Introducing … Patrick Schwarzenegger’s Abs.

14 views
Skip to first unread message

xBlog ☪ Cool Sociopolitical Blogs

unread,
Jun 12, 2013, 4:23:09 AM6/12/13
to people-ar...@googlegroups.com

Introducing … Patrick Schwarzenegger’s Abs.

Introducing … Patrick Schwarzenegger’s Abs.

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 09:03 PM PDT

Wowza! It looks like Patrick Schwarzenegger is taking after his bodybuilder Dad!

On Friday, the 19-year-old son of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver posted a shirtless pic of his rock-hard body on Twitter with the caption, "Early morning pump! Who is getting into shape for summer??!! Gonna gain 7 pounds this summer."

In the picture, the USC sophomore is flexing his guns, showing off his washboard abs, and gritting his teeth just like the Incredible Hulk.

We're sure the college cutie's nearly 80,000 Twitter followers enjoyed getting an eyeful of his ripped body.

According to Patrick, he maintains his impressive physique by fueling his body with a diet of Pepperidge FarmGoldfish, Oreo cookies, Pop-Tarts, and other sugary snacks. Last month he tweeted a snapshot of the inside of his pantry, saying, "If your wondering what foods I eat to maintain 6 pack and what foods are in my pantry, here you are."

In addition to working out, Patrick has been busy with his budding film career. After his turn in "Grown Ups 2" alongside fellow hottie Taylor Lautner, which hits theaters in July, Patrick scored a role in the Kevin Connolly-directed flick, "Dear Eleanor." The rising star just finished shooting the film in Denver, Colorado, opposite Hollywood heavyweights Jessica Alba and Luke Wilson.

Whether Patrick added the extra muscle for his new role or just wanted to look buff for summer, we'll never know. But one thing is for sure: We bet Arnie is one proud papa!

Arnold was 20, only one year older than his son now, when he won the coveted Mr. Universe title at 20. The Austrian-born bodybuilder went on to win the Mr. Olympia contest seven times and score roles in action flicks like "The Terminator" and "Conan the Barbarian." While Patrick still has a way to go before he'll be buff enough to rock a pair of teeny-tiny briefs like his pops did, he's well on his way.

Maybe next up, Arnie's kiddo will put his muscles to work and tackle an action flick. Like father, like son, right?


Courtesy of OMG!

the smog will return

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 10:29 PM PDT



The smog will return
The nation and her people
What will there be?
The good and bad cop routines

War on criminals
As if it happens today
It is a line in history
The men in blue

The dividing game
Amno leaders will try to do
We pay our taxes
Yet they say services will not be provided

The majority didn't want them
The minority still talked big and arrogant
These leaders never learn
The change will come to the nation

Polygamy vs Gay Marriage

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 11:31 PM PDT

If gay marriage is legal, permissible, acceptable, respectable, laudable… Then many of the arguments used to support it apply equally so, or even more so, to polygamy.

Polygamy, like gay marriage, is between consensual (and ostensibly adult) parties.

Polygamy, like gay marriagee, ‘doesn’t hurt anyone’.

Polygamy has been practised and even instituted throughout human history across multiple cultures… Unlike gay marriage which was completely unheard of until very recent times.

Polygamy is sanctioned by Islam and was formerly permissible in ancient Biblical history… Unlike gay marriage and any form of homosexual activity which is forbidden by all three Abrahamic faiths. (Wait, don’t tell me you’re gonna be all Islamophobic and oppose polygamy while supporting homosexuality?!!)

Polygamy can be argued to possibly provide the same benefits towards children, families and society as monogamous marriage… Unlike gay marriage.

Advantage: Polygamy.

So drawing from the advances hard-won by proponents of homosexuality…

Each of a person’s multiple spouses should receive full partner benefits, just as same-sex partners do.

Students attending proms must be allowed to bring all their multiple partners, just as homosexual students are allowed to bring a partner of the same gender. And selecting only one prom king/queen/in-between must be considered mono-normatively discriminatory.

If you don’t support it (especially if you do support gay marriage), I have only this to say: WHY ARE YOU SUCH HATEFUL BIGOTS?!!! YOU BACKWARDS POLYGAMOPHOBES!!! FUTURE, MORE ENLIGTHTENED GENERATIONS WILL LOOK DOWN UPON YOU IN THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY!!!

See also related:

After Relegating Homophobia to the Dustbin of History, Pedophobia Next

Irreligious: Why is Animal Rape Wrong, But Animal Slavery-Imprisonment-Murder Okay?

After Homosexuality, Sexual Revolutionary Frank Kameny Moves on to Making Bestiality ‘Normal’

Woman Has Baby With Her Grandson – Liberals, Is This Morally Wrong?

Ultimate Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch: Incest is The Next Liberal Sexual Revolution

Consensual Incest – Atheists Please Tell Me Why It Is Morally Wrong

A Simple Example of Relative Morality

Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong

The Impact Of The Minimum Wage

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 10:00 PM PDT

We’re a few months into Malaysia’s experiment with a minimum wage, and there’s we’re already seeing some effects, at least for the manufacturing sector: The shaded areas cover November 2012 to the present. It appears wages actually started climbing before the minimum wage came into effect in January. Some of that is possibly the effect of year end bonuses or salary increments, but there’s

April 2013 Industrial Production: Green Shoots

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 09:30 PM PDT

After some fairly unenticing numbers in 1Q2013, industrial production in April showed some signs of life (log annual and monthly changes; seasonally adjusted): Both the annual and monthly growth numbers showed surprising strength almost entirely driven by manufacturing, as electricity and mining output stayed pat. It’s hard to be too enthusiastic about this though, as manufacturing output

Here Is Another Poll

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 09:13 PM PDT

First of all I must again thank all my readers for visiting my Blog. I passed another million a few weeks back.  I am now edging towards the 6.0 million hits mark. Terima kasih banyak.

This morning a Blogger friend smsed me the following about the rankings of the 'Blog Mesra Kerajaan'. This comes from the Suara Generasi Baru blog. 

OutSyed The Box is now ranked No. 12 (out of 100 I think).

Parpukari is No. 3. Flying Kick No. 6. The Unspinners is at No. 7. 

Rocky's Bru is  34. Another Brick In The Wall is 65. Apanama is at  84.  

The Blogger also said : "Your sample size already can match merdeka centre, umcedel, etc" 

I dont know what that means but thanks bro.  It sounds good enough.

Ok it has been three days since I ran this Poll :

Apakah Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak harus kekal sebagai presiden parti UMNO?

After three days 1702 people have voted (and still voting). Here are the results as at 11:31 am on 12 June 2013:

Setuju                    411 (24%)
Tidak setuju        1291 (75%)
Votes so far:       1702 

I hope someone in the PM's Office is reading this. I did get feedback that some folks in the PMO were not happy with the poll - (maybe the way the question was phrased).  Of course when I ran the Poll three days ago I had no idea how it will turn out. But I think these numbers do reflect the peoples' view.

And the numbers have been consistent. Since the very first day it has been about 25% in support of Najib as president of UMNO and 75% TIDAK SETUJU that Najib remain as president of UMNO.

Three days is also more than enough time for the cyber troopers, the red beans, the green beans, the pau kacang and pau kaya people to vote more than once to skew the poll.   In other words I think the vote is quite fair and realistic.  I am grateful to some of my Blogger friends (Din Turtle, Sri Tri Buana, The Scribe - Dato Kadir Jasin) who highlighted the Poll in their Blogs.

A majority of my readers are Malays. Politically they are mostly UMNO/BN.  I also have readers from among the DAP (the southern wind blows pedas).  So I believe the results of the poll reflects the thinking of UMNO/BN folks.

I am told that Ketua Bahagian and Setiausaha Bahagian also read my Blog. So do take note. 

I dont think you will get any more honesty.  Anyway here is another poll that I have put up just today.

Apakah anda setuju tidak perlu diadakan pemilihan untuk jawatan tertinggi UMNO?

Setuju - tidak perlu pemilihan

Tidak setuju - pemilihan untuk jawatan parti mesti diadakan

Please cast your vote. Then maybe we can also see if the results of the two polls have any correlation.

Korporat galak amalan sikap anarkis - Zainuddin Maidin

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 08:50 PM PDT

The last line of this article by former Utusan Malaysia chief, sums it all up. If you can't be of any help, just don't be a bloody burden. TQ




PENGARAH Urusan Kumpulan dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Kumpulan CIMB, Datuk Seri Nazir Razak telah memuji Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif AirAsia X Azran Osman Rani kerana pandangannya yang terus terang terhadap Utusan Malaysia dan Perkasa.Katanya, sikap terus

Election Petition - a note to YB Rafizi

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 08:34 PM PDT

I refer to the report on Free Malaysia Today dated 5th June 2013 titled “Impossible To Win Election Petition”.

I have written before on the standard of proof in election petitions. Thus I will not comment on YB Rafizi’s statement on the same subject.

I wish to however address two issues.

Firstly, allow me to state the reason for the high standard of proof which is required to win an election petition. To understand the reason for the standard of proof, we need to know – and understand – the basic premise of an election petition.

The premise of an election petition is an electoral result which is being challenged.

To put it simply, there has been an election. And there is a result of that election. That result is born out of a democratic process which takes the form of an election. That result therefore represents the WILL OF THE MAJORITY as expressed through the election process. The candidate which is preferred by the majority is therefore declared the winner in the election.

Now, what is being challenged in an election petition is actually the will of the majority expressed in the election. Being so, in order to sustain that challenge, sufficient reasons must be shown to unseat the will of the majority. Those reasons proffered by the challenger must thus satisfy a high legal burden. Otherwise, the will of the majority could easily be defeated in the Election Court. That would make a mockery of democracy.

Take this scenario as an example.

Candidate A won an election by 3000 votes. Candidate B files an election petition showing that 300 voters had managed to wash off their so-called indelible ink immediately after voting. Videos of a bus full of people who looked like Bangladeshis parking itself at the voting centre were also produced.

Here, it is not sufficient for candidate B to just show those evidences. He must demonstrate how those things affect the result of the election. In respect of the 300 voters who washed off the ink, it must be shown that they had, in addition to washing off the ink, managed to vote twice. In relation to the bus, it must be shown that those people were indeed foreigners who were not entitle to vote and they did vote.

If the laws were to permit the result to be vitiated just by showing 300 people had washed off the ink and a bus full of Bangladeshis was parked at the voting centre with nothing more, what that would mean is that the will of the majority could be over-ridden and set aside by the minority. That would be undemocratic. I am sure in such event – of that happens to a Pakatan Rakyat’s candidate – the PR would be complaining of how undemocratic the laws are!

In the above scenario, any complain in respect of the procedural non-compliance must therefore be supported with evidence that at least 1500 votes were affected by the non-compliance. If that is done, then candidate A could not and should not have been the winner. Therefore, the result would be vitiated and another election must be called.

That is how it works.

The second issue which I would like to deal with is this.

The aforesaid report in Free Malaysia Today goes on to say:

“On that note, the Pandan MP said that the electoral laws in Malaysia are skewed to allow and tolerate discrepancies, unless it hits a criticial level that can alter the election results.”

I do not know as a fact whether YB Rafizi did say that. On the assumption that he did say that, I would like to respond to that statement.

It is NOT CORRECT and NOT TRUE that electoral laws in Malaysia are “skewed” to allow and tolerate discrepancies.

Our election rules are mainly contained in an Act called the Election Offences Act 1954. This Act is mainly based on the Common Law principles and the provisions of the United Kingdom's Representation of the People Act 1948 (which later became the Representation of the People Act 1983). The provisions of our laws are not only similar to the UK provisions but also to the Indian provisions.

So, our electoral laws are not peculiar to us. In hearing election petitions, our Election Courts are normally referred to authorities and judicial precedents from the UK and Indian Courts. Sometimes we refer even to the Canadian and Australian cases. If our laws are said to be skewed to tolerate discrepancies, then the UK and Indian laws are also skewed as such!

In a report dated 11th December 2012 by a Law Commission in the UK, consisting of eminent jurists, namely, The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod and Frances Patterson QC, the Commission among others, states:

“In our consultation paper we summarised the jurisdiction of the parliamentary election court as:

i. reviewing the votes in a scrutiny, potentially declaring another candidate elected as the person having the most lawful votes; or

ii. examining the validity of the election, potentially resulting in an MP being unseated and a new election being called. Here, we distinguished between:

(a) invalidity for breaches of the rules by electoral administrators;

(b) a successful candidate's corrupt or illegal practice; and

(c) a successful candidate's disqualification from office.”

That is precisely what our Election Courts are empowered to do too. Section 32 of our Act says:

“32. The election of a candidate at any election shall be declared to be void on an election petition on any of the following grounds only which may be proved to the satisfaction of the Election Judge:

(a) that general bribery, general treating or general intimidation have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result of the election;

(b) non-compliance with the provisions of any written law relating to the conduct of any election if it appears that the election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in such written law and that such non-compliance affected the result of the election;

(c) that a corrupt practice or illegal practice was committed in connection with the election by the candidate or with his knowledge or consent, or by any agent of the candidate;

(d) that the candidate personally engaged a person as his election agent, or as a canvasser or agent, knowing that such person had within seven years previous to such engagement been convicted or found guilty of a corrupt practice by a Sessions Court, or by the report of an Election Judge; or

(e) that the candidate was at the time of his election a person disqualified for election.”

As we can see, the provisions are identical. (The power of “scrutiny”, ie, to recount votes is contained in section 50 of our Act.)

The Law Commission further states:

“Administrative breaches

How a breach of a rule pertaining to administration of the poll should affect its validity involves a balancing act between giving teeth to the rules and achieving a certainty in electoral outcomes. The law has therefore placed some restraints on the consequences of breach. As our consultation paper explained, a challenge based on ground 2(a) above is essentially founded on the breach causally affecting the outcome of the election. In contrast, a candidate's corrupt or illegal practice or disqualification vitiates the validity of the election irrespective of the effect on the result.

The law's restraint is judicial in origin. Section 23(3) of the 1983 Act states that no UK Parliamentary election shall be declared invalid if it appears that: (a) the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections; and (b) the act or omission did not affect the result.

Considering identical provision in the Representation of the People Act 1949, Lord Denning MR in Morgan v Simpson re-stated its wording in positive form; a breach of the rules must affect the outcome of the election in order to result in its nullity. An election will be held not to have been conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to elections if there was a "substantial departure" such as to make "the ordinary man condemn the election as a sham or a travesty of an election by ballot". The bar was thus set very high for an administrative breach to invalidate an election irrespective of its impact on the result.”

Again, that is PRECISELY the position in Malaysia. In respect of procedural non-compliance, we need to prove that such non-compliance must affect the result or outcome of the election. Please see section 32 (b) as reproduced above.

In so far as corrupt or illegal practices are concerned, these are divided into two categories:

a) where the corrupt and illegal practices were committed by the candidate himself or his agent, or with his knowledge or consent, the result is automatically vitiated regardless of whether such acts affect the result or not. (section 32 (c)).

b) where the corrupt and illegal practices have so extensively prevailed, the result would only be vitiated if they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result of the election. Here, we do not have to show that the acts were done by the candidate, his agent or with his knowledge or consent.

What is being emphasized under sub-paragraph (b) above however is “reasonableness.” The question is, after looking at the totality of the evidence, is it reasonable for the Court to suppose that the result has been affected by the acts.

In respect of non-compliance of the rules or procedures, the question, as Lord Denning puts it in Morgan v Simpson:

Was there “substantial departure" such as to make "the ordinary man condemn the election as a sham or a travesty of an election by ballot". The bar was thus set very high for an administrative breach to invalidate an election irrespective of its impact on the result.”

That IS the position in England and that IS the position here.

Our election laws are not skewed to tolerate discrepancies. Our laws are based on the English laws as well as other respected jurisdiction within the Commonwealth.

In fact I dare say that our election laws are even better than the English laws. That is because here, we have an automatic right to appeal against any decision of the Election Court to the Federal Court (where at least 3 Judges will sit). In England, the decision of the Election Court is not appealable. A judicial review may however be asked for. But that is not automatic as judicial review may only be invoked if the High Court grants leave to do so.

When our laws place a high burden on us and do not always work in our favour or do not support our cases, it does not speak well for us to say that our laws are skewed.

Now, numerous election petitions are filed. Pakatan Rakyat is challenging many election results where the Barisan candidates had won. Conversely, Barisan Nasional is also challenging many results where the PR candidates had won.

I will bet my last dime that the Pakatan Rakyat lawyers will argue the same thing as the Barisan Nasional lawyers’ would in defending the results of the election which favour the PR candidate. In other words, all the above arguments which I have set out, will also be used by PR to defend the result of the election where the PR candidate had won.

Now, doesn’t that give new meaning to “fair is foul and foul is fair?”

You know we all come from Africa, right? By Kenshin Gumi - FMT

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 08:21 PM PDT

I’m Chinese. I can say that some of my Chinese friends and relatives are the most racist people on the planet. But I don’t blame them. I know that their racist beliefs were drilled into them by their elders, and they are just repeating what they heard growing up. The thing is, just because something is repeated over and over again doesn’t mean it’s true. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is stupid and can be dangerous.
Now, these racist friends and relatives of mine, they are not evil people by any means. In fact, I would say some of them have a heart of gold. They are helpful, considerate, loving – the weird thing is, the moment the topic of race comes up, their childhood racist brainwashing transforms them into some kind of racist monster that says the most shocking, revolting things about Malays, Indians, and other races.
Just the other day a friend of mine, during a discussion about Malaysian politics, started spewing off some racist nonsense about Indians. I said to him,”You know that Chinese people are descended from Indian ancestors, right?” That kind of shocked him. But you know, what I said is true and backed by scientific evidence.
Ultimately, the truth is, if you go back in time about 60,000-80,000 years ago, genetic studies all point to the same conclusion: All of modern humanity came out of Africa. From Africa, early homo sapiens migrated to Yemen, then spread to India, then moved on to South East Asia, Oceania, China, Korea, Japan, and so on.
The first migration from Africa was followed by two other major migrations which eventually led to the Americas being populated. So, you see, we’re actually all related. We had the same African ancestors. Which means all Malaysians are really brothers and sisters, and this can be proven with genetic testing.*
This is why I laugh outside but cry inside when I see room for rent advertisements in Malaysia, that include statements like “Chinese only” or “Muslim only”.
This is why I laugh outside but cry inside when I go to the cafeteria and see Chinese sitting in one corner with Chinese, Indians sitting in one corner with Indians, and Malays sitting in one corner with Malays.
This is why I laugh outside but cry inside when I see the current Malaysian government actively encouraging racism and bigotry for its own political benefit.
The simple fact is, we are all part of ONE HUMAN RACE. We can call ourselves Malay, Chinese, Indian, Negrito, Thai, Vietnamese, Arab, Jew, European, Russian, Korean, Japanese, Caucasian, Mexican, Native American, Inuit, etc. At the end of the day, the scientific truth is that we’re all branches of the same tree, grown from the same African seed. And if one branch tries to burn another branch, we’re really just hurting ourselves.
Unfortunately, most Malaysians today carry some kind of racial prejudice. I know I did, until I found out about humanity’s common ancestry. These racial prejudices are passed down generation after generation, from parents to their children. The children grow up, become parents, then repeat the same things to their children – and on and on the the vicious cycle goes.

Kalau hendak berubah, ia mesti perubahan secara 'total'

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 04:28 PM PDT

Saya tidak dapat mengelak dari memerhati dan memberikan fokus kepada perkara yang saya mudah tertarik. Saya tertarik dengan isu transformasi yang pimpinan UMNO sebut siang dan malam tanpa henti seolah-olah ia kedengaran begitu biasa seperti saya mendengar azan dari masjid yang berdekatan dengan rumah saya.

Setiap malam dan pagi istilah transformasi dan perubahan kita dengar dan ini jugalah isu yang sama kita dengari sejak dua tiga puluh tahun dahulu. Tetapi penekanan tentang transformasi ini lebih hebat sekali semasa UMNO sedang duduk diatas hujung tanduk sekarang ini. Janji-janji transformasi itu tidak juga membawa apa-apa perbezaannya. Kenapa begitu? Tentu ramai yang boleh memberikan jawapannya mengikut penilaian dan perincian masing-masing.

Bagi saya tidak ada sesuatu yang kita tidak boleh ubah. Pertamanya kita mesti tahu apa yang perlu diubah dan yang keduanya untuk membaik-pulih itu mesti dilakukan oleh manusia pemimpin yang boleh melakukannya. Sebelum itu kerosakan yang hendak diperbaiki itu mestilah kerosakan yang masih boleh diubah. Jika kerosakan itu sudah terlalu teruk maka mungkin kah pembaik-pulihan itu akan dapat dilakukan?

Ramai tertunggu-tunggu janji-janji pucuk pimpinan UMNO untuk memperbaiki kelemahan dan kesalahan yang lampau. Jika mereka (pemimpin) melakukan introspeksi yang serius mereka akan tahu sejauh mana kerosakan yang dialami dan setakat mana usaha untuk memulihkan keadaan itu boleh dilakukan. Tetapi bagi saya, kerosakan kepada UMNO itu tidak boleh diperbaiki lagi tanpa ‘political will’ yang kuat.

Sebabnya mudah. Jika kita ibaratkan sebagai sebuah kereta, UMNO itu sudah tidak boleh diperbaiki hanya oleh mekanik biasa sahaja kerana kerosakannya melibatkan keseluruhan struktur kereta itu. Setakat mekanik tidak mencukupi untuk memperbaiki kereta yang usang itu.

Mekanik hanya mampu untuk memperbaiki enjin sahaja, tetapi membaiki enjin sahaja tidak mencukupi kerana ia melibatkan ‘body works’ yang ‘elaborate’. Terpaksa ada pengimpalnya dan terpaksa diadakan tukang cat yang baik. Apabila pengimpal sudah ada, terpaksa juga mencari jalan untuk meningkatkan tahap ‘upholstery’ dalaman kereta itu. Malahan berbagai-bagai lagi perkara penting yang perlu diperbaiki dan ia bukan satu usaha yang mudah.

Itulah juga keadaan UMNO, sebagai sebuah parti yang telah memerintah sejak merdeka. Justeru kejatuhannya atau kelemahannya akan membawa ‘consequence’ buruk yang besar kepada negara. Sekarang siasah negara kita adalah ditahap yang terendah dan tidak banyak bezanya seperti siasah dinegara ketiga dan yang mundur seperti kebanyakan negara di Afrika.

Sesungguhnya negara memerlukan seorang ‘political architect’ bagi merombak segala sistem siasah dan negara ini. Blog ini selalu menyebut isu ini. Kita mesti memulakan negara baru. Jika kita hanya setakat membaikinya, apa-apa yang diperbaiki itu tidak akan mampu melihat perubahan kerana terlalu banyak yang lain yang telah tebuk dan bocor dengan kerosakan yang amat parah itu.

Membaiki kerosakan ini bukan setakat memberikan kepercayaan kepada pembangkang sahaja kerana amat susah bagi pembangkang untuk memperbaikinya. Bercakap dan berjanji itu senang, tetapi apabila mendapat mandat belum tentu dapat memperbaiki negara dengan berkesan. Cerita setakat itu masih lagi dalam kategori politiking dan bukannya politik. Pembaharuan yang dimaksudkan bukan setakat siapa yang menang dan siapa yang kalah sahaja.

Pembaharuan yang perlu dilakukan ialah merubah ‘outlook’ siasah negara secara ‘total’. Itu sahaja yang boleh membawa rakyat berada dalam situasi politik baru. Jika setakat memberikan peluang kepada pembangkang sahaja situasi politik tidak akan berubah sama sekali. Jika tidak dilakukan perubahan secara 'total' maka sesiapa sahaja atau parti mana yang memerintah sekali pun, rakyat tetap berkelahi kerana isu yang remeh seperti sekarang.

Kita akan melihat pihak yang menuduh pihak lain sebagai rasis itu juga pihak yang rasis dari segi ‘outlook’ dan representasinya kepada rakyat. Bezanya mereka tidak bercakap tentang isu rasis sahaja tetapi rupa dan bentuk parti itu tetap rasis dalam erti kata sebenarnya. Tiada bezanya diantara mereka yang melaungkan isu dan sentimen rasis dengan pihak yang pada rupa dan bentuknya pihak yang rasis walaupun senyap dalam isu rasis itu.

Itu sebabnya ada pihak yang pada mulanya berdoa untuk kemenangan Pakatan Rakyat akhirnya merasa bersyukur dengan kekalahannya kerana pada pendapat mereka jika pun berlaku perubahan pemerintahan dari parti itu kepada parti yang ini, isu yang sama juga akan berulang lagi. Maksudnya perubahan itu tidak akan juga membawa perubahan yang sebenarnya.

Justeru itu, perubahan dan transformasi itu bukan sahaja mesti dilakukan oleh pihak parti kerajaan tetapi juga wajar dilakukan oleh pihak yang bertentangan dengan parti kerajaan itu. Perubahan wajar dilakukan oleh semua pihak dan ia meliputi setiap inci dalam struktur politik dan siasah negara.

Jika keadaan sekarang masih berterusan, matlamat mencapai perpaduan nasional itu tidak mungkin tercapai sampai bila-bila. Perubahan itu wajar berlaku dalam masa yang sesingkat ini kerana masa sudah terlalu suntuk untuk melakukan perubahan sebelum siasah dan politik negara kita berkecai dan roboh sama sekali.

Shipwreck Believed Found In Lake Superior 100 Years Later.

Posted: 10 Jun 2013 09:01 PM PDT

Nearly 100 years after the Henry B. Smith freighter went down during a November storm in Lake Superior, a group of shipwreck hunters believes it has found the ship — and much of it is largely intact.

The Duluth News Tribune reported the group found the wreck last month in about 535 feet of water off the shore of Marquette, Mich. The group says it hasn't seen the name of the ship on the wreck yet, but all signs indicate it's the Smith, sitting amid a spilled load of iron ore.

"It's the most satisfying find of my shipwreck-hunting career," said Jerry Eliason, of Cloquet, part of the group that has found many lost ships in recent years.

"It's a fantastic find," said maritime historian Frederick Stonehouse, of Marquette, who has written about the Smith. "I'm excited at the opportunity to look at the video and see if we can learn the cause of the wreck, to write the final chapter of the ship."

The Henry B. Smith and its crew of 25 disappeared after sailing into the Great Lakes Storm of 1913. The storm, one of the biggest on the lakes, wrecked more than a dozen ships and killed about 250 sailors. The Smith was safe in the Marquette harbor on Nov. 7 and 8, and loading iron ore, but on the evening of Nov. 9, Capt. James Owen decided to leave port for Cleveland.

"The lake was still rolling, but there seemed to be a lull in the wind, the velocity having dropped to 32 mph," shipwreck expert and longtime University of Minnesota Duluth professor Julius Wolff wrote in "Lake Superior Shipwrecks." "The gale ... should have blown itself out. But, this was no conventional storm. In taking his vessel out of the safety of Marquette Harbor, Captain James Owen sailed into eternity."

Sailors on other boats reported seeing Smith deckhands battening down hatches as it went onto the open lake, Stonehouse wrote in his book, "Went Missing." Other witnesses watched the ship make a turn to port, as if Owen had decided to head back to shore.

Then the Smith vanished — and entered Great Lakes lore as a "ghost ship."

Eliason isn't revealing exactly how his group found the Smith, because he hopes to use the same method to find other wrecks. But he said it wasn't a case of merely running a grid pattern over the lake in hopes of getting lucky. He said the group used a culmination of hunches, research and data to pinpoint a specific search area.

The data pointed them toward a possible wreck about 30 miles north of Marquette, and the hunters found the Smith just 20 minutes after dropping a sonar unit into the water. An underwater camera captured enough detail in videos and photos to convince the group that they found the Smith.

"A number of wrecks we've found have been over the span of 20 years searching, multiple times a year," said Kraig Smith, a member of the hunting group from Rice Lake, Wis. "Going and finding a wreck 20-some miles offshore in the span of a couple hours is extraordinary."

Fellow hunter Ken Merryman, of Minneapolis, said it appears the ship is broken in the middle, but is largely intact in the front. The stern has more damage, Merryman said.

"It's a beautiful wreck" with great visibility, he said. "No zebra mussels; clean."

The crew will return to the site this summer in hopes of getting more questions answered. But the group is already starting to piece together events that led to the Smith's demise.

"It's very clear to me that this one appeared to have broken on the surface, spilled its iron ore contents over the bottom, and then landed on the iron ore," said Eliason, who had been considering retiring from wreck hunting partly because he wasn't expecting any more significant finds on Lake Superior.

"This was a gift from the lake gods," Eliason said.


Courtesy of Associated Press

the bird's nest

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 06:23 AM PDT

The bird's nest hung on the palm leaves
Camouflaged by the green colour
It was a few days later I found
A second time I didn't notice

It was the chirping sound
I heard it then I looked around
In the garden there were Eurasian tree sparrows
The birdies too making the calls

I tried to see what type of birds
I couldn't see the brand...
I saw a few yellow belly 
Flying around collecting the red berries

The chirping sound wasn't familiar
I tried to listen with my ears
I couldn't recall any sound I knew
In the garden I tried to see

don't boycott the parliament swearing in ceremony

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 12:01 AM PDT


Pakatan Member of Parliament
The swearing in of members should stay
You shouldn't boycott it
It is the people you are representing

Don't play truant
This isn't a child game
This is the trust of the people
Be a gentleman honoured the tradition

Under the Constitution
Oaths of members sect 59(2)
The MP post can be disqualified
Don't play into the stupid game

You can have your differences
The people's rights shouldn't be ignored
Take the swearing in ceremony
Don't lose it by default

Prism Leaker Is A Hero Says Julian Assange

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 05:17 PM PDT

Hantu Laut

For the U.S.government, it is humanely right for them to intrude into other people's privacy, spy on others, demolish governments they don't like and declare war as they wish, but others can't do same to them, they will destroy you through covert or overt operations. 

They control the Internet and can do what they like, others are pawns in the game. Whistleblowing is now 'act of

The US 'Foreign Agent's Registration Act' (FARA)

Posted: 11 Jun 2013 02:04 AM PDT

Russia's growing NGO crackdown turns to environmental, cultural groups

The Kremlin has been targeting 'political' NGOs that receive foreign funding. 

LGBT film festival and a group trying to save Siberian cranes.

The numbers of Russian nongovernmental organizations ordered to register as "foreign agents" – a term that connotes "spy" in Russian and nothing else – continues to mount, and could ultimately reach about 100, according to the Russian Justice Ministry.

The law is modeled on the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), requires groups that receive any amount of foreign funding to don "foreign agent" badge and wear it prominently in all public materials and activities or face steep fines and, after three warnings, forced closure.

Among them are the independent election monitor Golos – which last week was slapped with its second round of fines – Russia's biggest human rights organization Memorial, and at least one regional association of Soldiers' Mothers, the country's most effective grassroots group advocating for conscripts' rights and military reform.

Amur Ecological Foundation in Russia's far east, which works on an international project to save the endangered Siberian crane.

Another group headed to court is the Goldman-prize winning Baikal Environmental Wave.

group has just received official notice from the local prosecutor's office that it must register as a "foreign agent" or face initial fines of 500,000 roubles (about $15,000) for the organization and 100,000 roubles (just over $3,000) for its leader.

St. Petersburg's annual "Bok o Bok" (Side by Side) international film festival, which screens LGBT-themed films. A  St. Petersburg court last week fined the festival the equivalent of $15,000 for failing to comply with a demand to register.

if you register, it means much more red tape and gives prosecutors the power to come and check you, freeze your bank accounts, if they receive any public complaint about you. 

My comments : Pasal apa kita pula bodoh sangat? It looks the Americans have a law that requires all foreign funded societies and NGOs to 'register'. They call it the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARA. 

Foreign Agent?? That is typical FBI language. Anyway, now the Russians have enacted the same type of law in Russia. Their law requires any foreign funded NGO to register themselves as 'foreign agents'. 

So why doesnt Malaysia have a similar act? The Americans have it, the Russians have it. Kita pula allow every tom, dick and dunggu to enter our country, fund anti-Government activity and all type of sh*t. Compared to the Americans and the Russians we dont do much to prevent ourselves.

Then the Americans have the Patriot Act. They have still locked up those two Malaysians in Guantanamo in Cuba for eight years now. 

Siapa pun tak peduli? Siapa pun tak bising? Where is the DAP on this? Where is Suaram, Hari Ram and Suri Ram? They dont care. The two guys in Guantanamo are Malays anyway. Who cares about some Malay guys who have been jailed under the Patriot Act and are rotting in jail in Guantanamo for eight years? 

And what does the Gomen do? The Gomen mansuhkan ISA lah, mansuhkan Emergency Ordinance lah. We give in to these hypocrites.  

Folks the world functions like this - the clever people make one set of rules for themselves. Their rules work. The dunggu people make another set of rules for themselves. Their rules usually do not work.
You are subscribed to email updates from xBlog ☪ Cool Sociopolitical Blogs
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.		 Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages