Sad that cheap politicians resort to the lowest common denominator for support when support diminishes from the centre and/or ethically minded demography. The cries of "Hidup Melayu" ring hollow when the Melayu they want to protect are themselves and their blatant self-interests. Malays will only prosper when they leave this preponderance for race-based priviledges (or is that affirmative action for an under-priviledged majority?) and start thinking like a citizen, nay leader of the world, just like the prayers in the Quran - make of my wife and my offspring the Qurrata A'yun, and make them of pious and be leaders. (rough translation)
I provide proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_RxDBcB21s
Here's the son of a UMNO Deputy Minister demonstrating his entitlement rights and displaying threatening behaviour to a Parliamentarian who has insulted his father. Fact of life - if you are a public figure fond of using demeaning language on others, wait till you receive a similar treatment, either in your face or behind your back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QRMoogjUx4
Here's a self-declared Malay leader, proud of his Malay heritage, and his silat prowess squeaming like a little girl when getting smacked on his nose. Changed his story not even an hour later, for obvious political currency. So, abusive, violent, lying are traits captured on this video.
http://www.carigold.com/portal/forums/archive/index.php/t-358912.html
How malay self-proclaimed leaders abuse other malays for power ostensibly to help malays, but just leeching on political dominion, and end up demonstrating power only to the unprotected. Here, a Malay died as a result of getting beaten up due to some sorry excuse. Of course, he was later acquitted of the crime.
It is one of the most incomprehensible aspects of humanity that science-based humanists and atheists, putting their faith in the ability of science to derive facts, fail to appreciate the limits of human knowledge in it. Theories abound - and at the outermost limits are found to be wanting, replaced instead with more theories, some proven, some waiting to be proven, but always looking for more theories to explain what the limitations of the existing theorems cannot prove.
An the crux of it all would be the Dawkin's and his ilk - who will put their faith in the improbable statistics that we are the products of a coincidence of creation, an amalgamation of improbable events that brought into being the universe, the earth and the origin of life. This anthropological principle does not bring a creator, an owner, or a powerful God into consideration. Why? Science has no proof of God, so the improbable statistic must be true. A faith in religion is then replaced by a faith in faulty reasoning and misunderstanding of maths and science. Why not if it brings fame as a global spokesman, and stupidity can be dressed up as intellect?
Theory challenging Einstein's view on speed of light could soon be tested
New paper describes for first time how scientists can test controversial idea that speed of light is not a constant
If the Magueijo and Afshordi theory is right, a signature will have been
left on the ancient radiation left over from the big bang, the
so-called cosmic microwave background that cosmologists have observed
with satellites.
The newborn universe may have glowed with light beams moving much
faster than they do today, according to a theory that overturns
Einstein’s century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant.
João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of
the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at
infinite speed at the birth of the universe when the temperature of the
cosmos was a staggering ten thousand trillion trillion celsius.
It is a theory Magueijo has being developing since the late 1990s,
but in a paper published on Monday he and Afshordi describe for the
first time how scientists can finally test the controversial idea. If
right, the theory would leave a signature on the ancient radiation left
over from the big bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background that
cosmologists have observed with satellites.
“We can say what the fluctuations in the early universe would have
looked like, and these are the fluctuations that grow to form planets,
stars and galaxies,” Afshordi told the Guardian.
The speed of light in a vacuum is considered to be one of the
fundamental constants of nature. Thanks to Einstein’s theory of general
relativity, it was stamped in the annals of physics more than a century
ago at about 1bn km/h. But while general relativity is one of the
cornerstones of modern physics, scientists know that the rules of today
did not hold at the birth of the universe.
Magueijo and Afshordi came up with their theory to explain why the
cosmos looks much the same over vast distances. To be so uniform, light
rays must have reached every corner of the cosmos, otherwise some
regions would be cooler and more dense than others. But even moving at
1bn km/h, light was not travelling fast enough to spread so far and even
out the universe’s temperature differences.
To overcome the conundrum, cosmologists including Stephen Hawking
have proposed a theory called inflation, in which the fledgling universe
underwent the briefest spell of the most tremendous expansion.
According to inflation, the temperature of the cosmos evened out before
it exploded to an enormous size. But there is no solid proof that
inflation is right, and if so, what sparked such a massive period of
expansion, and what brought it to an end.
Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory does away with inflation and replaces
it with a variable speed of light. According to their calculations, the
heat of universe in its first moments was so intense that light and
other particles moved at infinite speed. Under these conditions, light
reached the most distant pockets of the universe and made it look as
uniform as we see it today. “In our theory, if you go back to the early
universe, there’s a temperature when everything becomes faster. The
speed of light goes to infinity and propagates much faster than
gravity,” Afshordi said. “It’s a phase transition in the same way that
water turns into steam.”
Scientists could soon find out whether light really did outpace
gravity in the early universe. The theory predicts a clear pattern in
the density variations of the early universe, a feature measured by what
is called the “spectral index”. Writing in the journal Physical Review,
the scientists predict a very precise spectral index of 0.96478, which
is close to the latest, though somewhat rough, measurement of 0.968.
Science can never prove the theory right. But Afshordi said that if
measurements over the next five years shifted the spectral index away
from their prediction, it would rule out their own theory. “If we are
right then inflation is wrong. But the problem with inflation is that
you can always fine tune it to fit anything you want,” he said.
David Marsh, of the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at Cambridge
University, is not giving up on inflation yet. “The predictions of
inflation developed by Stephen Hawking and others more than 30 years ago
have been tested by cosmological observations and faced those tests
remarkably well. Many scientists regard inflation as a simple and
elegant explanation of the origin of galaxies in the universe,” he said.
And while other theories might also look promising, Marsh said there
were elements of Afshordi and Magueijo’s that were not well understood.
“It remains to be seen how robust the predictions are when all the
theoretical issues have been addressed,” he said.
Unsurprising from a narrow point of view, having read the superforecasting methodology where events are assigned probabilities based on leading events, the election of Trump was never an impossibility that it was made out to be by the pundits, pollsters, and yes late night show hosts including the likes of Trevor Noah and Colbert. Trevor was so laughably off the mark with his day before sketch, and whilst Colbert visibly maintained his preference, he was also careful to cerebrally show that he fully understood the possibility of Trump winning the election was real.
Coming from the last posting on Podesta and the complacent liberal stance of not gonna happen, it also shows how the US electorate seemed to decide that Trump, could be their leader for any of the following reasons -
that fulfils their economic self-interest, even if it includes putting up barriers against immigrants, and those not like them,
to help regain their hardhitting "international policeman" state position, and abandon the diplomacy that was Obama's stance, and make the world safer for them
restore the lost white pride, after 8 years of black man leadership, and hell no way will they allow a woman to lead them another 4 years
and just plain xenophobic, fear that drives their decision to vote Trump.
3. Can't see how the choice was a rational one. It was an emotional one, driven by fear, hate, insecurity etc.
4. Now that you have the ticket, Trump needs to regain the trust and credibility lost during the campaigning. Malaysia has endured over 50 years of shitty campaigning followed up by sometimes very strong leadership, albeit that being absent in the past decade or so. For the sake of the rest of the world, Trump's policies must be credible and rational not just for them, but the rest of the world too.
5. A final word about democracy - Overrated. Leadership succession decision when placed in the hands of the knowledgeable and sincere, and guided by God, "trumps" leaving that most important of decision in the hands of the majority. American voters join their British voter brethren in failing to vote the most rational decision possible and allowed emotions to sway their minds, perhaps thinking 4 years isn't too long. Guess what, it bloody is.
Interest in the US is crucial to understand how the world works. They have military superiority - the ability for military projection in any given location with their aircraft carriers which are just floating military airports, long-range airpower, ICBMs, drone assisted and fully teched out land army. They have political power - with the protection money accorded to NATO, seat on UN SC. They have the tech although with the vast amounts of money poured by VC and Govt you'd think that the gap with the rest of the world could be a lot larger that where it is now. Consider that China is slowly grasping that tech capabilities now. They also have economic power, although that is eroded now given their propensity to use a vast chunk of it on their military complex. The projection of that economic power could be seen more visibly in the interests of the large American mega-corporates - the oil companies and the tech companies, many of which singly have bigger revenues than the GDP figures of most countries.
So, at the end of it - it's all in the money as that is how it has been structured and networked, the architecture of it has remained invisible by the outer layers of decorum and diplomacy. What they have got right historically has been the preservation of values that matter to the commoners - meritocracy, doing things right by hard work and perseverance, respect, trust etc. Their 2016 elections have shown that beneath it all, these are a bunch of self-interest, crooked and scandal-ridden personalities competing for the highest position in the land, and the earth currently.
Public interest? Give me a break.
---------
Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run
The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign
are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome
Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of
people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are
the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks
from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John
Podesta. They are last week’s scandal in a year running over with
scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal:
they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the
dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest;
they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes
road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class
looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for
whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn’t have to make do with a
comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are
always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our
modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national
media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the
high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every
plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision
droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the
enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never
explain themselves.
Let us turn the magnifying glass on them for a change, by
sorting through the hacked personal emails of John Podesta, who has been
a Washington power broker for decades. I admit that I feel
uncomfortable digging through this hoard; stealing someone’s email is a
crime, after all, and it is outrageous that people’s personal
information has been exposed, since WikiLeaks
doesn’t seem to have redacted the emails in any way. There is also the
issue of authenticity to contend with: we don’t know absolutely and for
sure that these emails were not tampered with by whoever stole them from
John Podesta. The supposed authors of the messages are refusing to
confirm or deny their authenticity, and though they seem to be real,
there is a small possibility they aren’t.
With all that taken into consideration, I think the
WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper
reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and
majesty.
The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present
in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving
colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children.
Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course,
and high academic achievement.
Certain industries loom large and virtuous here. Hillary’s
ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what
is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt,
smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly
proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain,
for example, the reader can watch current US trade representative
Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank email address in 2008, appear to name
President Obama’s cabinet even before the great hope-and-change
election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding
why that greatest of zombie banks was never put out of its misery).
The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here
in force, interacting all the time with the leaders of the party of the
people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg. He makes plans to visit
Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to “learn more
about next steps for his philanthropy and social action”). Podesta
exchanges emails with an entrepreneur about an ugly race now unfolding
for Silicon Valley’s seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears to
forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee,
who complains
that one of the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing
billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically, the miscreant Dem in
question was said to be:
“… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported
Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder have both given to Cory Booker,
Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire that
donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support
other Democrats as well.”
Advertisement
Attacking
billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents
appears to write, “madness and political malpractice of the party to
allow this to continue”.
There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure
trove when you search the gilded words “Davos” or “Tahoe”. But it is
when you search “Vineyard” on the WikiLeaks dump that you realize these
people truly inhabit a different world from the rest of us. By
“vineyard”, of course, they mean Martha’s Vineyard, the ritzy vacation
resort island off the coast of Massachusetts where presidents Clinton
and Obama spent most of their summer vacations. The Vineyard is a place
for the very, very rich to unwind, yes, but as we learn from these
emails, it is also a place of high idealism; a land of enlightened
liberal commitment far beyond anything ordinary citizens can ever
achieve.
Consider, for example, the 2015 email
from a foundation executive to a retired mortgage banker (who then
seems to have forwarded the note on to Podesta, and thus into history)
expressing concern that “Hillary’s image is being torn apart in the
media and there’s not enough effective push back”. The public eavesdrops
as yet another financier invites
Podesta to a dinner featuring “food produced exclusively by the
island’s farmers and fishermen which will be matched with specially
selected wines”. We learn how a Hillary campaign aide recommended
that a policy statement appear on a certain day so that “It wont get in
the way of any other news we are trying to make – but far enough ahead
of Hamptons and Vineyard money events”. We even read the pleadings
of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White House
and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that
he “joined the DSCC Majority Trust in Martha’s Vineyard (contributing
over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July 2014”.
(Hilariously, in another email chain, the Clinton team appears to scheme to “hit” Bernie Sanders for attending “DSCC retreats on Martha’s Vineyard with lobbyists”.)
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not
hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum
Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to
Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous
word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange
jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental
thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty
to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course
Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and
then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was
done at the state department. Of course she appears to think
that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”.
And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama
administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that
the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They
are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears
to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here
go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are
honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced
degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break
every boundary.
But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to
be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.
