I don't get it when people insist that things are just things, and don't mean anything. I refer specifically here to movie references to other movies. For example, Rocky Balboa was loaded with references to previous movies. In the first movie, Rocky said that he had never broken his nose before. Then in the first two rounds of the Creed fight, Rocky cracked that he couldn't believe that Creed broke his nose twice. I consider the shot of the nose bleed to be a reference. There are also more obvious ones, such as the run up the museum steps, which is in many of the movies. There's also "Yo Adrian, we did it", which ends the saga, where the first movie ends with "Yo Adrian, I did it." The shot of Marie running through the crowd at the end is the mirror of Adrian running through the crowd in the first movie. The fights in the first and last movies were both not about Rocky winning or trying to win, but to survive fifteen rounds without being knocked out, in order to recover his self-confidence.

And now, I rewatch the Runaway Bride, and I crack up at the negotiating scene, which is a beautiful rehash of the one in Pretty Woman, with the Gere and Roberts roles reversed in terms of physical position and monetary position, albeit retaining the direction of flow of cash. Then there's the dress shop, where Gere sticks up for Roberts' right to spend a lot of money on clothes. And of course, finishing on a balcony.

I'm conflicted over this whole execution deal. I'm sure that most people on the planet are aware that it has been carried out. And a lot of people have opinions on the matter. Being in the United States, most people around me seem convinced that it is a good thing, and perhaps they are right. Still, what defines something to be good or not? Simply a personal judgement on the issue. And please don't give me that natural morality bullshit. If there is such a thing as natural morality, then every person on earth would be possessed of it, and no crime would be committed. Allowing for some people being born without this trait, punishing this minority for subsequent actions as a result of the lack thereof smacks to me of genetic profiling. Punishing someone because he or she did something that they are inclined to do, but society at large is not, is fairly similar to assaulting people for their race. These criminals, so to speak, are genetically inclined to commit crimes, so you punish them for this genetic disposition? Genocidal maniacs, the lot of you.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. I'm conflicted about this because there's a clash here between my usual common sense view of the judicial system and the entire concept of a reliable one. I believe that this person is most likely guilty of a great deal of murder, genocide and so on. From a personal point of view, a death sentence seems reasonable for his actions. Generally speaking, I am an advocate of dealing out punishment as efficiently as possible where warranted. I detest the concept of jury trials simply because there is no chance of neutral jurors. The big man theory of government works for me, and this includes the judicial branch. Have a judge, smart fellow naturally, figure out if the defendant is innocent or guilty, and dole out a sentence.

The problem in this particular case is that, well, for starters, any trial in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion cannot be fair. I don't think anybody had the slightest doubt that the verdict would be guilty and the sentence death. If the judge had ruled otherwise, there would be an uproar beyond imagination. This is nothing more than a mockery of a judicial process then. Why even bother? Just shoot the chap in that hole in the ground and be done with it.

So why was this a kangaroo court? Well, he was the former ruler of a country, who had been deposed by a foreign power, then captured and tried by the new government of his country, now dominated by his opponents. After a military coup, you don't expect fair and open trials. This had the same outcome. Tried by a government essentially composed of people who are at war with his own, the poor chap had no chance. Besides, given that he was the government at the time of the alleged crimes, even if he had given the orders, I don't see any rationale for considering those acts to be illegal. What's next? Trying every American president for the deaths of civilians during "precision" bombing of the many many countries that the US has bombed in the past hundred years or so? Even better, have the judge and jury at these trials be chosen from the families of the victims. Oh yeah. Definitely impartial.

There are days when you spend the evening frantically multitasking, trying to remember all of the six things you have running at the same time. Then you realise that you could just run another script in the background, so you do. Dash off a quick query to check a number, then realise that everything has ground to a halt, replication dead. Panic, and try to retrieve your data just in case a serious crash occurs two days before the auction closes.

Then you scan a list of hundreds of names, and you realise that you know what the important ones are, what to look for, what the combinations mean. You start closing the windows one by one, until nothing is left, except for something that will just have to run overnight. Hand off one last pack, walk out of the office, head down, until somewhere in between the lobby and the carpark, a tune steals into your head, and you start humming it. By the time you reach your car, the song is on your lips, soft, but clear enough only to yourself. Then the radio comes on, and that exact song is playing. A smile flits across, and soon fingers are tapping and the volume is up, and the road is speeding by far faster than it ought to.

Then you walk into your apartment to find that Volkswagen has sent you an electric guitar, and all that seems appropriate to do is laugh and go to bed.