Columbus State Cougars making connections in South Korea
SEOUL, South Korea (WRBL) – While most Columbus State University students aren't in class this summer, some students and CSU President Dr. Stuart Rayfield are in South Korea. In this foreign exchange program they are learning about South Korean culture first hand.The CSU contingent is spending 10 days in South Korea. Dr. Rayfield went to South Korea to look for new academic and economic opportunities with a focus on the country's direct investment in Georgia. South Korea is one of the top five investors in the Peach State.
June 6th is also Korean Memorial Day. It's a holiday dedicated to honor the soldiers and civilians that died in war, specifically the Korean War. Dr. Rayfield says this trip and holiday underlines the importance of the partnership between the U.S. and South Korea.
'It really puts a lot into perspective how important our relationship is with South Korea,' Dr. Rayfield said. 'It's not just a military connection or relationship. It's an economic relationship. It's a cultural relationship. So being here today specifically and earlier this week they had their SNAP election. Just really felt a sense of pride in the community and a sense of love of country.'
This is Dr. Rayfield's first time to visit South Korea, and she plans to meet up with the CSU students in South Korea this weekend.
The CSU contingent plans to return back to the Fountain City on June 11th.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Survey: Germany's Merz gaining in popularity as leader
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has risen markedly in popularity in his first weeks in the job, according to a new poll published on Saturday. The survey, conducted by the INSA research institute for the Bild newspaper, found that 36% of the 1,202 respondents were so far satisfied with the performance of the 69-year-old conservative chancellor, who took office on May 6. This is 13 percentage points higher than his rating four weeks ago. Another 45% of respondents said they were dissatisfied with Merz, 4 percentage points less than in the last survey, while 19% did not know how to answer. Germany's coalition government under Merz is also viewed more positively than it was a month ago. Some 37% said they were satisfied with the partnership of his Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) with the Social Democrats (SPD), up from 29% in the last survey. Again, 45% expressed dissatisfaction, and 18% did not know how to answer. On a weekly basis, however, there was hardly any movement in the ratings of the five parties represented in Germany's lower house of parliament, or Bundestag. The CDU/CSU bloc gained one percentage point from the previous week to reach 27% support, followed by the far-right Alternative for Germany with 23%, one percentage point down from the previous week. The SPD (16%) and the Left Party (10%) both lost one percentage point, coming in at 16% and 10% respectively, while the Greens gained one point to garner 11% support. Public opinion polls are fraught with uncertainty. Among other things, declining party loyalty and increasingly short-term election decisions make it hard for pollsters to accurately assess the data collected. Generally, surveys only reflect opinion at the time they are conducted and are not forecasts of possible election outcomes.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's budget bill could cut federal food assistance to 575,000 Kentuckians
More than half a million Kentuckians — including roughly 225,000 children — face the loss of or a reduction in their federal food assistance benefits under a budget bill moving through Congress supported by President Donald Trump, advocates said Friday. In addition to the proposal in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to slash Medicaid spending by billions, the budget reconciliation bill includes historic cuts to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance to low-income individuals and families. Roughly 13% of Americans — more than 41 million people — receive SNAP benefits each month. Trump's bill threatens to reduce the federal program by more than $300 billion over the next decade, putting more responsibility on states to foot the bill instead. Jessica Klein, policy associate at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, described it as the 'largest cut, ever, to SNAP in the history of the program's existence' on a Friday press call. Supporters of the bill, including most, but not all of, Kentucky's congressional delegation, laud it as a means of carrying out Trump's agenda to eliminate 'waste, fraud and abuse' in federal resources. Millions of SNAP recipients are expected to be cleaved from the program nationwide. 'SNAP is proven to reduce hunger, improve health, reduce health care costs and support local economies. As the top farming state in the nation, our farmers' markets, groceries and food retailers have come to rely on the almost $1.3 billion spent on groceries with SNAP each year,' Klein said. One in eight Kentuckians benefits from SNAP, which translates to roughly 575,800 people. The ripple effects of the bill, which is now in the Senate, extend well beyond the direct impact on families using SNAP dollars to buy groceries each month, Klein and other food assistance advocates said Friday. In 2023, over 92.5% of Kentucky schools — about 625,000 kids — were eligible through the federal Community Eligibility Provision program. That program allows low-income students to receive free breakfast and lunch. CEP eligibility is calculated — and districts are reimbursed with federal dollars — using a formula based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced meals using the Identified Student Percentage, or ISP. The ISP is based on their family's participation in federal food assistance programs, including SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. A reduction in the overall number of families receiving SNAP benefits means school districts eligible for the CEP program, by extension, risk losing that funding, said Leah Fagin, the food service director at Mayfield Independent School District, where roughly 90% of the student population qualifies for free or reduced meals. Even in a relatively small district like Mayfield, CEP-eligible districts can receive federal reimbursements of tens of thousands of dollars. The SNAP cuts and ripple effect to CEP eligibility will mean the districts, then 'have to absorb that cost,' she said. 'When you're looking at a school district with 10 schools with several thousand dollars in meal charges, you're looking at cutting teachers, cutting other benefits the district is able to enjoy,' Fagin said. 'I'm very concerned our legislators do not understand the critical link between SNAP and CEP eligibility,' she said. What's more, the loss of SNAP dollars uniquely threatens rural Kentucky where farming is a 'vital part' of the local economy, said Emily Foster, a farmer in Wolfe County who manages the Red River Gorge Farmers Market. Her farmers market, like others across Kentucky, accepts SNAP benefits. 'SNAP doesn't just help families put food on the table, it also strengthens our entire local food economy,' Foster said. 'Accepting SNAP expands our customer base, allowing more people to shop at the market, people who otherwise might not be able to afford fresh food.' Foster added, 'when families spend SNAP benefits at the market, that money goes directly to our local farmers, who in turn spend it at local businesses, creating a ripple effect that benefits everyone. In Eastern Kentucky, where economic opportunities can be limited, this cycle is especially important.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
It Would Be So Funny If Trump Nationalized Elon Musk's Companies
As one of the century's stupidest, most high-profile feuds escalated yesterday, President Donald Trump at one point threatened to cancel the U.S. government's expansive contracts with SpaceX and Tesla, companies that are both at least nominally headed by ketamine enthusiast and Grimes-ex Elon Musk. In response, Musk threatened to 'immediately' decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, currently America's only means of shuttling astronauts to and from the International Space Station. An X user with fewer than 200 followers then appeared to negotiate some kind of détente on the matter, prompting Musk to back down. The bizarre, petulant, helplessly transfixing back-and-forth was a reminder that, while Musk's time as a 'special government employee' may be over, he's still very much a part of the U.S. government. His business empire has been built on government largesse, whether through SpaceX's expansive contracts with NASA, Starlink satellites, or the clean car rule compliance credits that have accounted for 34 percent of Tesla's profits since 2012. As The Washington Post reported in February, Musk's businesses have over the years received $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. In many ways, Musk owes his fortune to the U.S. government. A truce between Trump and Musk may be imminent, but, if he wishes to use it, Trump has a powerful wild card for sticking it to Musk: nationalize his companies. A similar idea was floated online yesterday by Steve Bannon, the odious former film producer and Trump confidant, who suggested using the Defense Production Act to 'seize' SpaceX. The wide-ranging Korean War–era policy outlines several steps by which the White House can bypass Congress to intervene in the demand and supply sides of particular industries. Those powers can include directing private companies to prioritize orders from the federal government, issuing loans and loan guarantees, and allocating 'materials, services, and facilities' from corporations. Just this week, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to boost production of so-called critical minerals and weapons. A waiver published to the Federal Register on Wednesday claims that shortfalls of either would 'severely impair national defense capability.' The Biden administration similarly leveraged the Defense Production Act to spur on the domestic production of graphite, a key component of the lithium-ion batteries used in military energy systems and electric vehicles. Both presidents turned to the law during the Covid-19 pandemic to address medical supply chain shortages and accelerate vaccine production. As the Roosevelt Institute's Todd Tucker has pointed out, the Defense Production Act has been continually updated to give the White House broader authority over energy, in particular. Its 2009 reauthorization specifically excised language in previous versions that restricted the government's ability to directly engage in energy production. After 9/11, the Defense Production Act's definition of 'national defense' was updated to include the protection and restoration of 'critical infrastructure,' a legal designation of 16 sectors deemed essential to the functioning of the economy, including telecoms, information technology, and transportation. In theory, that is, the Defense Production Act offers Donald Trump a massive toolbox with which to intervene in Musk's business. He could stick it to the richest man on earth by ordering Tesla to stop making Cybertrucks and start making electric buses, or forcing Starlink to provide free internet service to everyone in the country. As Bannon hinted, the law also opens up the possibility of requiring recipients of government funding—including those who have received loans and contracts—to give the government equity stakes in exchange. The first Trump administration did just that in 2020, when the Treasury Department sought equity stakes in publicly traded national security contractors, including defense firms, looking to receive the $17 billion set aside for them in coronavirus relief funds. Tying federal funding to public equity stakes is a common practice in other countries that's somewhat rare in the U.S. The most prominent example in recent memory was when the federal government spent $50 billion on a 61 percent equity stake in General Motors, bailing out the automaker after its bankruptcy in 2009. While this move theoretically empowered the White House to enact wide-ranging reforms—correcting for the kinds of mistakes that had plunged GM into financial ruin in the first place—presidential advisers, including Larry Summers, then the head of the National Economic Council, pushed the Obama administration to instead act as a 'reluctant equity owner' and 'not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations.' The concept of the government seeking a 'golden share' in certain companies has already come up during Trump 2.0. Trump obliquely floated the possibility of the U.S. receiving an equity stake as part of Nippon Steel's controversial takeover of U.S. Steel, entitling the government to an advisory role that could allow it to outvote other shareholders on major issues like mergers and asset sales. Given the sheer scale of Musk's dealings with the federal government—business he seemed eager to expand during his disastrous time in Washington—there are any number of options for Trump to bolster government oversight of SpaceX and Tesla, including, potentially, buying up shares. Republican attacks on both electric vehicle incentives and California's clean car rules, moreover, may end up costing Tesla billions of dollars, JP Morgan Chase analysts have found. Tesla is already struggling amid flagging sales in the U.S. and abroad; earlier this year at the White House, Trump even hosted a bizarre infomercial for Tesla, seemingly aimed at boosting the company's fortunes. It's not impossible to imagine that Tesla might at some point come begging for another handout, offering Trump the opportunity to do what Barack Obama couldn't: play an active role in the day-to-day operations of a U.S. automaker. To state the obvious, it is vanishingly unlikely that Donald Trump will use either public equity stakes or the Defense Production Act toward progressive ends. In March, his administration removed solar panels, heat pumps, and other green technologies from the Defense Production Act's purview by rescinding several Biden-era executive orders. Doing so, though, would make Elon Musk really, really mad. If Trump is too afraid to exert that kind of power over Musk—who has demonstrated time and again his alarming sway over the federal government—whichever Democrat makes it to the White House next shouldn't be.
