like that across Korea during the deprivation of the late Imperial Japanese colonial area.

Anyway, I like how Obama has his name on his badge, lest we not be able to figure out who he is.

...

Wake up, America!

From my inbox this morning, the kind of thing I get every now and again ever since I bought a die-hard Republican voter a gag bumper sticker. I found this one amusing (and simultaneously disturbing), so I thought I'd share (as I've done in the past).

Apparently, this is how the right sees America under President B. Hussein Obama (click to zoom):

Frankly, I had no idea that Kim Jong-il was behind The One's rise (see upper left corner). A good trick, considering that he's dead, but the Dear Leader is not the only dear departed to grace this artist's work:

Doß thou not see where thy standeß,
thou injudicious and chowderheaded Negroe?

Where's the outrage?! Our debt is $15 trillion and Obummer is responsible! And he's so arrogantly standing on the Constitution, while ignoring this poor White boy that has Reagan, Lincoln, Washington, and some other guy in a wig so concerned.

Anyway, I think the young man in the foreground was inspired by Keanu Reeves:

...

Obama finally getting aggressive?

I didn't vote for Obama, but with Jon Huntsman having dropped out, I don't see anyone in the Republican field that I'd want over the president.

And frankly, I'm sick and tired of the constant crap-talking of the economy — which almost seems like they've got as their strategy eroding confidence so much that it actually has a negative effect on things and derails the recovery.

So much of it is just fantastical, as if they live in a parallel universe where the downward spiral that began in late 2007 has continued four years later and Obama really is doing absolutely nothing because he's too busy playing golf.

And so I'm glad that the Obama camp has come up with handy graphics like this that show what he has been doing and how dramatically the jobs picture has turned around (Blogger's having trouble showing the interactive part, so you can just click on the link for all its glory).



This interactive graph is a strong antidote to the knee-jerk cry that Obama is bad for the economy and isn't doing anything right. It also is evidence that the stimulus has worked and that the Detroit bailout (which has mostly been paid back) was absolutely the right thing to do. Romney and all of them just don't get it.

Okay, and now I'm done being partisan for the day.

...

SoKo in the SOTU

With the passage of the Korea-US free trade agreement (aka KORUS FTA) being one of President Obama's key accomplishments in 2011, a year marked by contentious relations with an obstructionist Congress, it's no wonder he decided to highlight it in Tuesday night's State of the Union address:

My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.

We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal – ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products.

Putting Fords, Chryslers, and Chevys on Korean roads is a frequent theme of Obama's speeches, although everyone should realize by now that General Motors, in the form of GM Daewoo, is the third largest automobile company in South Korea, and it now comes with a Chevrolet nameplate.

But the very next thing in the address is a warning to unfair trading "partners":

And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration – and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

When so much of the rhetoric about the KORUS FTA revolved around supposedly unfair advantages that Korean car companies had over their American counterparts, I'm not too happy about the juxtaposition of trade with Korea and trade with China.

But that's me. I suspect that the same people who aren't sure which Korea is the good one might also think Korea is a city in China.

Indirectly, there were other mentions of Korea, particularly in reference to military affairs:

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

I'll admit I've only read parts of the speech so far, but I plan to listen to it sometime in the next couple days. It seems to have been well received, even if much of it is unrealistic given the vehement opposition he faces in the House of Representatives.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I do like the guy a lot more than I do any of the GOP candidates left in the race, and I think Obama deserves more credit than he gets. We are in a much better place than we would be otherwise, he's gotten some very important things done, and I think he has the vision, the smarts, the people, and the drive to keep moving us forward.

Tea Partiers mockingly call him "The One," but he is, right now, the one I want.

...

(Mostly) free (trade) at last! (Mostly) free (trade) at last!

Well, the way has been cleared for me to vote for President Obama in the 2012 election. Back in 2008, I withheld my vote for him (even though I preferred him over John McCain, who I wish had been the GOP nominee back in 2000) because of how he scapegoated South Korea (and Japan) for part of America's economic woes.

I even vowed that I would end my Democratic Party membership (I'm an Orange Dog Democrat — see sidebar) if Obama and/or any other Democrats were responsible for the Korea-US free-trade agreement (KORUS FTA) failing to be ratified.

He dragged his feet at first, but Obama eventually decided to push the KORUS FTA, but only after insisting on changes (which made everything topsy-turvy and cognitively dissonant for those whose world view was one where it is always the Koreans who can't be trusted to stick to an agreement and it's always the Americans whose word is oak). The SoKos and the Americans finally agreed, and it went to the respective national legislatures. The Republicans, though, were determined to force through less deserving FTAs with Colombia and Panama on the coattails of the FTA with Korea, a move that nearly torpedoed the KORUS FTA.

But it finally passed the US Congress. And then it was the ROK National Assembly's turn to approve it. Numbers-wise, it was a sure thing, but some South Korean parties don't yet understand that democracy means accepting things you don't like when they get passed through a fair and honest vote.

With the "progressives" (a mixture of politicos who genuinely believe the FTA will be bad for Korea and chinboistas who get their marching orders from Pyongyang) threatening to pull out all the stops, things promised to get very ugly before the FTA eventually passed.

But today it all got rammed through, and the FTA has been ratified. However, this is an example of sausage-making that is a downright national embarrassment. From the Marmot's Hole:

The widely expected date of showdown was 24th of this month, when the regular session of the National Assembly was scheduled. (Frankly, I was expecting that the FTA would pass on the 24th as well.) But GNP leadership secretly decided to hold the vote on Nov. 22, at 4 p.m., apparently because GNP received intel that DLP would attempt to occupy the main chamber at the end of the day on the 22nd. Even within GNP, only a select few knew about the d-day.

GNP held an Assemblymen meeting at 2 p.m. regarding the proposed budget, which ended around 3 p.m. Toward the end of the meeting, GNP leadership told its Assemblymen that they would be passing the FTA today. They moved into the main chamber, at which point the vice chairman of the Assembly Jeong Eui-Hwa (to whom chairman Park Hee-Tae delegated his authority while Park was out of town) called for a closed session — which means no one other than Assemblymen (and not journalists, staffers or anyone else) were allowed into the building. There would be no transcript of the proceedings either. The metal gates to the National Assembly building were shuttered, and the police surrounded the building.

Sohn Hak-Gyu, who was notified of the meeting shortly after 3 p.m., arrived at the main chamber around 3:20 p.m., along with 20 Assemblymen from DP, DLP and other minor progressive parties. By 3:50 p.m., there was a quorum of GNP Assemblymen, and the Assembly session began. At this point, DLP’s Kim Seon-Dong made history by detonating a tear gas canister in front of the chairman’s seat. (Photo here.) But after the commotion settled down, the Assembly ratified the FTA and passed the accompanying bills at 4:29 p.m., by the vote of 151 to 7, with 12 abstaining. (There are 299 Assemblymembers.) The abstaining Assemblymen were mostly the GNP members who called for a negotiation with the progressives. No progressive Assemblyman participated in the voting. The entire operation lasted approximately 80 minutes.

They ended up passing the FTA, 151 to 7, with twelve members abstaining. Those 151 are a simple majority of the 299 members of the National Assembly, but it's disturbing that it was handled in such a ham-fisted and heavy-handed way (that's the second time I've gotten to say that today). It stinks of the authoritarianism remarked by Ma Kwangsoo and other critics. A lockout and blackout of media coverage does not inspire confidence or transparency.

But even more disturbing was the wild, wild west tactics of the not-so-loyal opposition. When I said they were ready to pull out all the stops, I meant that they were ready to pull the pin out of a tear gas grenade.

From the New York Times:

Lawmakers of the governing Grand National Party caught the opposition by surprise by calling a snap plenary session. Opposition legislators rushed in but were too late to prevent their rivals from putting the bill to a vote.

In a desperate attempt, one opposition lawmaker detonated a tear gas canister, throwing the National Assembly chamber into chaos. A scuffle erupted, but members of the governing party outnumbered their foes and, while sneezing and wiping tears, passed the deal in a vote of 151 to 7. In the 299-seat National Assembly, 170 members showed up for the vote Tuesday, most of them governing party lawmakers. The opposition members either voted against the bill or abstained.

Glass doors were shattered as legislative aides from the opposition parties tried to barge in, and security guards formed a human barricade.

Un-frickin'-believable. I'd hoped we'd shed that image of Tear Gas City back in the 1990s, but here we have Kim Sŏndong somehow sneaking in such a device and detonating it right in the seat of national power. Really, how utterly lax is security that that kind of thing can happen?!

Were it not for UC Davis campus police spray-painting members of the student body with tear gas just a few days ago, Assemblyman Kim's bonehead move may have left an indelible mark in global news media. Instead, he may be about as memorable as the poo flingers of Kwangju. (They're sorta memorable, but mostly amongst those who follow Korean politics and social issues; the tear gas thing, however, is a much more enduring image, owing to its heavy use during the 1980s and 1990s. If you've never been exposed to it, no words describe its nasty, debilitating effects.)

So, in conclusion, the FTA passed. President Lee is vowing to look into concerns of the opposition (particularly in the agricultural sector), and with any free-trade deal, we must look closely at the results to make sure people on both sides are getting a fair shake and real benefit. There will be some losers in all this, and their respective governments need to make sure they get the help they need, including training and what-not to transition to other jobs.

I'm glad this is all over. It has dragged on for far too long (the FTA was originally signed by former US President George W. Bush and leftist former ROK President Roh Moohyun — with support from his progressives!) and was always the 227-kilogram gorilla in the room, a hurdle that needed to be jumped successfully in order for ROK-US relations to keep growing stronger and stronger. Now we're there, so let's make the most of it.

UPDATE (following day):
The politicians on both sides have apologized for this whole mess, offering deep bows and mian culpas (see how I did that?).

...

PBS Newshour on President Lee's and President Obama's chummy visit to Detroit

I've long said that PBS's Newshour is probably the single best source of news in the United States, and when it came to ROK President Lee Myungbak's visit to Washington DC and Michigan, they have not let me down. If you want to get a useful, objective, and meaningful overview of Lee's trip to the US and what it all means, this is where you'll find it.

The eight-minute piece covers all the bases, from the recently ratified free-trade agreement to the challenges the two close allies face with North Korea. (After you listen to them discuss North Korea, go read this inspiring piece I wrote on what we can do about North Korea.)

As an added bonus, the Korea-US trade relationship is also discussed in the opening of this piece on the politics of job creation in the US.

UPDATE:
Oh, I forgot to editorialize a bit on the way the PBS reporter grossly mispronounces "Cheonan." Anyone who reads this blog knows that I'm an advocate for the McCune-Reischauer system of Romanization that was made official in preparation for the 1988 Seoul Olympics but which was replaced by the current "Revised" Romanization (a throwback to a failed older system) in preparation for the 2002 Korea/Japan World Cup. You can get a taste for some of my reasons in this lengthy comment.

Though many don't care for writing breves over the o and u to get ŏ and ŭ, the eo and eu that have replaced them are far worse options (explained in more detail here). Reading "Cheonan," the reporter (just past the 2:30 mark) as chee-OH-nahn. Did you catch that? She looked at eo and thought it was ee-oh, not uh or the o in son or computer. Instead of 천안 (or even 초난), we got 치오난.

Romanization fail. She seems to get it better a little later when she pronounces the vowels in Yŏnpyŏng-do as just one syllable. She's still off, but I'd say she's closer, and I'm guessing she was reading "Yonpyong" instead of "Yeonpyeong" (I don't pretend to think McCune-Reischauer will, with or without breves, make people magically pronounce the 어 and 으 perfectly correctly every time, but it will be far closer than eo and eu).

I really need to get going on my uber post on the superiority of McCune-Reischauer, especially if they really decide to scrap Revised Romanization (Brian doesn't agree with me).

...

Free trade at last! Free trade at last! Thank God Almighty, free trade at last!

Well, not so fast.

The Christian Science Monitor notes the very thing I was about to bring up, that ratification of the FTA by the US Congress is only half of the battle that remained. Now we must get the ROK National Assembly to do the same thing. And as they note, even though everybody's favorite leftist president, the surprisingly pragmatic Roh Moohyun, was in favor of the FTA, many in his party are poised to fight against it:

Estimates of the benefits vary widely, but some analysts in Seoul predict Korean exports to the US will go up 5 or 6 percent and two-way trade might increase by $10 billion – though Korea would still have a highly favorable balance.

The fear of a sharp increase in US farm exports, however, was expected to give Korea’s opposition Democratic Party ammunition for protests even though the party supported it while their late leader, Roh Moo-hyun, was president.

The most sensitive issue is the elimination of tariffs on imports of beef and pork. No one forgets the months of rioting in central Seoul in the summer and early fall of 2008 after Lee agreed, at a meeting at Camp David with George W. Bush, to accept American beef imports, banned for the previous five years amid fears of “Mad Cow” disease.

The tariff on beef, now 40 percent, will be lifted by 2026 and the tariff on pork, 25 percent will be eased until it’s lifted in five years.

Nonetheless, the dominant atmosphere in Washington and Seoul was upbeat after all the debate and haggling since the FTA was signed by negotiators from both countries five years ago.

Expect the chinboistas, as usual, to try to whip up anti-Lee and anti-US sentiment in order to torpedo the FTA and cause as much pain and damage to the administration as possible.

...

US ratifies FTA with Korea

Happened today, expected to be signed immediately by President Obama, in time for President Lee Myungbak's visit. Part of a trend of FTAs penned by Republican presidents and then eventually signed by Democratic presidents.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must pore over The Marmot's Hole to find quotes from all the naysayers who said this wouldn't happen.

...

KORUS FTA passes first hurdle

A congressional committee in the US overwhelmingly approved (we're talking 31 to 5) the free trade agreement with South Korea, paving the way for full approval, perhaps sometime next week.

With the Republicans promising to later support job retraining for those who lose work due to the impact of the FTAs, this is one of the few issues where the White House, the Republicans, and Congressional Democrats are in general agreement.

...

These are not the Android killers you're looking for.

Bear with me; there's a Korea connection to these two news items to ponder.

First, Apple finally came out with its latest iteration of the iPhone. But instead of the iPhone 5 that was supposed to be teardrop-shaped and wafer thin, run 4G, work as a near-field communications device that could pay for your latte, and fellate you after a hard day at work, they merely got a monstrous speed boost, a far better camera and optics, and a very cool voice-activated assistant named Siri that will help you navigate the phone and find things out (using the Internet) while you're driving.

But since it looks exactly like the iPhone 4, released in June 2010, Apple fanboys and Android users pretending to be Apple fanboys have flooded any and all Mac-related sites and posts with nasty comments about what a disappointment this was. In short, they were disappointed.

And then there's the Occupy Wall Street movement. By design, it has no leader, no list of demands, and no ideology, but they're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Meanwhile, in another key development, the Obama administration is extremely close to having the free-trade agreement with South Korea ratified.

So here's what I'm wondering. About the first story, just why didn't Apple come up with a wholly different iPhone 5? Sure, the iPhone 4S follows the pattern set with the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3Gs, but those were a year apart, not a year and three months (think of smart years as being like dog years).

Is it possible that Samsung's and Apple's increasingly nasty legal brouhaha forced Apple to wait on a new phone design and greater capabilities? Did Apple hold back this time around because of fears that Samsung cold take Apple to court if they came out with a new design? Is Apple waiting for resolution of their issues with Samsung (and perhaps a few others) before they come out in full force with a new design and major new features? Are their problems with Samsung forcing them to find a new supplier of some of their components, resulting in a slowdown in the New Products Pipeline?

And then, what about the KORUS free-trade agreement? Obama is going to get Democratic votes for the FTA primarily because he acknowledged that some Americans will lose their jobs even if there is a net gain, and they need job training. For now, the FTA's ratification seems a done deal, also because the less palatable FTAs with Colombia and Panama will be considered separately.

But is it possible that the gathering crowd of malcontents on Wall Street will turn against the Obama White House when the president starts pushing for passage of the FTA? I wonder if this will hold things up, enough that the FTA won't be ratified by the time ROK President Lee Myungbak comes for a visit.

...

KORUS FTA ratification by mid-October?

That's what President Obama is saying.

From AP, via the Washington Post:

President Barack Obama said the White House will have an announcement “in the next day or so” on sending three free trade agreements to Congress, a move that would put the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama on a path toward final passage after years of delay.

Separately, an official familiar with the discussions said the White House was expected to send the trade deals to lawmakers Monday afternoon.

Obama has made the trade pacts a centerpiece of his economic agenda. He’s repeatedly said the agreements would support tens of thousands of jobs and boost U.S. exports.

Passage of the free trade agreement with South Korea is a big part of the legislation he's been putting forth since his "Pass this bill!" speech. Since Republicans have made the somewhat less palatable FTAs with Panama and Colombia part of an all-or-nothing agreement, Obama has been touting them as well.

It would be a nice little boost to the economies of both countries, and frankly this is three or four years overdue.

...

Obama Fried Chicken

He's not a Colonel, but he is the Commander. Go here for the latest, logical, and, in hindsight, pretty darned predictable use of Obama's visage in China.

No doubt, since Beijing demanded a South Korean shop owner to take down an "offensive" sign that incorporated an image of Tiananmen Square but without the accompanying portrait of Mao Zedong (who was replaced by a dog), we should expect the same thing when the State Department asks nicely that the President's likeness not be used in this way.

...

Today's funnies: Obama jobs bill

I get what the original intent of the above cartoon was, but one could easily discern its meaning as, "Whatever the Republicans touch turns to shit." That's how I interpret it.

Anyway, this Gen-Xer here remembers a time not terribly long ago when there was a bit more respect for opposing viewpoints in politics, such that a cartoon like this might have been considered a bit over the top. But it's a crazy fractured-up country we live in.

...

Obama's jobs speech: We are tougher than the times we live in

I was going to tweet some of my thoughts, but Twitter seems to be overwhelmed with people trying to do the same.

I'm watching it online at the Los Angeles Times website (which annoyingly refreshes itself every five minutes, forcing me to miss about fifteen seconds of speech). [UPDATE: The Telegraph has the transcript of the speech, which I may put snippets of in the text below.]

I'll tell you, it's essentially State of the Union 2011-1/2. A lot of good points, many of the reiterations of things he's called for in the past (e.g., taxes done in a way where everyone pays their fair share), but the highlight — and the opener — was his America Jobs Act (?) full of such things as building up infrastructure, giving tax breaks to those who hire new people, helping veterans get jobs, etc. It has a lot more in it than I'm laying out here — and he insists it will be paid for — so I'm not doing it justice. Go read up on it.

As I expected him to do, he called for quick passage of the FTA with South Korea, but also with Panama and Colombia (I wasn't so sure he'd include those two). That's a great point, but again he says that if people in America are going to drive Hyundais and Kias, he wants to see people in Korea driving Chryslers and Fords and Chevys (I hope he realizes they already drive Chevrolets!).

His regulation-reducing effort was also highlighted. We need to make sure that regulations are there to protect the health and welfare of the country. At the same time, he says, we should resist the desire to deregulate completely, getting rid of things that provide environmental protections, protections for workers. "We shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, ... but a race to the top." Dismantling protections to make the corporations stronger is not the way to go, he says.

That was, in fact, not his only nationalism-infused statement. American will be #1 again, we'll be top in the world, there's no reason we can't beat China, etc., etc.

Overall, a good and timely speech, one that emphasizes bipartisanship (he emphasized over and over how his proposed jobs bill was a litany of things supported by both Dems and Republicans) and is filled with a bunch of points that I generally agree with. Now just get on it. As you said, the people who elected "us" don't have fourteen months to wait.

Of course, with House Speaker John Boehner not applauding at things one would think Republicans would support — like how the GI Bill helped a whole lot of people go to college who otherwise couldn't have — I expect something of an uphill battle (some Republicans who weren't even going to attend dismissed the speech before it was even made, some even boycotting it).

And why not? If the Republicans want to re-take the White House next year, it's better for them if the unemployment rate remains high, and it seems that gridlock to block Obama's plans to fix the economy in order to keep it high actually is their strategy. But Boehner may have been listening to that speech and thinking, at some point, that maybe his job will be more secure and he can effect more of the changes he wants, if he remains head of the House in a second Obama administration. But that's just a thought; I can't read his mind, nor he mine.

...

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