PunditGuy

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

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 [source unavailable], 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.

And another one bites the dust.

RadioShack Corp.’s embattled president and CEO, David Edmondson, resigned Monday following questions about his resume’s accuracy.

Leonard Roberts, RadioShack’s chairman and Edmondson’s predecessor as CEO, said the move was necessary to restore the company’s credibility.

“One of the most important things we have as a corporation is integrity and trust and we know we have to restore that back to the public,” he said.

Edmondson had claimed that he received degrees in theology and psychology from Pacific Coast Baptist College in California, which moved in 1998 to Oklahoma and renamed itself Heartland Baptist Bible College.

The school’s registrar told the Star-Telegram that records showed Edmondson completed only two semesters and that the school never offered degrees in psychology. The school official declined to comment to The Associated Press.

Edmondson said last Wednesday he believes that he received a theology diploma called a ThG, but not the four-year bachelor of science degree listed on his resume. He could not document the ThG diploma.

Roberts said company background checks did not include academic verification in 1994 as it does today.

If you’re one that thinks the diploma is just a piece of paper, think again.

Late last year when former FEMA Director Mike Brown had resume problems of his own, I looked into this widespread problem. It seems that a lot of people are ‘resume challenged’.

Via the WaPo, former US President Jimmy Carter urges the US and Israel not to punish the Palestinians.

There he goes again…

The role of the prime minister was greatly strengthened while Abbas and Ahmed Qureia served in that position under Yasser Arafat, and Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the “road map.” This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, “We want a peaceful unity government.” If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

And therein lies the problem, Mr. Carter. On what basis are we to believe that Hamas would be the least bit truthful when it comes to Israel? The only truth I’ve heard from its members is the truth of their hate for Israel.

The real problem is, Jimmy Carter doesn’t believe that Hamas and Terrorism are one and the same. Two peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. Mr. Jimmy believes that there are responsible members of Hamas who, if given the chance, would step up and become savvy, formidable politicians who could take a little power away from Israel and ‘even things out’.

Jimmy Carter is wrong. Again. As wrong as he was when he was president. But I guess that’s what happens when you get kicked out of office by an electorate who was more than happy to extricate Carter from the White House grounds. Deep down, Carter is pissed off about that, and ever since, he’s been a lackey for the Left and a thorn amongst Republican roses. That’s why he unilaterally jumps at the chance to travel around the world and butt in on its affairs. His 82-year-old mind says he’s not done ruling yet.

Pride’s a funny thing. It can also be dangerous. Carter won’t listen to Republicans, or anyone in the Bush administration. There isn’t anyone in the Democratic party who has the guts to tell Carter to stay in Atlanta. What we have then is a defiant senior citizen who just happened to be president once and believes he didn’t get a real chance to be a great president so come hell or high water, he’s gonna be a great ex-president, no matter what anyone thinks.

You wanna know something really frightening? There’s another ‘Carter’ out there, and his name is Bill Clinton. He’s only 60 years old. He could do damage for another 25, maybe even 30 years!

And that’s something to be scared about.

When I was growing up, there were a few sports ‘voices’ that I remember, not by name of course, but simply by the voice. I’d think, “oh, yeah, it’s that guy calling the game.”

Well, one of those ‘guys’ is gone.

He was the smooth voice of sports history, a welcome companion who brought listeners Ted Williams’ last home run, the first Super Bowl and dozens of other dramatic moments.

Curt Gowdy, who died Monday, told generations of Americans about the games they loved from the broadcast booths at 13 World Series, 16 All-Star baseball games, numerous Rose Bowls and the 1976 Montreal Olympics.

“He was the first superstar of sports television because he did all of the big events,” veteran NBC broadcaster Dick Enberg said. “He’s the last of the dinosaurs. No one will ever be the voice of so many major events at the same time ever again.”

Gowdy died of leukemia at his winter home in Palm Beach. He was 86.

I like Bill Safire, mostly, but this cutesy article on blog jargon reads a little like an old man talking to his friends at the barbershop about those wacky kids and their newfangled time machine gadget thingys.

While I’m sure this is all tongue-in-cheek, Bill is getting up there in age, so it’s rather believable that he’d consider the blog phenomenon to be more like Alice in Wonderland’s Tea Party than the beginnings of a new instamedia. He doesn’t come right out and say he lacks an understanding of our blogosphere, but he really doesn’t need to. It’s simply ‘Blargon’ to Bill.

When will they learn?

MAIN PRESS PLANS ANOTHER WEEK OF CHENEY SHOOTING COVERAGE

If the nation’s top magazines have the pulse of the country — get ready for another exhaustive week of exhaustive Cheney shooting coverage!

This just in… Both TIME and NEWSWEEK are planning high impact covers of Cheney for newsstands starting tomorrow, with each magazine rolling out top staff bylines and thousands of words on the hunting incident: TIME: With deep reporting by John Cloud, Mike Allen and Matthew Cooper/ Washington, Cathy Booth Thomas and Patricia Kilday Hart/ Austin, and Hilary Hylton. NEWSWEEK urgently brings in its big investigative guns: Evan Thomas, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey, Mark Hosenball and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Carol Rust in Texas.

NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter essays that media budget cuts and shifting news priorities have contributed to the public being in the dark about Cheney’s ways and means.

TIME headlines a poll: DICK CHENEY APPROVAL RATING 29%

NEWSWEEK editor Mark Whitaker defends his decision to push for another week of Cheney-Shooting coverage: “The reason we ultimately decided to stick with a cover is not because of the hunting incident itself-although we did turn up some new details that you might not have read elsewhere-but because of what it says about the mysterious world of the most powerful vice president of recent times.”

…Or what it says about the timing and state of print publications in the Click Age of news cycles.

Alter’s comment is telling of just how out of touch the elite media has become.

Of course, keeping the story alive just means that bloggers will have another productive week with lots of opportunities to ridicule and denigrate the MSM. Bring it on.

Over the next few days you’re likely to come across a video of an alleged ballistics analysis and test shootings which suggest that Vice President Dick Cheney was actually closer to Harry Whittington when accidently fired his gun. Taylor Marsh and her flock of moonbats are hyping this as the smoking gun (pardon the pun) that proves there is a massive coverup underway.

I have serious doubts about this, and so do quite a few other people.

And then I came across this comment over at Boing Boing:

This video is the from the source that had the report claiming “RFID Tags in New US Notes Explode When You Try to Microwave Them.” That makes the ballistics report less credible, in my opinion.

In other words, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)

Dan Riehl has more.

Can someone tell me which planet Alec Baldwin is from?