Salon.com has an interesting article about the recent rash of incidents involving South Korean soldiers along the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea. Apparently, a soldier recently killed eight other military personnel and two others committed suicide while stationed at the DMZ. The articles speculates that two factors may be at the heart of these incidents -- (1) a culture that tolerates abuse against soldiers in the South Korean army and (2) a new generation of South Korean men who are used to a pampered lifestyle:

Two years of military service is compulsory for South Korean men, and the army is notorious for mistreatment of conscripts. After a trooper killed eight fellow soldiers Sunday, the Defense Ministry admitted a culture of harassment permeates the military, and President Roh Moo-hyun called for a review of discipline. . . .

South Korean media have been filled with commentary questioning whether a generational divide is to blame. Today’s young people are more focused on individualism and are living in more prosperity than their parents did, and they are growing up at a time when they see the Seoul government striving to reconcile with the North. . . .

“I thought the military was something worth experiencing for boys, but I worry something like this will happen,” said Kim Sun-young, 46, a university lecturer whose 21-year-old son has finished half of his army stint. “It is every mother’s horror that they lose their child to something like this.”

These incidents are pretty tragic of course. At the same time, they highlight how there seems to be a clash between traditional versus contemporary culture. Traditional culture is represented by the decades-old policy of two years of mandatory military service for South Korean men and the acceptance of abuse against enlisted personnel in the military (reminds me of some of the controversy at the U.S. Air Force Academy, come to think about it). On the other hand, contemporary culture is represented by the new generation of South Korean men who grew up with very little knowledge and understanding of the Korean War.

With these incidents in mind, it seems as though something will have to give -- one of the two cultures will have to change more than the other. History tends to show that in most cases, it’s the newer culture that generally wins in the end.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that some federal government officials are increasingly worried about the gap between the rich and poor that’s been expanding and getting worse in the past several years. As the article notes, we would expect this kind of concern from liberals but the most prominent voice recently is that of Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board:

America’s powerful central banker hasn’t suddenly lurched to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean. His solution is better education today to create a flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of plutocrats’ yachts.

But the fact that Mr. Greenspan speaks about this topic at all may show how much the growing concentration of national wealth at the top, combined with the uncertainties of increased globalization, worries economic policymakers as they peer into the future. . .

The result of this, said Greenspan, is that the US now has a significant divergence in the fortunes of different groups in its labor market. “As I’ve often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic society - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressing,” Greenspan told the congressional hearing.

The article goes on to note that Greenspan blames the failures of American elementary and high schools to prepare students to enter the postindustrial economy for this growing gap. However, while many liberals welcome Greenspan’s concern about the rich-poor gap, they point out that education is only one of many causes and areas to be addressed.

It seems that although Greenspan still has a way to go in order to fully grasp the intricacies of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., at least he’s finally admitting that there is a problem -- the first step in addressing the issue.

As another indication of America’s obsession with lists and rankings, Forbes Magazine has released its list of the 100 Most Powerful Celebrities (presumably from around the world, since several international sports stars are on the list). The list is based on combined rankings for pay, web hits in search engines, press coverage, and TV appearances. For your convenience, the top 10 are:

1. Oprah Winfrey
2. Tiger Woods
3. Mel Gibson
4. George Lucas
5. Shaquille O’Neal
6. Steven Spielberg
7. Johnny Depp
8. Madonna
9. Elton John
10. Tom Cruise

How many Asians or Asian Americans are on the list? Don’t hold your breath. Apparently, the only Asian American on the list is Kimora Lee Simmons, fashion designer and wife of hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons.

I suppose that it’s not a complete shock that there are virtually no Asians or Asian Americans on the list, but I am a little surprised that Aishwarya Rai, Bollywood superstar and the internationally proclaimed “World’s Most Beautiful Woman,” isn’t on the list somewhere.

Oh well, maybe next year.

CBS News reports that according to a new international poll, the U.S.’s image is so low that citizens in many countries view the communist dictatorship in China even more favorably than the U.S.:

The United States’ image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that China, which is ruled by a communist dictatorship, is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many countries, an international poll found.

Eleven of the 16 countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center — Britain, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia — had a more favorable view of China than the U.S. India and Poland were more upbeat about the U.S., while Canadians are as likely to see China favorably as they were the United States. . . .

“The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult,” said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. . . . People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place.

What’s that again about Bush being a uniter, not a divider?

Wired News reports that Microsoft has been working directly with the Chinese government in censoring material on its Chinese language web portal:

The policy affects blogs created through the MSN Spaces service, said Adam Sohn, a global sales and marketing director at MSN. Microsoft and its government-funded Chinese business partner work with authorities to omit certain forbidden language, Sohn said. . . [B]loggers were not allowed to post terms to MSN Spaces such as “democracy,” “human rights” and “Taiwan independence.” Attempts to enter those words were said to generate a message saying the language was prohibited. . . .

China’s government encourages internet use for business and education but tries to ban access to material deemed subversive. Chinese censors scour internet bulletin boards and blogs for sensitive material, and block access to violators. Sites that let the public post comments are told to censor themselves or face penalties.

Sohn said heavy-handed government censorship is accepted as part of the regulatory landscape in China, and the world’s largest software firm believes its services still can foster expression in the country. “Even with the filters, we’re helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships. For us, that is the key point here,” he said.

I suppose it is inevitable that when you work with the Chinese government, you’ll have to agree to many of their terms, which includes censorship. To be fair, other articles note that many U.S. Internet companies, such as Yahoo and Google, do the same thing. But it is still a little sad to see a company like Microsoft, who supposedly prides itself on providing people the means to maximize communication and creative expression, acede to demands that they censor such communication and expression.

Oh well, anything to promote capitalism I guess . . .

Inside Higher Education reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has just released a report criticizing the Bush administration’s efforts to limit academic freedom around the country. The article notes,

“Science Under Siege” says that the administration has used the attacks of September 11 to undermine the rights of researchers. “Spurred by misguided and often disingenuous security concerns, the Bush administration has sought to impose growing restrictions on the free flow of scientific information, unreasonable barriers to the use of scientific materials, and increased monitoring of and restrictions on foreign university students,” the report says.

The report says that there is no debate about the fact that there is some information that is so potentially dangerous that it shouldn’t be widely circulated, and that there are some terrorists who need to be kept out of the United States. But the report says that the Bush administration has gone way beyond reasonable measures. . . .

While much of the report focused on issues related to post-9/11 policies, the ACLU study also says that the Bush administration has “stacked” scientific advisory committees, granted the White House Office of Management and Budget too much control over science policy, and appointed political ideologues to key science positions.

The American Association of University Professors endorsed the ACLU report. Mark Smith, director of government relations for the AAUP, said at the press conference that the president’s science policies “are bad for science, bad for freedom and fundamentally flawed.” The AAUP’s Committee on Government Relations this month issued its own statement on science policy that was also critical of the administration.

Many academics have just sat back with either indifference or helplessness and watched how the Bush administration has consistently sought to impose its ideological agenda on the academic and scientific community. It’s time that we fight back.

CBS News and other media outlets are covering Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai’s visit to the U.S. this week and his attempts to win the U.S.’s support for Viet Nam to join the World Trade Organization.

Not surprisingly, two other issues are at the forefront -- Americans still want Viet Nam to provide a fuller accounting of U.S. military personnel who are still listed as “missing in action” and as shown by the picture above, Vietnamese Americans are following Phan’s visits to protest the communist government and its record on human rights and civil liberties in Viet Nam:

[Khai] said although there were cultural and historic differences between the United States and Vietnam he and Mr. Bush agreed the two nations could work together to reduce differences and improve bilateral relations. Khai’s talk with Mr. Bush is part of a weeklong visit to the United States where he is meeting with business leaders on both coasts. Khai is ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange later this week -- evidence of Vietnam’s economic gains over the years. . . .

After his discussions with Mr. Bush, Khai planned to meet with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Military ties between the two countries have included periodic docking of U.S. warships in Vietnam and plans for U.S. military training of Vietnamese officers. Intelligence sharing and cooperation on counterterrorism activities also are part of the mix. Also Tuesday, officials from the two countries will sign an agreement at the State Department to cooperate on adoptions.

While Khai will want to talk about business, Mr. Bush is being pressured by human rights groups and some members of Congress to link any trade concessions with improvements in Vietnam’s human rights record. The U.S.-based Human Rights Watch says it has documented cases of abuses by the communist government, including the arrests of dissidents for promoting democracy or human rights. In Seattle, Khai was greeted by demonstrators who shouted “Down with communists!” and called for an end to political and religious persecution.

Ahhh, international politics at its best . . .

Liberals like me are salivating at recent news reported by CBS News and other media outlets that describe how not only have Bush’s approval ratings gone down the toilet since his reelection, but many Republicans in Congress are joining Democrats in opposing Bush’s current plans for the war in Iraq and are seeking to compel him to make plans to bring troops home next year.

In a CBS News/New York Times poll out Thursday, more than half the public disapproves of the job he’s doing. And it gets worse from there:

Only 39 percent approve of his handling of the economy.
Only 39 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy.
Only 37 percent approve of his handling of the war in Iraq.
Only 25 percent approve of his handling of Social Security.
Only the campaign against terrorism gets the approval of more than half those questioned.

The biggest drop off is among Americans aged 30 to 44. In just the past month, his approval rating in that group has fallen 14 points. In the most serious split over the president’s Iraq policy, two Republican House members joined with Democrats Thursday urging President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq in October of 2006.

“After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and this discussion on this resolution,” said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.

Burn, Bush! Burn!