Miami Vice

oh man, just got finished watching an episode of Miami Vice. Got a disc from Orville Redenbacher's popcorn that has one episode of five different shows in the category of Action, Drama, Comedy. The action one had Miami Vice. GOD, do I laugh at what we watched in the 80's as shows and how the actors were portrayed. Never really watched it when I was young and in the 80's, must have been too thrilled by Fallguy, Greatest American Hero, A-Team and Dukes of Hazzard to really pay much attention to Vice.

So many things that were wrong with the show. One being that Don Johnson really didnt do the whole acting thing that well. It was sooo overstated and enhanced. Nothing was realistic. Even his 'looking soulfully over the open sea' shots were so canned that I swear I could hear the director off camera whispering cues of "yeah, give me the eyebrow..ok, look thoughtful..here is a thought you could ponder 'what is 2 plus 2...'" Also, when they shot the bad guy, he took about 7 shots from Johnson at close range and at least 2-3 from a long range sniper with a rifle and not a drop of blood was seen on the guy. He was wearing an unbuttoned shirt flying in the breeze so it wasnt like the clothes hid the blood. It was like the bullets never broke the skin, but yet caused major damage to his insides and killed him. ahh, the innocence of 80's television.

the 80's was also the time before the PC came into effect. They actually had a line in the show where Johnson's black partner turns to him and says "what is with you crackers, always picking up the wrong women" I know that if we had a show these days with that line, the show wouldnt just be pulled from broadcasting but the actors would probably never work again. That is, assuming that it would have gotten by the PC censors in the first place.

Ahh, a simplier time and a simplier place. Though, I know that the show should not have been put on the 'action' disk but instead the 'comedy' disk*G* can not wait to see Magnum PI (next on the disk) and the A-Team (last on the disk). Those I did watch when I was young so it will be interesting to see how much has changed in my mind.

biased memories

Is it possible to get nostalgic and all about a time that you never lived in? perhaps what I am feeling is not nostalgia but a wish to have been born and living through this time. I have always felt a certain love of the 60's and 70's. A time that was simplier, more relaxed, and definitly more interesting than the times of today. Going through this website link really made me get a deep feeling of regret of having been born through the 70's and been too young to remember it, but instead remember the 80' and, unfortuneatly, the 90's and 2000's.

http://oldfortyfives.com/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm

Though, I have been reminded that when you hear of the sixties, you are usually only bombarded with the good powerful feelings and not the horrible emotional fears that the time brought. My father, who was in the navy, tells me stories of fear of him basically being on 'floating coffins' through dangerous waters with arms that hit ice bergs a mile off once in every 20 shots. Perhaps that just means that the navy had really bad gunners, perhaps it was the actually guns themselves. After all, is it not said that it is a poor musician that blames his instruments? But, the fear itself, floating along thinking that just below you could be a U-2 submarine taking their time sighting your ship with torpedoes to put you into a watery grave must have been great and horrifying. Thinking that you could have been sunk at any moment. At your post, in your bunk, or at the dinner table.

But then that is if you are one of those people that took up the call to join the navy/army and to protect your country. Personally, I have never been one for the whole army/navy taking orders thing. Gain my respect and I will follow you to hell and back in a heart beat, bark out orders at treat me like crap just cause you have one more bar on your shoulder than I do and you can carry your own ass into hell and I will watch you from the sidelines. However, even the people that weren't in the military stil had their sense of fears and doubts. The Cuban Missile Crisis in '62 would have struck fear into the hearts of even the lowliest of the common citizen. Not because there could be U-2 boats floating below you, but simply because at any second, at your job, in your bed, at the table, a blinding flash could come tearing through your house and vaporize your entire family, or even worse, burn the flesh from your bones and just leave you a scarred, radioactive mess of a human that, with any mercy, would die quickly instead of living through the pain of being flayed alive.

These are just two examples that I am given by family members that lived through that time telling me to keep in perspective the age. Though now I often wonder, what will the 80's (my generation of growing up) web site look like? what things will they glamorize? From my perspective, the 80's was the age of the video game. I remember getting my first Atari 2600 and thinking that the graphics were excellent. Playing River Raid and trying to get the high score, taking pictures of my score on the screen and sending it in to the company to get my official badge to sew on my jacket/shirt to show that I am got a high score. Like a badge of honour to see how many badges I could get. Though, I got one and then, because of my nature, started to sell them off to other kids that couldn't get the high score. I think I sold them at $5 a piece and all I had to do was play the game and get the score, mail off a fifty cent letter (that wasnt even my money to begin with but nicked the stamp from my parents) and then wait. Think the company got smart cause they stopped sending badges to my address. Movies were all about self awareness and growing up to discover who you really were through hardships and trials of teen life. Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire, Sixteen Candles, Goonies, Weird Science (to name only a few) were the top movies in my life, and to this day I still watch those movies and get a feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Now, what do we have in the 90's and the new millienium? instead of the protests of the 60's demanding a fall of the restrictive traditions in society like the hierarchy of man over woman and caucasian over all other races, we have fights against the fall of decent traditions like respecting elders and your fellow man, respect for the law and order, respect for society, peace, harmony and a turning trend of protecting the offenders and not the victims. Instead of peaceful movies where we are told to look into ourselves, find our inner strength and build on that, we get movies of pain (Jackass), glorification of slackers (Van Wilder) and movies that basically say that crime is a great and exciting life to live and is more interesting than having a nine to fiver and dying peacefully in your bed.

'I remember when times were a lot more fun around here..when good was good, and evil was evil, before things got so..fuzzy' Garden of Allah - Don Henley

good of the child...and the hole debate

What does constitute 'right' and 'wrong'? I know that there is the popular belief of right being that which the majority has deemed to be acceptable and wrong is what they have deemed to be unacceptable. For example, in the southern cities of Canada I have discovered that it is wrong to take items from another persons house or to take anything that is not your own possession and use it, even though you have the intentions to return it after you are finished. If you didnt ask, it is not yours to use. However, I have found that there is a sort of unwritten rule in the northern territories amongst the natives that you can 'borrow' things from anyone without permission and use them as long as you like and return it whenever you want. This does not constitute theft, and it is not wrong but it is a totally acceptable way of living. It is only when the white man laws come into effect and the natives borrow something from a white man that isnt the majority that things get hairy.

But in the end, when it is something that is not a majority, what is right? for example, I was watching a show where a woman divorced her husband and they had two kids. The judge granted the wife full custody and the man had to pay child support to his ex wife to raise the kids. No real surprise there since courts these days figure it is better to have the man work and give the money to the wife who can stay at home, or work, to raise the children cause women make better care givers. However, this man decided to try something and he kidnapped the kids, took them to another country and set up a life. Now, the kicker is that he can do this because he basically is a criminal and a gun runner/arms dealer, to which the wife found out about but the kids have no idea about. In this tropical country, the man has a huge house, servants to care for the children, body guards everywhere, a nanny to help raise the children, private tutors to teach them ever subject in school. He also constantly spends time with the children doing horseback riding lessons, archery, go cart driving and pretty much every thing a child could possibly want for entertainment. If they were to stay with their mother, the children would basically be living in an apartment going to public school, only a small handful of free extra curricular activities and would be spending time alone in the apartment til the mother got off work. Now, in the show, someone came in to 'right this wrong' and went and regained the children, returned them to the mother and got the husband arrested and put away. Was that right? not in the eyes of the law, but what is best for the children. Was it right to take away their happy life style of everything and return them to poverty? if you were the child, where would you have rather lived? in a household of everything but little love, or in a household with little, but lots of love? what is right?

Also, another thing to make you go hmmm. If you dig a hole, you have a hole. But then if you fill in that hole only half way, do you have half a hole or do you have a whole hole? how much of a hole do you have, or did you really have a hole to begin with?

Right to say it!

Freedom of speech is a funny thing here in North America. This goes back to that time last year when the world was in an uproar over 12 cartoons. Cartoons that some viewed as nothing more than a humours shot in the dark whereas some viewed them to be such a horrible thing on the sight of religion and humanity that buildings were burned, people were killed, money was offered for people to be killed, items were boycotted and embassies were evacuated. Though somewhere deep in the USA, in the peaceful little world of Michigan, a university professor writes a letter with his own free speech in mind, telling that Muslim people in the states could practice their 'freedom of movement' and leave.

Here is the link:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp

was he right in doing this? who knows. After all, it all depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on when it comes to free speech. I have always been seen as a bad person in this area since I believe in total free speech. Free speech being you have the right and the ability to say whatever you want, whenever you want to whomever you want. HOWEVER, you having that right does not mean that you have to use that right every single time. I have the right to go up to a catholic person on the street and tell them that personally I think that religion is just a crutch used by small minded people to deal with things like death, life and hardships that they can not rationally deal with in reality so therefore create a supernatural being to take the burden off them. I do have this right. Now, whether I choose to exercise this right is something entirely different. I can just as well walk by those Catholics and say nothing because I know that if I say something that it will be hurtful and callous. But if I did say it to them, then they have the right to call me a heathen swine and curse me to however many levels of demon hell they wish. That is their right as well.

I often get attacked by friends because I dont defend those around me. Supposedly if I loved my parents, friends, significant other, I am to defend their honour by beating up anyone that says an unkind word about them. Someone says "your mother is so fat, her doctor doesnt test for blood, they test for gravy" and I am to go to war with that person. No, in my mind that doesnt work. If a person says something bad about someone I care about the reaction is simple. I say it is untrue, I dont care for those words and I wont speak to those people ever again.

What we dont have the right to do is beat, burn, kill, maim, destroy or rape other human beings. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me'. How come those simple things told by kids in playgrounds in North America suddenly get forgotten by us adults when we grow up? Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Voltaire.

So, though while I may or may not agree with what this professor has to say, I shall defend to the death his right to say it.

Canadian politics at its finest!

Why will Canadian politics be the best? simply cause even though they are rulers of this great country, given the power by the people of the country themselves, they are not above taking shots and little roast jokes at each other on national television. This particular person (Belinda Stronach) has been taking hits since she was supposedly called 'a dog' indirectly during a parliament meeting. The comment was not proven to be true or false because there was no transcribed record of it and therefore disappeared into the memories of time. But, then she gets roasted by good old "King" Ralph Klein on his way out the door. Now, she used to be a Conservative party member, but then crossed the floor and became a part of the Liberal party of Canada and Peter McKay was her boyfriend awhile back...so...well, see if you can watch the clip and see if you catch the shot at her*G*



Why are we the best? cause, even though they are rulers, they are human and humans ruling humans is what gov't is all about. No need to get brass knuckles, no need to get up in arms, just be relaxed, normal people, relating to the people of the country.

but you have the equipment!

Govt to introduce laws on 19 new offences, expand scope of existing offences
By Julia Ng, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 08 November 2006 2156 hrs

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/240204/1/.html

SINGAPORE : The Home Affairs Ministry is planning to introduce legislation on 19 new offences and expand the scope of 19 existing offences in the Penal Code.

Some of these changes are to keep abreast of technological changes which have taken place in the last two decades, such as the internet and mobile phones.

And with these technological changes, there had been new issues and offences by those who abused or used them to commit crime.

Currently these acts are not covered or prosecuted under related provisions in the Penal Code which do not specifically address these offences.

The last major review of the Penal Code - Singapore's primary criminal legislation - was made in 1984 when mandatory minimum sentences were imposed for offences such as robbery and rape.

Since then, times have changed and some are making use of electronic medium like the internet and mobile phones to commit crimes.

And several of the proposed new laws will aim to help police tackle crimes like credit-card fraud more effectively.

The Ministry proposes to introduce a new law - Section 473B - to prosecute fraudsters who make, or possess equipment used to forge credit cards.

The new laws will also help police deal with internet or mobile phone scams which target Singaporeans, even if the scams are executed outside of Singapore.

Following the case of racist bloggers who were charged under the Sedition Act, the Ministry is now proposing to expand a law under the Penal Code.

Currently, under Section 298, it is an offence to say words meant to wound religious feelings.

The Ministry recommends this to be expanded to cover wounding of racial feelings as well.

This way, prosecutors will have the option of charging offenders under the Penal Code or the Sedition Act.

There are also plans to enact a new offence which covers an action that is likely to cause racial or religious disharmony, or promote enmity on grounds of race or religion.

The law on 'unlawful assembly' will also be clarified. The Ministry is proposing that if five or more people gather with a common intention to commit a crime, they can be charged with 'unlawful assembly' even if the gathering does not disturb public tranquility.

"The whole idea is to be able to intervene earlier rather than wait for the crime to take place. What this unlawful assembly is dealing with is large numbers. There's always a sense that more people are more dangerous. And if you have many people, five or more, gathered together with the common objective of committing some crime, the police can take action sooner rather than later," says Associate Professor Kumaralingam Amirthalingam from the Faculty of Law at NUS.

On cheating, it is proposed that the law be expanded to make a culprit liable even if he does not carry out the act himself and appoints an agent to do it for him. - CNA /ls
****

First off, I would like to mention that no I am not throwing stones into someone elses garden. I know that every country has the right to do with their citizens as they choose. However, I just have to poke a little fun at it cause, hey, cause I am Canadian and I figure people in countries poke fun at us canucks on a regular basis and we even do it ourselves. I mean, America may have 'this hour has 22 minutes' and other satirical talk show/news shows, but none can compare to the fun us canucks have with Royal Canadian Air Farce*G*.

With each new age, there come new rules with the times. All areas have to be tweaked, altered and changed to fit into the new signs of the times. I know that in Canada our laws are constantly being tweaked and moved with the interpretation of the law as the judges sees fit, and then those interpretations are used to set a precident for other cases down the line.

Two things that got me was when they started to talk about the tweaking of the sedition laws "to cover wounding of racial feelings". Racial feelings? so, to what level of racial feelings are we talking here? is it like sedition where you can say "I dont like it when these foreigners come to take our jobs" but you cant say "we should kill all malays for the good of the world"? kind of like how you can say (in Canada) "we are an affirmative action hiring company" but you cant say "whites need only apply"? or what about the feelings of the person. I mean, I have always had a sore spot for the term "ang moh" and have corrected my fiancee already when she called me that. So, does that mean if I hear someone on the street of Singapore say "that is so ang moh" or I even read it in a blog that someone says "those ang mohs, when will they learn" I can have them charged under the sedition act and fined or gaoled? wow, if that is the case then looks like Singapore Courts is about to get a MAJOR flood of cash coming their way. After all, whose level of sensitivity are we going to judge by? the gov't officials that sue the pants off of any opposition member that even suggests at them being liars, or the common folk on the street that says "ang moh, that is just a word, dont get so defensive". After all, 'chink' is just a word as well though I know a few people from China that might have a few words with you if you call them that.

The next thing in the article that I had to laugh at was "The whole idea is to be able to intervene earlier rather than wait for the crime to take place". That is always the best way to stop a crime from taking place. Similiar to 'Minority Report' where police could see into the future and stop crimes from happening and yet still punishing the offenders for their crimes that werent commited. Nice to know that Singapore has bent the lines of time to see into the future, or see into the hearts of men to know exactly what is in their hearts. Wonder if this has anything to do with that grouping of evil doers at Speakers Corner that actually wanted to walk down the street during the IMF meeting.

A woman is out at the lake with her husband and is trying to read but her husband keeps nattering at her. So, to escape, she gets into her husbands row boat and rows out to the middle of the lake and starts to read her book. Soon a forest ranger comes by and asks her what she is doing to which she replies "reading my book". The ranger looks into the boat and sees a fishing rod, tackle box and cooler and says "do you have a fishing license?" and the woman replies "no, I am just reading". The ranger then informs her that he is charging her for illegal fishing and writing her a ticket. The woman says she is not fishing and the ranger replies "well you have the equipment". So the lady takes the ticket and says "I will be charging you with rape when I get to shore" the ranger is aghast and says "I didnt rape you..I didnt even touch you!" and the woman replies "but you have the equipment"

Cant wait to see how Singapore gets touch on the new technology and things. As well as the courts new ability to charge nearly triple the fines that are now imposed. Looks like Singapore is trying to make up for the billions lost over some financial dealings huh?*G* but, then again, that is just a totally uneducated opinion from a nut across the seas.

Jason Fox RULES!

Always a good thing when I can go through the daily comics and instead of being bombarded by little quips of dating and stupid little romance moments, I can get a cartoon that speaks to me in this fashion. FoxTrot has got to be one of the best comics out there, and Jason Fox is the best! I think it has to do with the fact that growing up in high school we had a guy like this that we hung around with. Always a funny guy that made us think now and then. Especially a great person to have when you had just finished off your weight in beer and had moved on to the 40 year old creme de banana, or whatever else was in your parents liquor cabinet after an entire household of rebelous teenagers raided it an hour earlier at a party that you really shouldn't have been having, just to keep that buzz going.

Guess to attempt an answer to the first question, they can not co-exist at the same time, just like you can not have War and Peace going on in the same immediate location, or you cant have dark and light in the same limited space, but perhaps you can have preordination and free will happening at different times. You can have war happening in this land and then next door with different people you can have peace, OR you can have light in one room but darkness below a table in the shade where the light can not get to. Tall/short, ugly/beautiful, good/evil do not fit into this equation since they are all comparitive measures since a tall man is only tall when compared to a shorter man, but that tall man becomes short when a taller man enters, and such with ugly to beauty and good to evil. However, there is no comparative of War/Peace, Light/Dark or Free Will/Divine Preordination.

If we start out with one or the other and then switch, by using our free will, would that negate the preordination? If a people were at peace with one nation, but then went to war with them for 5 years, would that mean that peace could no longer be achieved or reached or switched to? So if I was born with a preordained destiny to do something, but also had my capacity for free will which I utilized to reach a different goal, would that mean that I cant switch back to preordination? is preordination so locked and secure that it is immoveable? as soon as you switch off from it, it becomes void, or it is so powerful that you have no free will to break off from it? personally, I am going with the issue that I may have a track of life that I am on, I am destined not just to do one great thing but be destined to do many different things. So, I may be destined to meet the girl of my dreams and have many many children. Now, I met the girl of my dreams but out of free will choose not to have the many many kids. My preordination held that I met the girl, but not about the children. That does not mean that free will along took me to meet the girl, but perhaps a workings of the two.

Maybe the struggle for free will and preordination is simply that people lock it so hard and make it so secure that they perceive it as being one OR the other instead of both helping out a person together. Perhaps we do have the ability to sit back and go with the flow and be predestined to let things happen if we want them to happen that way, but if they are going a path that we are not happy with, we have the power to change that destiny if we so choose. We can sit in a room of light but have a dark corner of the room available, or we can be in a war zone with bullets flying and yet two people of opposing sides tired of fighting could sit down and enjoy a peaceful cup of tea together. So perhaps we can have light co-existing with dark, war co-existing with peace and free will co-existing with preordanation.

As for Batman and Joker, I go with what was said in 'Batman Forever' when Batman told Robin that he could quest to kill Two-Face for the death of his parents, but if Robin accomplish his vengeance, then he would be left with an empty hole in his life for life is meant to be lived for yourself and for enjoyment not for a specific vengeful goal. Spoken like a man who has walked that road, I would say that Batman did his vengeful act, Joker was killed and Batman was far from happy upon the death.

It is always a nice feeling to wake up in the morning and read a comic that helps spur your thoughts forward instead of treating you to mindless garbage and mind numbing boredom.

I was NOT paid for this post!

Canada, we won't say that we're better, its just that we're less worse.

Why is it that when you are out shopping and a sales person answers a question or helps you out and you say "thank you for your assistance" the person sometimes responds with "That is what I am paid for". It doesn't even have to be someone in the retail industry. Anywhere that you say thank you for something and they respond with that. Is it just me (and my grandmother) or does anyone else find this slightly insulting and horrible to say to a customer? I know that the person gets paid to be there, and in most of the service industry not a single one of them has a life long dream of selling shoes, skirts or other items to the public. I mean, how many kids in school answer "I want to be a sales assistant when I grow up" to the question of future career. Service industry is more a fall back career than a target career. I just don't want to hear that they are just serving me because they are getting paid to do it.

It is like eating a steak or chicken burger. Deep down somewhere in your mind you know that the steak was a cow that was happily grazing in a field without a care in the world and then WHAM along comes Mr. Sledgehammer right between the eyes, then Mr Buzzsaw cuts up Ms Cow into smaller little bits and then you have a steak on your table. Or, Ms Chicken quite happily living on a free range farm (or packed like living hunks of meat into small storage cages, depending on where you get your chicken), running around playing with all the other free range chickens when suddenly she is grabbed by the neck and is killed by either breaking her neck or a swift axe blow cutting off her head with blood flying everywhere. Then Ms. Chicken, like Ms Cow, is hacked to bits by Mr Buzzsaw (evil person that Mr Buzzsaw don't you think?) and fed into Mr Grinder that smashed and mashed Ms Chicken into preprocessed bite sized chicken burgers that end up on your table. We all know that deep down this happens, we just dont want to be there and see the whole process or acknowledge it happening before we bite into the steak or burger. I want to hold onto this illusion that the burger and steak wanted to be there and was always there without anything else, just like I want to believe that this sales assistant really really wanted to help serve me without thinking bad and evil thoughts or thinking "just get me through this day til margarita time and all will be well with the world".

I mean, if it doesn't just stop at the sales associates, but goes right up to doctors, lawyers or politicians then the world is a horrible place.

"Thanks for saving my life doc"

"that is what I am paid for" implying that if I didn't have the money to pay the doc would he leave me to die on the gurney til I got the bank loan approved?

"thanks for defending me in court, Mr Lawyer. I would have gotten 25 years in jail had you not proved that the police officer was framing me to cover up his mistake"

"that is what I am paid for" implying that if I didn't have the money the lawyer would have gladly sat in his office knowing that I was going to be sent up the river for 25 years for a crime I didnt commit.

"thanks for helping us get that law into effect Mr MP. It will save hundreds of lives"

"that is what I am paid for" implying that whoever has the most money can hire a politician to do what the payor wants done?

Can a person life, liberty and laws be 'bought' because 'that is what they are paid for'?

If that is true, then isn't the world merely a bunch of mercenaries in their jobs getting paid to do something?