Day: February 21, 2006

48% of youth aged 18 to 23 in South Korea would support North Korea if the US were to bomb key nuclear sites.

A South Korean political expert is quick to say that the poll results should not be interpreted as meaning that young South Koreans are anti-American. He believes they are pro-peace and are opposed to any armed conflict.

Yeah, OK, fine. I think there’s a deeper problem in South Korea, one that was highlighted by a discussion I had with a colleague of mine who lives there. He said the problem is the older generation hasn’t effectively taught the younger generation about their neighbors to the north. Teens either don’t know about or cannot relate to the experiences of real people who lived through the Korean War. They are far removed from that time, and as such, they don’t fear a future attack. They don’t fully appreciate how the regime in Pyongyang treats its inhabitants. They misjudge Kim Jong-il to be as reasonable as most other modern day leaders.

Perhaps worst of all, they take their freedom for granted. They don’t believe in the boogyman.

So, what should the US do? Should we continue to prepare to defend South Korea in the event that Kim goes nuts and starts his tanks a-rollin’? We know he already tells his people that North Korea is at war with the United States. He can launch a missile at any moment and claim he was provoked.

Should we worry about that?

Bill Quick says “Let ‘em Hang”. I’m not so sure. 

I got a chuckle out of this story from the New York Times. As email has made professors more approachable, many academic elitists are complaining that electronic communication has made them too accessible. They fear the breakdown of ‘traditional’ boundaries which keep students at a healthy distance.

I’m guessing the same expressions of fear took place during the advent of the telephone.

While I don’t begrudge any professor who dislikes receiving too many email messages of light weight value, I do think a struggle exists within the world of academia as it collides with technology. In today’s virtual world, it is becoming harder and harder for universities to separate the teacher from the student. It’s a delicate balancing act. Visit nearly any university website and you’ll find most are designed to provide a wealth of information for the prospective student as well as those who are already enrolled. If they are competing for student dollars, and most viable schools are, they must accommodate a vast array of technology needs. That means students who own notebook computers must be able to connect to the university network, and thus, the Internet, from multiple points on and off campus. This connectedness implies a certain amount of accessibility to university resources, and professors fall into that category.

Regardless of academia’s varying ability to accept and conform to a world of electronic communication, the real issue is a lack of respect for the permanence of bits and bytes. Email sent from the account of an enrolled student belongs to the institution. It isn’t a private means of communication and messages can easily be forwarded to unlimited recipients. Moreover, email can be archived and used, perhaps in negative ways, against students as they pursue career opportunities. I would argue that most in this 18 to 23-year-old demographic remain ignorant of these facts, and they become more vulnerable with each .edu email they send.

And that timebomb ticks on.

MORE: Regarding infamous emails, some say there’s nothing to worry about.

The controversy over the US contracting management control of six American Ports to an Arab company continues as members of Congress join the right side of the blogosphere in opposition to the agreement which was initially given the green light by the Bush administration. If you’re wondering why this deal was even considered, you’re not alone.

Here’s one thing I’m confident about – when Jimmy Carter agrees with the Bush administration, something is wrong.

Joe Gandelman provides the news roundup duties on this one.

UPDATE: Bush throws gas on the fire by issuing a veto threat.