God always work in mysterious ways...
If you prayed hard enough,
you might not get what you prayed for,
but you may get what is best for you.
So, as my dad always say, "Try your best, God will do the rest!"
Monday, November 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
ISA and the separation of powers
It's really surprising to me that a lot of young people these days, who are politically aware, lack the history knowledge and the reasoning power to be in the politic arena. This is dangerous but not surprising since our education system pays very little attention to history that really matters. One such group are the young people advocating the use of ISA.
Very often, the advocates of ISA say that it was necessary because there will be time when we need ISA such as to apprehend communist, terrorist or religion extremist. They would further emphasizes that what is happening now in Malaysia is merely the abuse of ISA, but ISA in itself has merits and therefore we should we refrain from abolishing it. How should we justify the existence of a particular law? If a law is susceptible to abuse, should the law remain? If the law is susceptible to interpretation errors, should the law remain? If the application of the law is solely dependent on those that are in power, should the law remain?
First, let us go back in history and try to understand how our modern political structure has evolved and why such structure is the best the civilization has to offer so far.
Centuries ago, Monarchy is the dominating political structure. All the power to govern a nation is in the hands of the king. There isn't anything wrong with all the power in the world in one person's hand. In fact, history have shown that there were good leaders that used this power to the benefit of the country.
The problem is that it takes only one 'suck-up' corrupted leader to ruin the whole thing. Once this 'suck-up' leader gets hold of the power, he/she would never let go the power, undoing all the good that the previous leader had done. Simply said, such model is just not sustainable. Countries using such model are resting their fate all on one person, and knowing that a person's character is always susceptible to greed and difficult to predict, the country's fate would then be a matter of dice-throwing. For historical reasons, it is obvious now that this system fails.
Democracy, as many of us know, means that the power is in the hands of the citizens instead of the king. The elected leader should be 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. So many thought, since the power is now not in the hands of the king but in people like us, this should be good! But that is not why democracy prevails. For if the citizens, through election, has chosen a leader that has absolute power, then the situation is exactly the same as above. The only difference being the name of the leader. Instead of being called the 'king', he/she is now called president/prime minister.
Therefore it is important to introduce another concept - the separation of powers. The French philosopher Montesquieu introduced the idea that the power of governing a nation can be separated into 3 distinct groups - legislative, judicial and executive. By distributing such powers among different group of people we will ensure that no single entity will have absolute power. Through such distribution of power, check and balance will be achieved.
The important of check and balance can be understood in a more simple manner. Anyone can and will make mistakes in their lifetime. But the chances of 3 different entity of different views making the same mistake at the same time is slim. And the purpose of check and balance is to have this 'self-reparing' mechanism, to ensure that a stupendously grave mistake is avoided at the country's highest decision making.
Obviously, such system is by no means the most efficient system. Monarchy is more efficient because what the King says, the country do. No debate necessary, no discussion necessary. On the contrary, for even a single thing to move in democracy, countless debates and discussions and revisions are required. Slow, but at least it ensures that mistakes are minimised.
Recall again why historical reasons have led us to democracy and separation of powers. We would rather have a less efficient system than a system that is fast and efficient but will doom us all.
In Malaysia, our prime minister (executive) is the leader of the majority party in the Parliament (legislative) and he chooses the Chief Justice (judicial). So where's the separation? Every four years, aren't we just choosing another 'King'?
Surely, until this point you must be pondering what has this to do with ISA?
ISA gives the right to the leader of this country to capture anyone who is deemed a threat to the country. The interpretation of this 'threat' should be done by the judicial arm of the country. But in Malaysia, it's the executive. As far as ISA is concerned, it's a complete overlap of executive and judicial powers. Again, how does this differ from the Monarchy system that we once had? The 'King' or the leader of the country, has at its own discretion decides who is a threat and order the apprehension of anyone in this country.
I have no qualms on the nature of the ISA, as its initial intentions may be good. As always, initial intentions of all things are always good-natured but somehow, someway along the history, things turn sour. Such is the case for ISA too. Since the end of the emergency in Malaysia, the ISA has been numerously invoked in the name of peace for the country, but in reality it's for the self-perseverance of a certain political party. The interpretation of the law is so subjective that it is easily susceptible to abuse. Granted that no law is free of abuse, but if a law such as ISA have in the past shown to have been severely abused more than it has been properly used, should not we re-consider?
If a law is susceptible to abuse and its application to the benefit of the country is solely dependent on the good-will of our leaders, why should such a law still exist? Isn't this going back to the 'good-old' Monarchy days when the fate of a country is solely dependent on the King? Hasn't history already shown that this will not work (in the long run)?
There have been calls for the ISA to be invoked only upon approval from, perhaps, the Chief Justice of Malaysia. But where would the Chief Justice get the information/advice from? If it is from the Police or the Prime Minister or the Home Minister, the result will obviously be the same because the source of information is the same (albeit the interpretation may be different). If he/she has to go through a series of investigation to make a decision to invoke ISA, then why not go through the normal procedure of prosecution instead of ISA? If that is the case, then ISA is only ISA in its name but not in its nature, for its initial conception was to be used for apprehending a person before he/she is proven guilty.
Either way, it is clear that there isn't a need for ISA in Malaysia, at least for now.
Very often, the advocates of ISA say that it was necessary because there will be time when we need ISA such as to apprehend communist, terrorist or religion extremist. They would further emphasizes that what is happening now in Malaysia is merely the abuse of ISA, but ISA in itself has merits and therefore we should we refrain from abolishing it. How should we justify the existence of a particular law? If a law is susceptible to abuse, should the law remain? If the law is susceptible to interpretation errors, should the law remain? If the application of the law is solely dependent on those that are in power, should the law remain?
First, let us go back in history and try to understand how our modern political structure has evolved and why such structure is the best the civilization has to offer so far.
Centuries ago, Monarchy is the dominating political structure. All the power to govern a nation is in the hands of the king. There isn't anything wrong with all the power in the world in one person's hand. In fact, history have shown that there were good leaders that used this power to the benefit of the country.
The problem is that it takes only one 'suck-up' corrupted leader to ruin the whole thing. Once this 'suck-up' leader gets hold of the power, he/she would never let go the power, undoing all the good that the previous leader had done. Simply said, such model is just not sustainable. Countries using such model are resting their fate all on one person, and knowing that a person's character is always susceptible to greed and difficult to predict, the country's fate would then be a matter of dice-throwing. For historical reasons, it is obvious now that this system fails.
Democracy, as many of us know, means that the power is in the hands of the citizens instead of the king. The elected leader should be 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. So many thought, since the power is now not in the hands of the king but in people like us, this should be good! But that is not why democracy prevails. For if the citizens, through election, has chosen a leader that has absolute power, then the situation is exactly the same as above. The only difference being the name of the leader. Instead of being called the 'king', he/she is now called president/prime minister.
Therefore it is important to introduce another concept - the separation of powers. The French philosopher Montesquieu introduced the idea that the power of governing a nation can be separated into 3 distinct groups - legislative, judicial and executive. By distributing such powers among different group of people we will ensure that no single entity will have absolute power. Through such distribution of power, check and balance will be achieved.
The important of check and balance can be understood in a more simple manner. Anyone can and will make mistakes in their lifetime. But the chances of 3 different entity of different views making the same mistake at the same time is slim. And the purpose of check and balance is to have this 'self-reparing' mechanism, to ensure that a stupendously grave mistake is avoided at the country's highest decision making.
Obviously, such system is by no means the most efficient system. Monarchy is more efficient because what the King says, the country do. No debate necessary, no discussion necessary. On the contrary, for even a single thing to move in democracy, countless debates and discussions and revisions are required. Slow, but at least it ensures that mistakes are minimised.
Recall again why historical reasons have led us to democracy and separation of powers. We would rather have a less efficient system than a system that is fast and efficient but will doom us all.
In Malaysia, our prime minister (executive) is the leader of the majority party in the Parliament (legislative) and he chooses the Chief Justice (judicial). So where's the separation? Every four years, aren't we just choosing another 'King'?
Surely, until this point you must be pondering what has this to do with ISA?
ISA gives the right to the leader of this country to capture anyone who is deemed a threat to the country. The interpretation of this 'threat' should be done by the judicial arm of the country. But in Malaysia, it's the executive. As far as ISA is concerned, it's a complete overlap of executive and judicial powers. Again, how does this differ from the Monarchy system that we once had? The 'King' or the leader of the country, has at its own discretion decides who is a threat and order the apprehension of anyone in this country.
I have no qualms on the nature of the ISA, as its initial intentions may be good. As always, initial intentions of all things are always good-natured but somehow, someway along the history, things turn sour. Such is the case for ISA too. Since the end of the emergency in Malaysia, the ISA has been numerously invoked in the name of peace for the country, but in reality it's for the self-perseverance of a certain political party. The interpretation of the law is so subjective that it is easily susceptible to abuse. Granted that no law is free of abuse, but if a law such as ISA have in the past shown to have been severely abused more than it has been properly used, should not we re-consider?
If a law is susceptible to abuse and its application to the benefit of the country is solely dependent on the good-will of our leaders, why should such a law still exist? Isn't this going back to the 'good-old' Monarchy days when the fate of a country is solely dependent on the King? Hasn't history already shown that this will not work (in the long run)?
There have been calls for the ISA to be invoked only upon approval from, perhaps, the Chief Justice of Malaysia. But where would the Chief Justice get the information/advice from? If it is from the Police or the Prime Minister or the Home Minister, the result will obviously be the same because the source of information is the same (albeit the interpretation may be different). If he/she has to go through a series of investigation to make a decision to invoke ISA, then why not go through the normal procedure of prosecution instead of ISA? If that is the case, then ISA is only ISA in its name but not in its nature, for its initial conception was to be used for apprehending a person before he/she is proven guilty.
Either way, it is clear that there isn't a need for ISA in Malaysia, at least for now.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On education and knowledge
Systems and processes are there to prevent our evil;
Education and knowledge are there to bring out the very best in us.
- sl, Nov 2008
**************************************
Systems, like legal systems are there only to prevent us from any wrongdoings and to maintain security. They are the fundamental, but not the pinnacle of human civilisation. Law can be made to prevent people from killing people, but only education and knowledge can make people to love other people.
Processes are there to ensure that organisations will continue to work even when there is a large flux of people coming in or going out. But education and knowledge makes us rethink our processes into better ones.
So, invest in education and knowledge. It's worthwhile.
Education and knowledge are there to bring out the very best in us.
- sl, Nov 2008
**************************************
Systems, like legal systems are there only to prevent us from any wrongdoings and to maintain security. They are the fundamental, but not the pinnacle of human civilisation. Law can be made to prevent people from killing people, but only education and knowledge can make people to love other people.
Processes are there to ensure that organisations will continue to work even when there is a large flux of people coming in or going out. But education and knowledge makes us rethink our processes into better ones.
So, invest in education and knowledge. It's worthwhile.
Friday, November 7, 2008
politicians are like salesperson
I use to think that if you can convince someone, you can be a good politician.
And that if you uphold what is the truth and justice, and use reasons to convince the rest, you will get support.
Then I realised that it's impossible to convince everyone. Even when reasons are crystal clear.
Politics then become something like sales. Out of 10 people you talk to, 1 would 'buy'. You just have to reach out to more people than your competitor to ‘win'.
That probably explains why no matter how hard people is trying to fight for peace and justice, there will always be proponents of war and chaos in the world. There is always a market for the evil things in this world.
And that if you uphold what is the truth and justice, and use reasons to convince the rest, you will get support.
Then I realised that it's impossible to convince everyone. Even when reasons are crystal clear.
Politics then become something like sales. Out of 10 people you talk to, 1 would 'buy'. You just have to reach out to more people than your competitor to ‘win'.
That probably explains why no matter how hard people is trying to fight for peace and justice, there will always be proponents of war and chaos in the world. There is always a market for the evil things in this world.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
winning an argument
"We can never win an argument when we have no common goal."
- sl, Nov 2008
"Only try to win an argument, when winning it means something"
- sl, Nov 2008
********************************************
written after several heated debate with some college kids.
- sl, Nov 2008
"Only try to win an argument, when winning it means something"
- sl, Nov 2008
********************************************
written after several heated debate with some college kids.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
媒体有报忧不报喜的自由吗?
以下是我最近投稿给《当今大马》的一篇文章（作了一点修改）。
大家也可以点击这里，到《当今大马》阅读。
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
媒体自由需要捍卫，是大家都可以认可的。不同的是，自由的程度要到那里。
张庆信与彭雪琴为AEC的“风波”争论不休（整个事件的系列可以在雪琴的博客里找得到）。最近，张庆信又长篇大论地在《当今大马》回复了雪琴。可惜，在这么长的一篇回函里，张庆信好像有点“离题了”。那个回函似乎是为了“报复”多于讨论媒体自由的课题。身为一位这么资深的国会议员，为了一个女孩的发言而如此耿耿于怀，实在有点失风度。
张庆信的回函中大部分在围绕着媒体运用一些色情文字而认为本地媒体应该得到更好的监控。这一点其实我和他是志同道合的。然而，不管是在他的回函中或是那天他在国会里所发表的言论，其实还有一个更重要的主题，是他在后来的回应中所忽略掉的—媒体自由。
1．针对媒体自由，张庆信认为，由于国情不同所以言论的限度也不同，并且举例说，“香港、台湾影院也可以上映三级片…甚至新闻播报也可以用脱衣秀方式进行，那么这些也是我国马来西亚要学的吗？”这种推论方法是中学辩论员常用的，非常缺乏逻辑性。
国与国之必定有不同的地方。因为不同，有些事情适合美国的未必适合马来西亚。但是，再怎么不同，也会有些事情是我们可以借鉴的。用一句话“国情不同”就说其他国家的媒体自由肯定不适合于马来西亚是一种避重就轻的论证法。张庆信根本就没有说出到底美国与马来西亚的那一点不同以致我国不适合更充分的媒体自由。
他以反问的方法说：台湾影院也可以上映三级片，难道马来西亚也可以吗？这跟媒体自由适合不适合于马来西亚是两回事儿。马来西亚不适合三级片等于马来西亚不适合台湾、美国的媒体自由吗 ？何况，我们不是在谈论着3级 片而是媒体的自由。当我们说要引进美国的媒体自由当然不会是在指这些色情方面的，而是泛指美国媒体对于正面言论与思想发表的自由空间。不要每次在人民要求自由的时候，就把自由推向极端。在我国的自由程度与绝对自由之间，尚有很大的空间。
2．张庆信那天在国会上说“媒体只是报忧不报喜”，因此建议要更好地去“监控”。那是不是说每个电视节目必须有大概一半是报喜，一半是报忧的咧？那么电视制作人不是很难做？或许说某个电台的电视节目有大概一半是以报喜为主题，另一半则是报忧可以吗？那么既然AEC已经有报喜的节目了，《身在大马》 来个报忧又何妨？况且，它也没有歪曲事实。
是的，有派报员做到可以驾宝马。但也有的做到连三餐都不温饱。只报道后者是因为要告诉大家“比下有余”、“要节俭”、“要懂得珍惜”这些正面的教育意义。报道前者会有什么教育意义呢？还倒不如留给直销员在他们每星期里的激励讲座用吧。这又怎么会是适合于教育大众的电视节目呢？而且，事实真相是庞大的，没有一个电视节目足以将事实真相的所有都报道出来。
我知道张庆信想说，报喜的电视节目能够为我国人民带来打气以及让我们更积极。然而，不要说一个国家，就算一个人也应该客观地了解一下自己的缺点吧？现实中，有人会喜欢以鼓励的方式前进。有些人，会喜欢以自责的方式前进。无论哪个，要前进，就必须先了解自己的优缺点。
而且，赞许是别人给的，不是你所能逼出来的。人民在经济萧条的时候有埋怨多于赞许是理所当然的。作为经验丰富及分析能力超强的张庆信来说，这一点很容易预料得到。这时候还要谴责别人只报忧，那不是要我们走回台湾白色恐怖的时代或是朝鲜的独裁制？虽然国情不同，但除了少数国阵里的成员以外，我国其实已经有绝对足够的思想成熟度来讨论这些课题。真的很难想象在一个教育水准甚高的马来西亚，还有谁会为派报员的困境或是石油起价的影响而感觉“不舒服”。
3．更“够力”的是，张庆信竟然认同《内安法令》和《印刷法令》，他说：“综观世界各国，没有任何一个法制国家对于国内的印刷品，没有立法管制的…否则，来日人们尽可以将许多不符实、诽磅、甚至是恶意、蓄意破坏他人的新闻、刊物出版…”
世界每一个民主自由的国家，不管它有没有类似《内》或《印》的法令，都会对印刷品和言论的管制。在任何一个国家，诽谤和蓄意破坏他人的新闻都要受到法律的制裁。这不是《内》或《印》存在的目的。认为没有了这两个法令， 媒体就会诽谤是一个非常幼稚的想法。
尽管没有《内》和《印》，我国已经有足够的法律对付诽谤。反对《内》与《印》的真正原因在于这两者的法律诠释完全取决于掌权者。比如，《内》说只要威胁到国家安全者能不经审讯无限扣留。然而，“威胁国家安全”是见仁见智。最近，YB郭素沁和资深星洲记者在内安法令下逮捕是有威胁国家安全吗？马来先锋报安然无事但星洲日报，太阳报又为何被发警告信呢？
尽管一个“善良”的政府有可能好好的“善用”《内》和《印》。但是，没有人可以确保政府永远都是“善良”的。只要一个“恶”的政府掌握了这些武器，它就可以为所欲为，把过去所有的建设毁于一旦。民主的真正目的就是在于避免这种事情的发生。而《内》和《印》正是民主的绊脚石。
我想，大家其实都是为媒体自由的好。张庆信也只不过是希望在媒体自由不受打压下，能够有更妥善的监控。对于“安全套”要监控我不反对。但是对于“报忧不报喜”和“印刷法令”的“监控”，我们能不反对吗？
大家也可以点击这里，到《当今大马》阅读。
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
媒体自由需要捍卫，是大家都可以认可的。不同的是，自由的程度要到那里。
张庆信与彭雪琴为AEC的“风波”争论不休（整个事件的系列可以在雪琴的博客里找得到）。最近，张庆信又长篇大论地在《当今大马》回复了雪琴。可惜，在这么长的一篇回函里，张庆信好像有点“离题了”。那个回函似乎是为了“报复”多于讨论媒体自由的课题。身为一位这么资深的国会议员，为了一个女孩的发言而如此耿耿于怀，实在有点失风度。
张庆信的回函中大部分在围绕着媒体运用一些色情文字而认为本地媒体应该得到更好的监控。这一点其实我和他是志同道合的。然而，不管是在他的回函中或是那天他在国会里所发表的言论，其实还有一个更重要的主题，是他在后来的回应中所忽略掉的—媒体自由。
1．针对媒体自由，张庆信认为，由于国情不同所以言论的限度也不同，并且举例说，“香港、台湾影院也可以上映三级片…甚至新闻播报也可以用脱衣秀方式进行，那么这些也是我国马来西亚要学的吗？”这种推论方法是中学辩论员常用的，非常缺乏逻辑性。
国与国之必定有不同的地方。因为不同，有些事情适合美国的未必适合马来西亚。但是，再怎么不同，也会有些事情是我们可以借鉴的。用一句话“国情不同”就说其他国家的媒体自由肯定不适合于马来西亚是一种避重就轻的论证法。张庆信根本就没有说出到底美国与马来西亚的那一点不同以致我国不适合更充分的媒体自由。
他以反问的方法说：台湾影院也可以上映三级片，难道马来西亚也可以吗？这跟媒体自由适合不适合于马来西亚是两回事儿。马来西亚不适合三级片等于马来西亚不适合台湾、美国的媒体自由吗 ？何况，我们不是在谈论着3级 片而是媒体的自由。当我们说要引进美国的媒体自由当然不会是在指这些色情方面的，而是泛指美国媒体对于正面言论与思想发表的自由空间。不要每次在人民要求自由的时候，就把自由推向极端。在我国的自由程度与绝对自由之间，尚有很大的空间。
2．张庆信那天在国会上说“媒体只是报忧不报喜”，因此建议要更好地去“监控”。那是不是说每个电视节目必须有大概一半是报喜，一半是报忧的咧？那么电视制作人不是很难做？或许说某个电台的电视节目有大概一半是以报喜为主题，另一半则是报忧可以吗？那么既然AEC已经有报喜的节目了，《身在大马》 来个报忧又何妨？况且，它也没有歪曲事实。
是的，有派报员做到可以驾宝马。但也有的做到连三餐都不温饱。只报道后者是因为要告诉大家“比下有余”、“要节俭”、“要懂得珍惜”这些正面的教育意义。报道前者会有什么教育意义呢？还倒不如留给直销员在他们每星期里的激励讲座用吧。这又怎么会是适合于教育大众的电视节目呢？而且，事实真相是庞大的，没有一个电视节目足以将事实真相的所有都报道出来。
我知道张庆信想说，报喜的电视节目能够为我国人民带来打气以及让我们更积极。然而，不要说一个国家，就算一个人也应该客观地了解一下自己的缺点吧？现实中，有人会喜欢以鼓励的方式前进。有些人，会喜欢以自责的方式前进。无论哪个，要前进，就必须先了解自己的优缺点。
而且，赞许是别人给的，不是你所能逼出来的。人民在经济萧条的时候有埋怨多于赞许是理所当然的。作为经验丰富及分析能力超强的张庆信来说，这一点很容易预料得到。这时候还要谴责别人只报忧，那不是要我们走回台湾白色恐怖的时代或是朝鲜的独裁制？虽然国情不同，但除了少数国阵里的成员以外，我国其实已经有绝对足够的思想成熟度来讨论这些课题。真的很难想象在一个教育水准甚高的马来西亚，还有谁会为派报员的困境或是石油起价的影响而感觉“不舒服”。
3．更“够力”的是，张庆信竟然认同《内安法令》和《印刷法令》，他说：“综观世界各国，没有任何一个法制国家对于国内的印刷品，没有立法管制的…否则，来日人们尽可以将许多不符实、诽磅、甚至是恶意、蓄意破坏他人的新闻、刊物出版…”
世界每一个民主自由的国家，不管它有没有类似《内》或《印》的法令，都会对印刷品和言论的管制。在任何一个国家，诽谤和蓄意破坏他人的新闻都要受到法律的制裁。这不是《内》或《印》存在的目的。认为没有了这两个法令， 媒体就会诽谤是一个非常幼稚的想法。
尽管没有《内》和《印》，我国已经有足够的法律对付诽谤。反对《内》与《印》的真正原因在于这两者的法律诠释完全取决于掌权者。比如，《内》说只要威胁到国家安全者能不经审讯无限扣留。然而，“威胁国家安全”是见仁见智。最近，YB郭素沁和资深星洲记者在内安法令下逮捕是有威胁国家安全吗？马来先锋报安然无事但星洲日报，太阳报又为何被发警告信呢？
尽管一个“善良”的政府有可能好好的“善用”《内》和《印》。但是，没有人可以确保政府永远都是“善良”的。只要一个“恶”的政府掌握了这些武器，它就可以为所欲为，把过去所有的建设毁于一旦。民主的真正目的就是在于避免这种事情的发生。而《内》和《印》正是民主的绊脚石。
我想，大家其实都是为媒体自由的好。张庆信也只不过是希望在媒体自由不受打压下，能够有更妥善的监控。对于“安全套”要监控我不反对。但是对于“报忧不报喜”和“印刷法令”的“监控”，我们能不反对吗？
Obama wins!
Obama is the new President of U.S. of A.!!
(I have earlier declared my support for Obama here)
It took USA about 100 years since independence for Lincoln to denounce slavery.
About 200 years for Martin Luther King to 'have a dream'.
And 230 years for the first Afro-American to be President.
How long would Malaysia take to have a non-Malay Prime Minister?
Imagine, just 50 years ago, blacks in the USA have to be segregated when sitting in a public bus. Coincidentally, that's how long since Malaysia have gained independence.
****************************************
written after seeing on CNN that the exit polls showed Obama won the race to be the President elect of USA
(I have earlier declared my support for Obama here)
It took USA about 100 years since independence for Lincoln to denounce slavery.
About 200 years for Martin Luther King to 'have a dream'.
And 230 years for the first Afro-American to be President.
How long would Malaysia take to have a non-Malay Prime Minister?
Imagine, just 50 years ago, blacks in the USA have to be segregated when sitting in a public bus. Coincidentally, that's how long since Malaysia have gained independence.
****************************************
written after seeing on CNN that the exit polls showed Obama won the race to be the President elect of USA
Monday, November 3, 2008
Max Payne with no 'bullet time'
I just watched the movie, starring Mark Wahlberg.
And there wasn't any 'bullet time'.
Ok, all the 80's babies who played Max Payne knew why we played Max Payne. It's because of 'bullet time'.
Max Payne without 'bullet time' is Max Pain. C'mon, why make a movie called Max Payne when you do not have the cool 'slow-the-time-and-shoot-all-the-bad-guys feature'? Without 'bullet time' it's like any other cop-criminal movie where the detective just happen to be called Max Payne'
Disappointing.
And there wasn't any 'bullet time'.
Ok, all the 80's babies who played Max Payne knew why we played Max Payne. It's because of 'bullet time'.
Max Payne without 'bullet time' is Max Pain. C'mon, why make a movie called Max Payne when you do not have the cool 'slow-the-time-and-shoot-all-the-bad-guys feature'? Without 'bullet time' it's like any other cop-criminal movie where the detective just happen to be called Max Payne'
Disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
