what size will fit you then my Lady V?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
UNITY GOVT A BETRAYAL ALL AROUND
 |  |  |
| Tuesday, 23 June 2009 10:49 | |
The much-hyped, but now abandoned, unity-government concept, first touted by PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in March, and welcomed by all and sundry within Umno is a betrayal. From Pakatan Rakyat's perspective, it is a betrayal of voters’ trust. Malays who voted for PAS did so because they preferred it over Umno. Non-Malays who voted for PAS didn’t do so because they wanted PAS but because they rejected Umno. In either case, PAS teaming up with Umno is the last thing these Malay and non-Malay voters want. By pushing for unity-government talks, the faction headed by PAS Deputy President Nasharuddin Mat Isa, is betraying PAS’ coalition partners DAP and PKR, which consider Umno the enemy (as do most of PAS' grassroots). Lastly, this faction is betraying PAS itself, which campaigned on a platform of a “welfare state”, with justness for everybody, not just Malays or Muslims. What else could you call a PAS-Umno unity government but a race- exclusive government? Those who are under the illusion that the unity talks could be aimed at setting up a national unity government involving all parties (including DAP and PKR together with MCA, MIC, Gerakan and a host of East Malaysian parties), should look back at what happened right after the March 8, 2008 general election. Just days after the election, then-prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi held secret (now, not so secret anymore) unity talks – three such meetings were held according to Abdullah – with a PAS delegation that included Nasharuddin and the current Secretary-General Mustafa Ali. The idea was for Selangor to be ruled by a new coalition between Umno and PAS. According to PAS MP Khalid Samad, who was present at the first meeting, former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Khir Toyo was willing to become deputy MB and accept Selangor PAS Commissioner Hassan Ali as MB. Khalid told Singapore's Straits Times last July that during the meeting, the Umno side played up the racial issue, voicing concerns over DAP coming to power and the possible erosion of Malay rights and power. Straits Times reported that other PAS insiders said Umno wanted PAS to cooperate with it in the states ruled by the Islamic party, like Kelantan, Kedah and Perak, and sideline its partners in Pakatan Rakyat. In return, PAS was promised that it would be able to dictate certain terms, such as its choice of MB. This is the kind of "unity talks" we are talking about. So, if certain factions within PAS were to push on with such unity talks, their actions would be nothing less than a betrayal of voters (both Malay and non-Malay), of its coalition partners, and of the Islamic party itself. And what of the Umno side, with so many of its leaders jumping on the unity-talks bandwagon? Umno President and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak got the ball rolling by welcoming such talks. Despite initially being wary and lukewarm about such talks, Umno Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin very quickly changed tack and infamously stated, “We will not impose any conditions and we accept whatever terms set by PAS. As far as I'm concerned, we have to be open.” Such openness, apparently does not extend to PR component parties DAP and PKR. Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir made it clear that both those parties were not welcome to the talks. He even rationalised the need for Malay-unity talks on the grounds that Najib’s 1Malaysia concept hinged on it. “If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1Malaysia concept?” he said. “This will be detrimental not only to the Malays but also to other races.” Going by his warped logic, Mukhriz should support a gathering that involves DAP, PKR, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and East Malaysian parties but excluding PAS and Umno. The purpose of such talks? Non-Malay unity, for the sake of achieving 1Malaysia. You can imagine the ridicule that proposal would draw. Umno leaders who harp on Malay-unity talks are not only betraying the 1Malaysia concept but their partners in Barisan Nasional, whom they know only too well, are now so weak that they can’t say a word against the notion of being sidelined by Umno in favour of PAS. Their unwillingness to object to Malay-unity talks is a betrayal to the very constituency they are supposed to represent. Not a word on this matter has been heard from Gerakan President Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon who is the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for National Unity. Note t hat it's "National Unity" not "Malay Unity". Datuk Seri Samy Vellu offered the lame proposal of Indian unity talks between MIC and various Indian parties and non-governmental organisations. Of course talking to DAP and PKR – both of which have elected Indian representatives at the state and federal level – is not on the cards. But, MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat takes the cake by offering a red herring that would be laughable if it was not so weak: “We also want to know, through a dialogue, how far the DAP is committed to informing the people of its relationship with PAS. Whether the relationship is cordial or not.” I’m sure there are many Chinese people who would like to know, through a dialogue, how far MCA is committed to informing the people of its relationship with Umno. Whether it’s one of subservience or not. Malaysians may not have yet reached a stage where we can say we are colour blind, but the politicians who are pushing for, or tolerating, the so-called unity talks, must be blind, deaf and dumb if they think the voting public can so easily have wool pulled over their eyes. Unity talks – which is just euphemism for race-based collusion – is a betrayal all around. |
i am changing me hee hee
| WHY MALAYSIA IS NOT MOVING FORWARD? | | | |
| Tuesday, 23 June 2009 09:45 | |
By Lance Wong Like many other guys would do, we went to ‘yamcha’ (have tea) and chat from the earth to the sky. Then of course, we talked about Malaysia’s development and started comparing ourselves with South Korea and Taiwan, the countries with the same development potential in the 90s. I said, we can’t compare ourselves with those countries because Taiwan and S.Korea don’t have issues like racial problems, unfair treatment, favoritism policies and so on. Though I’ve given numerous reasons why Malaysia is lacking behind, my friend said: “Yes, these are existing problems that we should look into and put an end to it if possible; but these are not the excuses why Malaysia is lacking behind.”
that they have not been given equal opportunities in this and that. The point is, I can see that those who have ‘average’ qualities tend to focus on resentment rather than improvement. But those who are really ‘capable’ tend to serve other countries rather than in Malaysia because they feel ‘more appreciated’. Please stop sighing and use your talents to contribute to our dear Malaysia. Apart from the brain drain I mentioned, the main issue is Malaysians have lost the focus of what is important - changing ourselves. And we have a bunch of ‘holier than thou’ bloggers and commentators who know nothing except how to bash the government without seeing themselves as the ones who bribe cops and resent unproductively or just not give constructive suggestions. I’m not trying to show that I’m better than the rest of you but trying to bring a message that we all can learn together, so that we can do something good for the country. Remember, we’re not moving just because we’re not moving … including me. Finally, I’d like to end this with a story (unknown source): First, I wanted to change the world;
my country;
my family’s change;
Change start from ourselves, including me... and you! http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/23489/84/ |
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
IF you don't get it, tough
Monday, June 15, 2009
Some people just don't get it!
I was amused by the commentators on RPK's latest blog posting on his No Holds Barred column.
My my... RPK sure knows how to write and my my.... so many just don't get the picture. Sigh.... now I understand why RPK is just so fed up with the readers and commentators in Malaysia Today. RPK's writings are way toooooooooo advance for most readers' comprehension. These people just don't get it. Do they bother to read the whole article or do they just selectively read them and make quick conclusions without even bothering to understand the whole article is all about.
So what kinda Malaysians do we have out there? Judging by the flaming that Simon Templar went thru on one of his recent postings and the comments on RPK's latest article, I would say that a good number of readers of MT don't know (borrowing from Simon) jack sh*t about anything and would just go ballistic over some article that challenges their political point of view or if an article is written to have double meanings. Too deep for them ler.
Finding it too hard for you to comprehend this post of mine? Frakin' sorry for you. Why don't you just watch ASTRO channel 613 and perhaps you can learn somthing from there. Duh!
My my... RPK sure knows how to write and my my.... so many just don't get the picture. Sigh.... now I understand why RPK is just so fed up with the readers and commentators in Malaysia Today. RPK's writings are way toooooooooo advance for most readers' comprehension. These people just don't get it. Do they bother to read the whole article or do they just selectively read them and make quick conclusions without even bothering to understand the whole article is all about.
So what kinda Malaysians do we have out there? Judging by the flaming that Simon Templar went thru on one of his recent postings and the comments on RPK's latest article, I would say that a good number of readers of MT don't know (borrowing from Simon) jack sh*t about anything and would just go ballistic over some article that challenges their political point of view or if an article is written to have double meanings. Too deep for them ler.
Finding it too hard for you to comprehend this post of mine? Frakin' sorry for you. Why don't you just watch ASTRO channel 613 and perhaps you can learn somthing from there. Duh!
4 comments:
Thursday, May 28, 2009
...sexual fantasy
Alex Tan
May 26 at 10:31am
what's your sexual fantasy?
Voulez Voo
May 26 at 11:16am
..what's yours? Ahem, i don't hv any. FYI, most women don't have (sexual fantasies)... well, the women friends i know anyway.Cheers.
Alex Tan
May 26 at 2:08pm
sexual fantasy? a threesome with two ladies...never done it...however exciting as its unexplored territories...do you enjoy long wet passionate kisses?
Voulez Voo
May 27 at 3:16pm
...not wet... long, passionate is delicious tho' Yr 3-some fantasy - better make sure u can last long enuff to please the 2 ladies Mister Stud!
Alex Tan
May 27 at 3:39pm
i enjoy long passionate and wet if possible..its obviously a challenge in threesome...or probably can do it one after another...then sex is communication...its about how to satisfy each others needs...some love doggie...some love missionary...i suppose that's why the world is so exciting...you like it if your breast is sucked licked then sucked again? sometimes hard...sometimes soft...
Voulez Voo
May 27 at 7:05pm
you like it if your breast is sucked licked then sucked again? sometimes hard...sometimes soft...? depends on mood surely? but not too hard till it hurts... n not too wet... yuck.. cuninlingus is preferred... but, again, not too hard on the clitoris tx... lol...
Voulez Voo
May 27 at 7:10pm
aiyaaa... i think it's the same for at least 90% of pussies u ask Alex...
Alex Tan
Today at 12:28pm
you are very detailed in your description on the anotomy...well i like it when its sucked and licked by somebody that i fancy...it s also very tempting when the other person is as beautiful as you...i just wanna say that you are a truly bautiful lady...features that will make the guys queue up for your number and you will probably nee a full time secretary to handle all the requests for dates...have you ever had one night stand?
Voulez Voo
Today at 6:11pm
...nope, never ONS, and will never happen EVER!!last night...truly fooked... wowee... beauty? born with it, so hv to live with it as best as i can... sometimes good, other times bad
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
a reminder...do not be upset over the wrong reasons
| ||||||||||
Annoucing: the "superior" race.
Wenger,
You inform me that, "As Malays, we are the superior race but only in Malaysia, and this is perhaps what UMNO is all about."
With your pow-der-full England, I assume you must mean Malays are the "superior" race as in innovativeness, in short: superior in brain power not unlike the Americans?
Or do you mean the "majority" race?
If you mean the former, all the school quota will have been un-necessary as being the "superior" race, Malays would be ummm... rather "superior" academically.
So, which is it?
You inform me that, "As Malays, we are the superior race but only in Malaysia, and this is perhaps what UMNO is all about."
With your pow-der-full England, I assume you must mean Malays are the "superior" race as in innovativeness, in short: superior in brain power not unlike the Americans?
Or do you mean the "majority" race?
If you mean the former, all the school quota will have been un-necessary as being the "superior" race, Malays would be ummm... rather "superior" academically.
So, which is it?
Monday, May 25, 2009
...landing in Malaysia with just a few dollars and a bag of clothes.
SINGAPORE, May 25 — Tan Sri Francis Yeoh, managing director of YTL Corp. Bhd. and one of Malaysia’s most prominent business personalities, is a religious man who makes every effort to practice his Christian values in life and business.
Under his stewardship, the YTL group has grown from a single entity in Malaysia in 1985 to seven listed companies, making it one of Malaysia’s biggest conglomerates, with operations at home and abroad.
Mr. Yeoh’s grandfather left Fujian province in China in 1920 with just a few dollars and a bag of clothes. He landed in Malaysia, worked hard and opened a timber business. His son Yeoh Tiong Lay started a construction company called Yeoh Tiong Lay Building Co. in 1955, later shortened to YTL. Its early construction projects in Malaysia were military garrisons, hospitals and low-cost housing.
At the age of 16, Francis Yeoh was already learning the business at the company’s construction sites on weekends and holidays. As the eldest of seven children, he offered to drop out of school, where he was the head boy, to help his father.
The offer was rejected and Francis went to Kingston Polytechnic (now Kingston University), in London, earning a degree in civil engineering. On his return to Malaysia in 1978, at the age of 24, his father appointed him managing director of YTL.
During the past 30 years, the YTL group, whose principal activities are now in water supply and treatment and power generation, has also moved into other activities such as hotel and resort management, information technology, manufacturing, and cement, with acquisitions such as PowerSeraya Ltd., a major supplier of electricity in Singapore; Wessex Water Ltd. in the UK, and the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Kuala Lumpur.
Yeoh family members continue to dominate the YTL board, holding eight of the 13 seats. The extended Yeoh family’s net worth is estimated at US$1.7 billion (RM5.9 billion), which would make it Malaysia’s sixth richest clan.
Shares of YTL Corp and six other entities in the YTL group are listed in Malaysia, while the parent company is also traded in Tokyo. And a YTL real-estate investment trust trades on the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York.
An avid lover of the arts, Yeoh, 56, is president and patron of the Kuala Lumpur Symphony Orchestra Society and is actively involved in philanthropy. Costas Paris interviewed Yeoh in Singapore.
WSJ: Who gave you the best business advice?
Yeoh: The best business advice I’ve received came from God’s scriptures. I am only a steward of God’s wealth. Knowing this means that there is a lack of personal ego in the approach that YTL takes to business decisions. We practice what we preach and look to develop good ideas so that in every down cycle, such as we are currently seeing in the global economy, we have cash available to be able to expand the company. Now we have reserves to invest in excess of US$3.4 billion.
WSJ: What advice would you give to someone starting out in your field today?
Yeoh: Many CEOs have a short-term, quarterly-results-oriented outlook. At YTL, we have built businesses that on the surface may look diversified. However, linking them all is the central common denominator, which is our engineering skill set. Staying focused and having a long-term view means that we have a balance sheet where more than 70 per cent of our income is recurring, which is one of the reasons I can sleep well at night.
WSJ: Do you have a favorite business book?
Yeoh: I read and enjoy Warren Buffet and the usual collection of business-strategy books. I particularly like W. Chan Kim’s “Blue Ocean Strategy”. But the book I value the most is the Bible. Many of the best business practices we adopt as a (corporate) culture tend to be faith-based, and are found in the Scriptures.
WSJ: What’s the one thing you wish every new hire knew?
Yeoh: New hires must master what we call the three languages: the language of God, the language of man and the language of machines. The language of God means integrating your character with God and being uncorrupted.
The language of man is the language of global business. You have to articulate, especially when you’re a leader and have to motivate your people. It could be Mandarin in China, it could be English in Britain, and it could be Indian in India if you do business there.
Finally you have to master the language of machines, which is computer-based technology or machines that enhance your business productivity. At YTL, we focus on these three characteristics and as a result have very little turnover of senior staff. And we are mindful never to over-hire so as to avoid any retrenchment cycles.
WSJ: Is there a difference between how you work in Asia and the rest of the world?
Yeoh: We tend to do very well in economies that have the rule of law, transparency and a sophisticated regulatory framework. So in that context, Malaysia, Britain, Australia, and Singapore and economies like the US are territories we are very comfortable with.
WSJ: What was the toughest decision you’ve had to make as a manager?
Yeoh: At YTL, any decision is subjected to rigorous scrutiny of the board of directors. If a deal gets through them, it comes to me and I will still approach my father for his counsel. When the company was still young, one director (a Yeoh brother) came to the board with an idea to invest into the latex glove business. Rather than a core business built to last, it was an opportunity to make huge profits – or so we all thought. It very quickly came to nothing [when the over-invested global latex glove industry faltered] and we closed the business.
As a reminder to us all, we still keep the empty tanks [once filled with liquid latex for making gloves] in our (so-called) museum of mistakes. It reinforces the need to stay focused on our skill set, which is based on engineering. The same brother has moved on to build one of the best and profitable cement companies in Asia, YTL Cement.
WSJ: Would you recommend someone starting out in your field obtain an advanced degree, or learn on the job?
Yeoh: I had to set a very high bar for members of our family. I insisted on an honors degree in engineering or similar degrees related to our industry. I didn’t want any molly-coddled sibling coming in. I didn’t want nepotism, cronyism and all that stuff.
So most of them have graduated or are graduating from the best colleges, such as the Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, the University of Nottingham, the London School of Economics. These are good signs. – Wall Street Journal
Under his stewardship, the YTL group has grown from a single entity in Malaysia in 1985 to seven listed companies, making it one of Malaysia’s biggest conglomerates, with operations at home and abroad.
Mr. Yeoh’s grandfather left Fujian province in China in 1920 with just a few dollars and a bag of clothes. He landed in Malaysia, worked hard and opened a timber business. His son Yeoh Tiong Lay started a construction company called Yeoh Tiong Lay Building Co. in 1955, later shortened to YTL. Its early construction projects in Malaysia were military garrisons, hospitals and low-cost housing.
At the age of 16, Francis Yeoh was already learning the business at the company’s construction sites on weekends and holidays. As the eldest of seven children, he offered to drop out of school, where he was the head boy, to help his father.
The offer was rejected and Francis went to Kingston Polytechnic (now Kingston University), in London, earning a degree in civil engineering. On his return to Malaysia in 1978, at the age of 24, his father appointed him managing director of YTL.
During the past 30 years, the YTL group, whose principal activities are now in water supply and treatment and power generation, has also moved into other activities such as hotel and resort management, information technology, manufacturing, and cement, with acquisitions such as PowerSeraya Ltd., a major supplier of electricity in Singapore; Wessex Water Ltd. in the UK, and the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Kuala Lumpur.
Yeoh family members continue to dominate the YTL board, holding eight of the 13 seats. The extended Yeoh family’s net worth is estimated at US$1.7 billion (RM5.9 billion), which would make it Malaysia’s sixth richest clan.
Shares of YTL Corp and six other entities in the YTL group are listed in Malaysia, while the parent company is also traded in Tokyo. And a YTL real-estate investment trust trades on the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York.
An avid lover of the arts, Yeoh, 56, is president and patron of the Kuala Lumpur Symphony Orchestra Society and is actively involved in philanthropy. Costas Paris interviewed Yeoh in Singapore.
WSJ: Who gave you the best business advice?
Yeoh: The best business advice I’ve received came from God’s scriptures. I am only a steward of God’s wealth. Knowing this means that there is a lack of personal ego in the approach that YTL takes to business decisions. We practice what we preach and look to develop good ideas so that in every down cycle, such as we are currently seeing in the global economy, we have cash available to be able to expand the company. Now we have reserves to invest in excess of US$3.4 billion.
WSJ: What advice would you give to someone starting out in your field today?
Yeoh: Many CEOs have a short-term, quarterly-results-oriented outlook. At YTL, we have built businesses that on the surface may look diversified. However, linking them all is the central common denominator, which is our engineering skill set. Staying focused and having a long-term view means that we have a balance sheet where more than 70 per cent of our income is recurring, which is one of the reasons I can sleep well at night.
WSJ: Do you have a favorite business book?
Yeoh: I read and enjoy Warren Buffet and the usual collection of business-strategy books. I particularly like W. Chan Kim’s “Blue Ocean Strategy”. But the book I value the most is the Bible. Many of the best business practices we adopt as a (corporate) culture tend to be faith-based, and are found in the Scriptures.
WSJ: What’s the one thing you wish every new hire knew?
Yeoh: New hires must master what we call the three languages: the language of God, the language of man and the language of machines. The language of God means integrating your character with God and being uncorrupted.
The language of man is the language of global business. You have to articulate, especially when you’re a leader and have to motivate your people. It could be Mandarin in China, it could be English in Britain, and it could be Indian in India if you do business there.
Finally you have to master the language of machines, which is computer-based technology or machines that enhance your business productivity. At YTL, we focus on these three characteristics and as a result have very little turnover of senior staff. And we are mindful never to over-hire so as to avoid any retrenchment cycles.
WSJ: Is there a difference between how you work in Asia and the rest of the world?
Yeoh: We tend to do very well in economies that have the rule of law, transparency and a sophisticated regulatory framework. So in that context, Malaysia, Britain, Australia, and Singapore and economies like the US are territories we are very comfortable with.
WSJ: What was the toughest decision you’ve had to make as a manager?
Yeoh: At YTL, any decision is subjected to rigorous scrutiny of the board of directors. If a deal gets through them, it comes to me and I will still approach my father for his counsel. When the company was still young, one director (a Yeoh brother) came to the board with an idea to invest into the latex glove business. Rather than a core business built to last, it was an opportunity to make huge profits – or so we all thought. It very quickly came to nothing [when the over-invested global latex glove industry faltered] and we closed the business.
As a reminder to us all, we still keep the empty tanks [once filled with liquid latex for making gloves] in our (so-called) museum of mistakes. It reinforces the need to stay focused on our skill set, which is based on engineering. The same brother has moved on to build one of the best and profitable cement companies in Asia, YTL Cement.
WSJ: Would you recommend someone starting out in your field obtain an advanced degree, or learn on the job?
Yeoh: I had to set a very high bar for members of our family. I insisted on an honors degree in engineering or similar degrees related to our industry. I didn’t want any molly-coddled sibling coming in. I didn’t want nepotism, cronyism and all that stuff.
So most of them have graduated or are graduating from the best colleges, such as the Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, the University of Nottingham, the London School of Economics. These are good signs. – Wall Street Journal
this so-called KeTuanan Melayu
Hallo Ah Weng J Curry,
I sense you are unclear about Ketuanan Melayu (KM) at worse, or at best, pretend to want to understand it (so that there will never be a 1Malaysia).
All non-Malays have already accepted KM since that 13th day of M. It was a master-stroke. So, wtf, just play along la.
Who has that emergency fund to become citizen of other country? Those that dream of it, eventually got their wish with the 2nd gen.
So, M'sia is stuck with us reluctant migrants. What to do?
Hey, think of the African slaves in America. It took 200+ years to get a president up there.
For a while, they couldn't even share bus seats.
But, here in M'sia, not that bad ya? Just another 150 years of fighting for a lost cause to go.
I sense you are unclear about Ketuanan Melayu (KM) at worse, or at best, pretend to want to understand it (so that there will never be a 1Malaysia).
All non-Malays have already accepted KM since that 13th day of M. It was a master-stroke. So, wtf, just play along la.
Who has that emergency fund to become citizen of other country? Those that dream of it, eventually got their wish with the 2nd gen.
So, M'sia is stuck with us reluctant migrants. What to do?
Hey, think of the African slaves in America. It took 200+ years to get a president up there.
For a while, they couldn't even share bus seats.
But, here in M'sia, not that bad ya? Just another 150 years of fighting for a lost cause to go.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The arrogance of secularists
Posted by admin
Wednesday, 20 May 2009 17:13
By batsman
This is not about whether God exists or does not exist. This is not a discussion about whether God exists or not under the guise of whether prayers work or not. This is not about empirical proofs.
Since neither science nor logic can prove whether God exists or not, I think it is a waste of time to discuss this with secularists. What is marginally more fruitful is a discussion on the arrogance of secularists.
Just because scientists discovered some physical laws of the material world and were able not only to repeat their discoveries but also use them to invent new powerful machines (mostly weapons of war, but also efficient industrial machinery), the secularists believe they have the right solutions to everything including their marginalization of Faith. I challenge this arrogance and put it to you that this belief in “almighty secularism” is also based on faith – a faith that is faulty and weak.
I grant that the capitalists with their weapons of war, their industrial and communications machines and their commercial and financial might are indeed powerful. It is precisely this power that they use to marginalize Faith, but this is still not adequate so they have to co-opt science as the new religion of the secularists.
Science is a new religion to some. Just to give a simple example – how many commentators in Malaysia-Today understand the theory of relativity and the maths that go into it? How many truly understand quantum mechanics or string theory? Yet these simpletons, many of whom never pass Form 5 roar mightily about the Theory of Relativity, the absolute truth of science and put up Einstein as their demi-god. Their confidence is based on the understanding of others. If this is not an act of faith, what is?
Even the real men of science admit that about 73% of the universe comprise of an unknown entity or entities which they call vaguely dark matter and dark energy. Yet with only about 27% of the universe that real scientists can see, touch or measure, some arrogant secularists even claim to deny the existence of God. If this is not arrogance, what is?
There was a time when scientists claimed that what cannot be seen measured, felt or detected is not matter or energy and therefore does not exist. The 73% dark matter and dark energy cannot be seen, measured, felt or detected. By right they shouldn’t exist, yet the mathematical calculations go haywire and the numbers cannot be explained without dreaming up something called dark matter and dark energy. One of the holy grails of science is now to be able to detect dark energy. Imagine what can be accomplished if dark energy can not only be detected but harnessed! Energy galore! Great dreams for something which cannot be seen, measured or detected. Is it any different from believing that God exists?
Yet some arrogant secularists go around claiming that science is absolute truth.
There is even dispute about global warming and the dispute is so serious that suppression is used in the form of denial of scientific grants and denial of publishing benefits to those in the “heretical” camp.
They used to say that the melting of the polar ice-caps will flood the world. Now that some of the ice has melted, they say it has been miscalculated and the effect is “not so bad”. Yet some arrogant secularists still go around claiming that science is the absolute truth. If this is not a form of religious fanaticism, what is?
They used to treat the Theory of Evolution as the absolute truth. Those who taught anything else in schools were sacked or forced to resign. Now they are saying that the Theory of Evolution has to be slightly adapted to new findings. After all, natural selection may be influenced by female selection and these days it may even be wholly dependent on viral selection.
Viruses are now said to be necessary for mammalian (and thus also human) birth and that the human genome may just be a compilation of various viral genes (apes have now taken second place). This theory just about gives the classical Theory of Evolution a whack out of alignment, yet some arrogant secularists continue to oppress creationists and treat creationists as heretics who need to be burned at the stake of scientific orthodoxy. If this is not scientific obsession of the religious kind, what is?
Even the much vaunted physical laws of the material world seem to apply only on the earth and thereabouts. In 73% of the unknown universe and especially inside the black holes, physical laws don’t seem to apply. The universe itself is said to begin as a small pea or baseball sized “something” that blew up and became eternal in size. Shades of Gungamesh of Babylonian “scientific” thought? How is this explanation more understandable to the ordinary person than the old one that the universe was created by God? Don’t mention the ordinary person – I think even university graduates have problems with this theory of the Big Bang.
Things have become so bizarre that the newest theory - String Theory, says that reality comprises up to 12 dimensions and our universe is just one of them (comprised of 3 or 4 dimensions). This means that there are other dimensions that we cannot see, cannot measure and cannot detect. With so much at stake, some secularists still have the arrogance to claim definitively that God does not exist.
What can you say about these secularists? In my view, they are just exercising power possessed by capitalist scientific orthodoxy to suppress and marginalize Faith. These people must have the first word and the last word and all the words in between. It has nothing to do with the humility of life and Truth.
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/22122/84/
Wednesday, 20 May 2009 17:13
By batsman
This is not about whether God exists or does not exist. This is not a discussion about whether God exists or not under the guise of whether prayers work or not. This is not about empirical proofs.
Since neither science nor logic can prove whether God exists or not, I think it is a waste of time to discuss this with secularists. What is marginally more fruitful is a discussion on the arrogance of secularists.
Just because scientists discovered some physical laws of the material world and were able not only to repeat their discoveries but also use them to invent new powerful machines (mostly weapons of war, but also efficient industrial machinery), the secularists believe they have the right solutions to everything including their marginalization of Faith. I challenge this arrogance and put it to you that this belief in “almighty secularism” is also based on faith – a faith that is faulty and weak.
I grant that the capitalists with their weapons of war, their industrial and communications machines and their commercial and financial might are indeed powerful. It is precisely this power that they use to marginalize Faith, but this is still not adequate so they have to co-opt science as the new religion of the secularists.
Science is a new religion to some. Just to give a simple example – how many commentators in Malaysia-Today understand the theory of relativity and the maths that go into it? How many truly understand quantum mechanics or string theory? Yet these simpletons, many of whom never pass Form 5 roar mightily about the Theory of Relativity, the absolute truth of science and put up Einstein as their demi-god. Their confidence is based on the understanding of others. If this is not an act of faith, what is?
Even the real men of science admit that about 73% of the universe comprise of an unknown entity or entities which they call vaguely dark matter and dark energy. Yet with only about 27% of the universe that real scientists can see, touch or measure, some arrogant secularists even claim to deny the existence of God. If this is not arrogance, what is?
There was a time when scientists claimed that what cannot be seen measured, felt or detected is not matter or energy and therefore does not exist. The 73% dark matter and dark energy cannot be seen, measured, felt or detected. By right they shouldn’t exist, yet the mathematical calculations go haywire and the numbers cannot be explained without dreaming up something called dark matter and dark energy. One of the holy grails of science is now to be able to detect dark energy. Imagine what can be accomplished if dark energy can not only be detected but harnessed! Energy galore! Great dreams for something which cannot be seen, measured or detected. Is it any different from believing that God exists?
Yet some arrogant secularists go around claiming that science is absolute truth.
There is even dispute about global warming and the dispute is so serious that suppression is used in the form of denial of scientific grants and denial of publishing benefits to those in the “heretical” camp.
They used to say that the melting of the polar ice-caps will flood the world. Now that some of the ice has melted, they say it has been miscalculated and the effect is “not so bad”. Yet some arrogant secularists still go around claiming that science is the absolute truth. If this is not a form of religious fanaticism, what is?
They used to treat the Theory of Evolution as the absolute truth. Those who taught anything else in schools were sacked or forced to resign. Now they are saying that the Theory of Evolution has to be slightly adapted to new findings. After all, natural selection may be influenced by female selection and these days it may even be wholly dependent on viral selection.
Viruses are now said to be necessary for mammalian (and thus also human) birth and that the human genome may just be a compilation of various viral genes (apes have now taken second place). This theory just about gives the classical Theory of Evolution a whack out of alignment, yet some arrogant secularists continue to oppress creationists and treat creationists as heretics who need to be burned at the stake of scientific orthodoxy. If this is not scientific obsession of the religious kind, what is?
Even the much vaunted physical laws of the material world seem to apply only on the earth and thereabouts. In 73% of the unknown universe and especially inside the black holes, physical laws don’t seem to apply. The universe itself is said to begin as a small pea or baseball sized “something” that blew up and became eternal in size. Shades of Gungamesh of Babylonian “scientific” thought? How is this explanation more understandable to the ordinary person than the old one that the universe was created by God? Don’t mention the ordinary person – I think even university graduates have problems with this theory of the Big Bang.
Things have become so bizarre that the newest theory - String Theory, says that reality comprises up to 12 dimensions and our universe is just one of them (comprised of 3 or 4 dimensions). This means that there are other dimensions that we cannot see, cannot measure and cannot detect. With so much at stake, some secularists still have the arrogance to claim definitively that God does not exist.
What can you say about these secularists? In my view, they are just exercising power possessed by capitalist scientific orthodoxy to suppress and marginalize Faith. These people must have the first word and the last word and all the words in between. It has nothing to do with the humility of life and Truth.
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/22122/84/
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Maniac,
I have to disagree with you on this one. RPK's main line of argument seems to concentrate on the "user" and the "usee", the former being the guilty party, and the latter being innocent as he was deemed to have been used.
If this was the case then all the concentration camp commanders who killed all the Jews during WW2 are innocent because they were ultimately following orders from Hitler. The International Criminal Court does not buy into this line of argument. Many concentration camp commanders have been tried and incarcerated for their involvement in this heinous crime.
Another example...if I asked a hitman to kill someone, both the hitman and I would be tried and sentenced if we were to get caught. There is no get out of jail card for the hitman if he pulled an RPK and said he was the "usee".
On this basis, Chin Peng should be let into Malaysia if his lieutenants were accorded that privilege. If Chin Peng is still deemed to be ineligible for entry into Boleh-land, then we should expel his lieutenants too. No double standards here.
Gooster: You are spot on actually. I'm not disagreeing with you on your intepretation of the article. My post was mainly pointing out the inability of most MT readers who are unable to comprehend that article. Just read the 100++ comments there and decide for yourself. :P
i actually think that this article by rpk was badly written. honestly, i haven't got a clue if he was being sarcastic or really agaianst chin peng being allowed back.
but generally, i agree with maniac that the people who comment on MT don't understand most of articles posted that.
ST,
Well done - you honestly haven't a clue about the RPK article and, in the same breath, you diss the MT commentators saying that "the ppl who comment on MT don't understand (sic) most of the articles posted there".
Can't blame you - RPK has a serious dark sense of humour.
Next time, I humbly suggest, you read his articles with a 2-sided mind set (winner/loser).
What he always wish to put across is when you are the "usee" there are very few choices. Actually none. You are between the devil n deep blue sea. You are damned either way.
For example, the International Court will not buy the sniper's/commandant's line. They are the victors - you are the loser, you pay.
Back to the Chin Peng case (or any other case). When you are the master/victor, and you want it so, it will be so.
Bottom line: to the victor, the spoils, and what ever judgement they wish to mete out. On the other hand when you have been defeated, no matter what reasoning(s) you present... sarcastic, roundabout, direct... quite useless.
RPK does not want you to think bring CP back or not. He presents the case, and wants you to think: do you think it's fair/unfair to bring him back?
You think, you choose. He's not shoving the support/non-support down your throat.