They Call the Wind Korea

---

---

"Out here they got a name for rain
For wind and fire only
But when you're lost and all alone
There ain't no word but lonely"

They Call the Wind Maria
From Paint Your Wagon (1951)

---

Sixty years ago today, the final armistice was signed in Panmunjom, putting the Korean War (which had been labeled a "police action" by then–President Harry Truman) on hold.

As James Ragland of the Dallas Morning News observes, the war/conflict/police action in Korea is often called "the forgotten war." In fact, had it not been for the movie "M*A*S*H" and the long–running TV series it spawned, most people of my generation probably never would have heard of it.

It all ended long before my time, of course, but, based on my studies, Korea received far less attention than either World War II, which preceded it, or the Vietnam War, which followed it — so, in the context of history, I guess it really has been forgotten — or, at least, ignored.

It's been given a lot of names, too.

South Koreans call it "the 6–2–5 Upheaval" — like the American shorthand of 9–1–1 for the hijackings that occurred in 2001, it is a reference to the date of the North's invasion of the South (June 25, 1950).

The North Koreans call it the "Fatherland Liberation War." (Eric Talmadge of the Associated Press reports that the official commemoration in North Korea was a "painstakingly choreographed military pageant intended to strike fear into North Korea's adversaries and rally its people behind young ruler Kim Jong Un.")

In China — where the Communists won their clash with the Nationalists in the late 1940s with North Korea's help — it is called the "War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea." The Chinese returned the favor and lent support to the North Koreans in their battle with the South.

Battle, police action, conflict, war — whatever you want to call it, Ann Curry and Becky Bratu of NBC News report that it has not been forgotten where it was fought; there, the armistice's anniversary, they report, was observed "with pomp and massive celebrations."

As it should be. An estimated 2.5 million civilians were killed or wounded during the conflict. Its end was worth celebrating then as now.

---

---

Actually, though, the war never ended. Instead, an uneasy peace has descended on that trouble peninsula, and the uneasiness has only increased with the introduction of nuclear weapons into the equation.

See, what was signed 60 years ago today was an armistice, not a surrender.

An armistice is defined as "a temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement of the warring parties," and Curry and Bratu point out, "[A] peace treaty has yet to be negotiated."

Negotiations have been continuing between North Korea and South Korea in the same building where the armistice was signed 60 years ago today.

There were often jokes on M*A*S*H about the maddeningly slow pace of the peace talks.

But what hasn't been happening for the last six decades is no joke.

Lowering the Bar

I've been told — mostly by optimists, seldom by pessimists — that whether something is good or bad often depends on how you look at it.

Is the glass "half full" or is it "half empty?"

Of course, there are times when the situation is clearly good or bad, with little, if any, wiggle room.

On September 11, for example, you would have been hard-pressed to find someone in the United States who saw a silver lining in the hijackings of four jets, three of which were crashed into buildings, resulting in the total collapse of two of those buildings and the deaths of nearly 3,000 people — unless that silver lining was the short-lived surge in patriotism and the eagerness most people seemed to have to be courteous to their fellow citizens that arose in the immediate aftermath.

In some parts of the Middle East, however, September 11 was viewed as a good thing. I clearly remember seeing some people in that region celebrating upon hearing the news.

In the current recession — or depression or whatever it is that most people are calling it these days — Frank Ahrens is probably correct when he writes, in the Washington Post, that we are living in "the era of low expectations."

Ahrens wrote an interesting piece about the economy and Cisco Systems' quarterly earnings report from the middle of last week — before yesterday's unemployment update was announced — but it's even more relevant when one takes the new unemployment figures into consideration.

"Has 'not as bad as we thought it would be' become the new 'good?'" Ahrens asks. "Has the economy really come to that?"

Prior to the release of the latest unemployment figures, I heard a lot of people saying the economy would lose 600,000 jobs in January. As it turned out, the economy didn't quite lose 600,000 jobs in January. It came close, and the numbers were the worst they've been since 1974, as I observed in this blog yesterday.

Yet the fact that the economy didn't shed 600,000 jobs in January — as it was, the latest jobs report was labeled "brutal" by Alexandra Twin of CNNMoney.com — seems to have been greeted as good news in some quarters. Wall Street, for instance. The Dow Jones was up more than 217 points. Nasdaq went up more than 45 points. And S&P was up more than 22 points — increases of more than 2% in each instance.

The fact that the economy lost 598,000 jobs in January — and more than 3.5 million jobs have been lost since December 2007 — should not be considered good news. But it is, as Ahrens wrote, "not as bad as we thought."

That, however, is merely a game of semantics.

Barack Obama has tried to be conciliatory, searching for ways to make the government's response a truly bipartisan effort, but he has been taking a stricter stance on the economic stimulus package in recent days, as many have observed in blogs and columns.

It's a bad situation all the way around. Here in Texas, it was widely believed that, although the situation has been bad, it wasn't as bad as it's been in many states. Yet, the current outlook — at least through the first half of 2009 — is dismal here.

In an editorial, the New York Times said it was hard to argue with Obama about the urgency for a stimulus package, then noted that "[o]ur only objection was that he didn't go further: In fact, the jobs report underscored the need for an even bigger boost than is contemplated by the measure, now clocking in at roughly $800 billion."

Senate leaders seemed intent on congratulating each other yesterday for reaching a compromise on the overall cost of the package. In my view, the cost is secondary. We're in this mess because the government, which was entirely in the hands of George W. Bush and the Republicans in the first half of this decade, decided it could accomplish its goals on the cheap and without the intrusion of regulation and oversight.

It's time to abandon the notion of pinching pennies.

Now, those who still have jobs must bear the burden of repairing the damage. Whatever the political philosophies of the individual lawmakers, their choice is clear — do something or sit back and do nothing while their fellow citizens go under.

Look at it as the economic equivalent of Hurricane Katrina. The government must respond now — not a week or a month or a year from now.

It will cost a lot to salvage an economy that supports a nation of more than 300 million people. It isn't pleasant, but it must be done.

It's like ignoring that annoying sound coming from your car. You could save money in the long run by addressing it when you first hear it and pay a minimal amount to replace whatever part it is that is wearing out — or you can pay a lot more later when that part finally gives out and causes more extensive damage.

Our leaders ignored the annoying sounds coming from the economy. Now that more extensive damage has been done and continues to be done, they complain about the cost.

In fact, many members of the Senate — mostly Republicans — still preach the mantra of tax cuts. Well, the Bush era tax cuts were largely responsible for the mess we're in now. Passing more tax cuts under the pretense of using that to repair the economy is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

As is often the case, I am reminded of the message from an episode of a TV series. I refer to an episode of "M*A*S*H," in which Hawkeye, frustrated by new Pentagon directives that extended surgeons' tours of duty, went to the peace talks and barged in, telling the representatives that they couldn't wait any longer to come to an agreement.

"You know what to do. Why can't you just do it?" he implored the delegates. "You can't wait anymore. People are dying out there. You've got to stop it."

We need a Hawkeye to barge into the Senate.

In the meantime, there is something we can do. Obama will hold his first presidential press conference on Monday (8 p.m. Eastern). I presume he will devote much of it to the economic crisis. I hope he will encourage people to contact their senators and urge them to vote for the package.

You can get started on that yourself. Today. Go to the web address for the U.S. Senate and find the senators from your state. Once you do, you should have no trouble finding the e-mail addresses (as well as traditional mail addresses and landline phone numbers) for those senators. Contact them. Express your views.

Tell them that you haven't lowered the bar. Tell them you expect a lot from the people who have been sent to Washington to represent you — including having the guts to make tough but necessary choices.

Throw Us a Lifeline

Job creation is only part of the stimulus package now pending before the U.S. Senate. As Tami Luhby of CNNMoney.com writes, the package is also designed to provide benefits for those who cannot find work.

The bill, writes Luhby, proposes

• "increasing and extending unemployment insurance;


• "expanding coverage to more low-income and part-time workers;


• "subsidizing health insurance coverage;


• "and recharging state unemployment insurance trust funds, which are running dry as layoffs climb."

In other words, it's a lifeline for those who feel they are slipping beneath the waves. Many feel they're going under for the last time.

New jobless claims reached their highest level in more than a quarter century last week, nearly 50,000 more than the experts anticipated.

Is that all the unemployed are now — numbers? It seems that the only thing economists find regrettable is that their estimates are off — not the fact that real people are behind those numbers.

That reminds me of an episode of the TV series "M*A*S*H," titled "The Grim Reaper," in which a colonel in the Army seems to blithely predict the number of wounded who will be brought to the 4077th, much to the disgust of Hawkeye. The colonel and Hawkeye get into a scuffle, and the colonel decides to court-martial Hawkeye, but he changes his tune when he is among those injured.

To accomplish the same thing with some of the senators who are kicking up a fuss about the stimulus package, we would need to have another election scheduled in a few weeks or months, and there would need to be ample evidence that the voters are about to toss those obstructionist senators into the unemployment line.

Perhaps that is the kind of fear that is required to get the action that is desperately needed. Unfortunately, the next election is nearly two years away.

To his credit, President Obama gets it. And he is expressing confidence, according to both administration and congressional sources, that the Senate will pass the stimulus package by the end of the week.

Perhaps they will. Certainly, the unemployed — whose numbers are certain to climb when the new figures are announced — hope the president is right.

And they hope the package passes in time to help them.

For God's sake, the Senate had better hurry.

Don't Let the Door Hit You On the Way Out

Gail Collins has an interesting suggestion in her column in today's New York Times.

George W. Bush should arrange to resign and turn over the executive branch to the Obama team about eight weeks early.

On the surface, it seems laughable. A two-term Republican president, resigning to give his successor from the opposing political party a jump on things?

To borrow a phrase spoken by Rob Reiner's recently departed mother in "When Harry Met Sally," I'll have what she's having.

But is it so ridiculous?

Collins presents a reasonable and logical plan. She has the wisdom to insist on certain preconditions — such as requiring that Dick Cheney resign first, so Democrat Nancy Pelosi, as next in line per the Constitution, would succeed Bush. Then Pelosi would "defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing."

Collins sees even more of an up side to an early Bush departure.

"As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all," she writes. "On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good."

The benefit to Bush's legacy, Collins suggests, would be his recognition of a reversal of public opinion and his willingness to cooperate for the good of the country.

"In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high," Collins writes. "However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel."

By making this noble gesture, Collins says, it is "possible that someday history might elevate [Bush] to the ranks of the below average. Better than Franklin Pierce! Smarter than Warren Harding! And healthier than William Henry Harrison!"

And, for that matter, more highly regarded than the man against whose approval ratings he has often been compared in the last year or so — Richard Nixon, the same president Bush's father, as Republican national chairman, urged to resign before it was fashionable to do so.

It all reminds me of something Dr. "Hawkeye" Pierce said on the "M*A*S*H" TV series in an episode in which he was being considered for one of the easiest of medical jobs in the Army — personal physician to a general, far away from combat and the "meatball surgery" in a M*A*S*H.

Hawkeye protested that he could do some real good at the M*A*S*H unit instead of periodically measuring a general's pulse and listening to him burp. "You guys always say the men come first," he said. "Well, do they or don't they?"

This would certainly be a fine way to show that the country comes first. Is George W. Bush capable of such a magnanimous gesture?

I find the suggestion intriguing, but Obama, of course, couldn't become president ahead of schedule under the existing Constitutional framework.

Pelosi would have to act as Obama's surrogate until the actual inauguration in January. She couldn't designate the president-elect as her successor and resign — the Constitution already names the next in line in case the speaker of the House is unable to continue, and you have to go through an enormous line of successors before you reach the spot currently held by the junior senator from Illinois.

The Constitution makes no provision for the inclusion of a president-elect in the line of succession before he takes office on January 20 — unless, of course, the president-elect is already in that line of succession (i.e., Vice President George H.W. Bush, when he was elected to be Ronald Reagan's successor in 1988).

The drawback, from Pelosi's perspective at least, would be that she would have to resign her congressional position to become president for eight weeks. Effectively, she would have to sacrifice her career. Would she be prepared to do that?

I must say that I find Collins' suggestion implausible. After all, we're talking about a man who still cannot identify a single mistake he has made in eight years as president.

Why would he feel obliged to leave two months early?

Collins gets high marks for creativity — but low marks for probability.