Wednesday, February 05, 2003
Wow the news can be disappointing. First North Korea says
: ""If the U.N. Security Council responsible for the issue of world peace and security does not call the U.S. wrong Korean policy to task, this organization will turn out to be partial and the DPRK will, accordingly, not recognize it." In other words, if you agree with us, you are being objective and everyone should obey you; if not, you're obviously biased.
And then in a trial where a woman is accused of killing her husband by running over him . . . twice
, "Parnham has said it was an accident when Harris fatally injured her husband. If she is convicted, her lawyers are prepared to lodge a "sudden passion" argument that could result in a sentence far lower than the life maximum under Texas law." I know the legal process is supposed to be adversarial, but the purpose of that is to find the truth. Can there be any integrity in saying, "She didn't do it, but if she did, here's why."?
I guess the main thing that bugs me is no one cares about the lies inherent to each statement. Journalists don't even bother pointing it out. And now that pictures and sounds can be faked, what evidence is believable? (Not that the Bush administration did anything close to providing real evidence of Iraqi possession of WMDs, although there do seem to be definite examples of evasion.)
Hmm, will try not to write unless I'm in a better mood next time.
posted by Charles McGonigal 6:02 PM |