Letters and Video

I wrote one letter to the Korea Times yesterday and one today. Both were regarding newspaper articles; both were to different reporters (neither of them have responded). In fact, the only person who has responded to anything I've written was the Ulsan Web guy, who added the info on how to access blocked sites to the scrolling bar on the main page.

Yesterday's letter was about the article, "39 Websites Blocked." It's rather more than 39, unless they counting "blogspot.com" as one, "blogs.com" as two, etc. Today's letter was in response to the article, "Terror Drives Media Storm Over Kim." The article compared the emotional reaction Koreans are having to Kim Seon Il's murder to how Americans behaved after 9/11. I pointed out that the reporter could have made further comparisons. Immediately following 9/11 the American government abused its power by infringing upon the civil rights of its citizens/residents. Currently, the Korean government is abusing its power and breaking article 21 of the Korean Constitution by censoring what people are allowed to view on the internet. I went on with some more info and how angry we are, then said, "The fact that your newspaper is not reporting on this abuse of government power makes me think that you either don't care about this issue since it affects primarily the foreign bloggers, or that perhaps the government is controlling what you are allowed to print, as well." Will that paragraph get any attention?

I just read a fascinating article about the beheading videos, and then I promptly lost the link (this Unipeak thing is annoying). The article was written from a medical perspective and said that if you cut off a head when the heart is still beating that blood should spurt everywhere and make a huge mess. That didn't happen in the videos. Good point. It also pointed out (and I had already thought about this) that neither victim moved or made any sound just before their "deaths", even though they knew what was about to happen. The conclusion was that they were both already dead before their heads were severed (or at the very least drugged or unconscious). Does that change anything? Not really, they're still dead, but it made me wonder why would the murderers not just kill them by cutting off their heads. Why go to the trouble of killing them some other way, and then cut off their heads? After all, that's a common form of execution in that part of the world.