kalau betul.....why not try?.....
Tolong baca sampai habis*.buah fikiran yg sangat baik*.mari kita renung
dan fikir fikirkan*kemudian kita lakukan.
Idea daripada orang-orang yang kerja kat PETRONAS - price control
Idea yang sangat menarik? Tapi adakah ianya berkesan?
> Nampaknya menjelang tahun depan harga petrol
> akan menghampiri RM 2.00. Mahu
> supaya harga petrol turun? Kita perlukan satu
> tindakan bijak dan bersepadu.
> Philip Hollsworth menawarkan idea bagus ini.
> Ianya LEBIH BERKESAN berbanding kempen
> "jangan beli petrol pada hari tertentu" yang
> dilakukan pada April atau Mei lalu. Syarikat
> minyak hanya akan mentertawakan seba b mereka
> tahu dengan tidak membeli petrol, kita akan
> menyusahkan diri sendiri. Ia lebih menyusahkan
> pengguna sendiri
> berbanding penjual.
> Tapi, tak kiralah dari siapa idea ini yang
> mencadangkan pelan yang benar-benar berkesan..
> Sila teruskan membaca dan ambillah bahagian
> dalam rancangan ini.
> Mengikut kenyataan dari negara-negara pengeluar
> minyak anggota OPEC harga seliter petrol adalah
> semurah 89 hingga 95 sen sahaja. Tetapi syarikat
> syarikat pembekal minyaklah yang mengaut
> keuntungan besar dari situasi sekarang ini.
> Kita sebagai pengguna perlukan tindakan agresif
> untuk 'mengajar' mereka bahawa PEMBELI juga
> ada kuasa untuk yang mengawal harga, bukan
> penjual sahaja.
> Dengan harga petrol yang naik begitu tinggi
> sekarang ini, kita pengguna perlu bertindak
> segera. Satu cara yang disarankan untuk
> menurunkan harga petrol ialah dengan
> memberikan tamparan 'market leader' industri
> berkenaan, iaitu dengan tidak
> membeli petrol dari penjual tertentu. Ini dapat kita
> lakukan tanpa menyusahkan diri kita sendiri.
Ideanya begini :-
Untuk sepanjang tahun ini, JANGAN beli petrol dari TIGA SYARIKAT
MINYAK
TERBESAR DIDUNIA iaitu
1) ESSO/MOBIL
2) SHELL
3) PROJET
Tiga syarikat gergasi inilah yang sebenarnya
> mengawal harga runcit petrol dan mengaut
> keuntungan untuk diri mereka sendiri. Sistem ini
> sejajar dengan cara business kapitalis Yahudi
> yang tidak langsung mempunyai perasaan
> bertimbang rasa sesama manusia.
> Jika mereka tidak merasa penjualan petrol mereka
> menurun secara tiba-tiba sedangkan pesaing
> mereka akan terus maju, mereka akan mula
> menurunkan harga. Dan jika mereka berbuat
> demikian yang lain akan turut serta. Tetapi, untuk
> kaedah ini memberi kesan, kita kena memberitahu
> berjuta pembeli ESSO/MOBIL,SHELL dan
> PROJET.
> Ia sangat mudah dilakukan. Saya akan terangkan
> disini caranya:-
> Saya menghantar mesej ini kepada ramai
> orang.Jika setiap kita menghantar kepada
> sekurang2nya 10 orang atau lebih (30 x 10 = 300)?
> Dan 300 orang ini hantar kepada sekurang2nya 10
> orang atau lebih (300 x 10 = 3,000)? dan
> seterusnya.
> Sebaik mesej ini sampai kepada generasi
> penerima yang ke 6, ia sebenarnya telah
> disebarkan kepada lebih TIGA JUTA pengguna
> petrol. Sekali lagi, apa yang perlu anda lakukan
> ialah :
1) Menghantar mesej ini kepada 10 orang atau lebih, itu saja.
2) Berhenti dengan serta merta membeli petrol dari ESSO/MOBIL, SHELL dan
PROJET.
Itu sahaja.....
Berapa lama ia akan berlaku? Jika setiap kita
> menghantar email kepada 10 orang dalam satu
> hari, semua 3 JUTA orang akan dapat dihubungi
> dalam masa 8 hari sahaja.
> Saya cabar anda, jangan sangka anda tiada
> kuasa, bertindak secara bersama.
> Ia pasti akan membuahkan hasil.
Jika anda terima sar ana n ini, sila sebarkan email ini.
TOLONG KEKALKAN KOMITMEN ANDA
SEHINGGA MEREKA TURUNKAN HARGA
DALAM LINGKUNGAN 80 SEN SELITER.
Mudah saja, anda cuma perlu....... .....
1. Forwardkan email ini kepada kawan-kawan dan kenalan,
2. Beli petrol dari PETRONAS , dan CALTEX sahaja ..... jauhi diri anda
dari stesyen petrol ESSO/MOBIL, SHELL dan PROJET
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
war on drug
Our 'war on drugs' has been an abysmal failure. Just look at Mexico
The west's refusal to countenance drug legalisation has fuelled anarchy, profiteering and misery
By Simon Jenkins
September 10, 2010 "The Guardian" -- It is wrecking the government of Mexico. It is financing the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is throwing 11,000 Britons into jail. It is corrupting democracy throughout Latin America. It is devastating the ghettoes of America and propagating Aids in urban Europe. Its turnover is some £200bn a year, on which it pays not a penny of tax. Thousands round the world die of it and millions are impoverished. It is the biggest man-made blight on the face of the earth.
No, it is not drugs. They are as old as humanity. Drugs will always be a challenge to individual and communal discipline, alongside alcohol and nicotine. The curse is different: the declaration by states that some drugs are illegal and that those who supply and use them are criminals. This is the root of the evil.
By outlawing products – poppy and coca – that are in massive global demand, governments merely hand huge untaxed profits to those outside the law and propagate anarchy. Repressive regimes, such as some Muslim ones, have managed to curb domestic alcohol consumption, but no one has been able to stop the global market in heroin and cocaine. It is too big and too lucrative, rivalling arms and oil on the international monetary exchanges. Forty years of "the war on drugs" have defeated all-comers, except political hypocrites.
Most western governments have turned a blind eye and decided to ride with the menace, since the chief price of their failure is paid by the poor. In Britain Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown felt tackling the drugs economy was not worth antagonising rightwing newspapers. Like most rich westerners they relied on regarding drugs as a menace among the poor but a youthful indiscretion among their own offspring.
The full horror of drug criminality is now coming home to roost far from the streets of New York and London. In countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, drugs are so endemic that criminalising them merely fuels a colossal corruption. It is rendering futile Nato's Afghan war effort, which requires the retraining of an army and police too addicted either to cure or to sack. Poppies are the chief source of cash for farmers whose hearts and minds Nato needs to win, yet whose poppy crop (ultimately for Nato nations) finances the Taliban. It is crazy.
The worst impact of criminalisation is on Latin America. Here the slow emergence of democratic governments – from Bolivia through Peru and Columbia to Mexico – is being jeopardised by America's "counter-narcotics" diplomacy through the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Rather than try to stem its own voracious appetite for drugs, rich America shifts guilt on to poor supplier countries. Never was the law of economics – demand always evokes supply – so traduced as in Washington's drugs policy. America spends $40bn a year on narcotics policy, imprisoning a staggering 1.5m of its citizens under it.
Cocaine supplies routed through Mexico have made that country the drugs equivalent of a Gulf oil state. An estimated 500,000 people are employed in the trade, all at risk of their lives, with 45,000 soldiers deployed against them. Border provinces are largely in the hands of drug barons and their private armies. In the past four years 28,000 Mexicans have died in drug wars, a slaughter that would outrage the world if caused by any other industry (such as oil). Mexico's experience puts in the shade the gangsterism of America's last failed experiment in prohibition, the prewar alcohol ban.
As a result, it is South American governments and not the sophisticated west that are now pleading for reform. A year ago an Argentinian court gave American and British politicians a lesson in libertarianism by declaring that "adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state". Mexico declared drugs users "patients not criminals". Ecuador released 1,500 hapless women imprisoned as drug mules – while the British government locks them for years in Holloway.
Brazil's ex-president Fernando Cardoso and a panel of his former judges announced emphatically that the war on drugs had failed and that "the only way to reduce violence in Mexico, Brazil or anywhere else is to legalise the production, supply and consumption of all drugs". Last month, Mexico's desperate president, Felipe Calderón, acknowledged that his four-year, US-financed war on the drug cartels had all but failed and called on the world for "a fundamental debate on the legalising of drugs".
The difficulty these countries face is the size of the global industry created by the west to meet its demand for drugs. That industry is certain to deploy lethal means against legalisation, as the alcohol barons did against the ending of prohibition. They have been unwittingly sponsored for decades by western leaders, and particularly by the United Nations which, with typical fatuity, declared in 1998 that it would "create a drug-free world" by 2008. All maintained the fiction that demand could be curbed by curbing supply, thus presenting their own consumers as somehow the victims of supplier countries.
The UN's prohibitionist drugs czar, Antonio Maria Costa, comfortably ensconced in Vienna, holds that cannabis is as harmful as heroin and cocaine, and wants to deny individual governments freedom over their drug policies. In eight years in office he has disastrously protected the drug cartels and their profits by refusing to countenance drug legalisation. He even suggested recently that the estimated $352bn generated by drug lords in 2008-09 helped save the world banking system from collapse. It is hard to know whose side he is on.
The evil of drugs will never be stamped out by seizing trivial quantities of drugs and arresting trivial numbers of traders and consumers. That is a mere pretence of action. Drug law enforcement has been the greatest regulatory failure in modern times, far greater in its impact on the world than that of banking. Nor is much likely to come from moves in both Europe and America to legalise cannabis use, sensible though they are. In November Californians are to vote on Proposition 19, to give municipalities freedom to legalise and tax cannabis. One farm in Oakland is forecast to yield $3m a year in taxes, money California's government sorely needs.
This will do nothing to combat the misery now being visited on Mexico. The world has to bring its biggest illegal trade under control. It has to legalise not just consumption but supply. There is evidence that drug markets respond to realistic regulation. In Britain, under Labour, nicotine use fell because tobacco was controlled and taxed, while alcohol use rose because it was decontrolled and made cheaper. European states that have decriminalised and regulated sections of their drug economies, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Portugal, have found it has reduced consumption. Regulation works, anarchy does not.
In the case of drugs produced in industrial quantities from distant corners of the globe, only international action has any hope of success. Drug supply must be legalised, taxed and controlled. Other than eliminating war, there can be no greater ambition for international statesmanship. The boon to the peoples of the world would be beyond price.
The west's refusal to countenance drug legalisation has fuelled anarchy, profiteering and misery
By Simon Jenkins
September 10, 2010 "The Guardian" -- It is wrecking the government of Mexico. It is financing the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is throwing 11,000 Britons into jail. It is corrupting democracy throughout Latin America. It is devastating the ghettoes of America and propagating Aids in urban Europe. Its turnover is some £200bn a year, on which it pays not a penny of tax. Thousands round the world die of it and millions are impoverished. It is the biggest man-made blight on the face of the earth.
No, it is not drugs. They are as old as humanity. Drugs will always be a challenge to individual and communal discipline, alongside alcohol and nicotine. The curse is different: the declaration by states that some drugs are illegal and that those who supply and use them are criminals. This is the root of the evil.
By outlawing products – poppy and coca – that are in massive global demand, governments merely hand huge untaxed profits to those outside the law and propagate anarchy. Repressive regimes, such as some Muslim ones, have managed to curb domestic alcohol consumption, but no one has been able to stop the global market in heroin and cocaine. It is too big and too lucrative, rivalling arms and oil on the international monetary exchanges. Forty years of "the war on drugs" have defeated all-comers, except political hypocrites.
Most western governments have turned a blind eye and decided to ride with the menace, since the chief price of their failure is paid by the poor. In Britain Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown felt tackling the drugs economy was not worth antagonising rightwing newspapers. Like most rich westerners they relied on regarding drugs as a menace among the poor but a youthful indiscretion among their own offspring.
The full horror of drug criminality is now coming home to roost far from the streets of New York and London. In countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, drugs are so endemic that criminalising them merely fuels a colossal corruption. It is rendering futile Nato's Afghan war effort, which requires the retraining of an army and police too addicted either to cure or to sack. Poppies are the chief source of cash for farmers whose hearts and minds Nato needs to win, yet whose poppy crop (ultimately for Nato nations) finances the Taliban. It is crazy.
The worst impact of criminalisation is on Latin America. Here the slow emergence of democratic governments – from Bolivia through Peru and Columbia to Mexico – is being jeopardised by America's "counter-narcotics" diplomacy through the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Rather than try to stem its own voracious appetite for drugs, rich America shifts guilt on to poor supplier countries. Never was the law of economics – demand always evokes supply – so traduced as in Washington's drugs policy. America spends $40bn a year on narcotics policy, imprisoning a staggering 1.5m of its citizens under it.
Cocaine supplies routed through Mexico have made that country the drugs equivalent of a Gulf oil state. An estimated 500,000 people are employed in the trade, all at risk of their lives, with 45,000 soldiers deployed against them. Border provinces are largely in the hands of drug barons and their private armies. In the past four years 28,000 Mexicans have died in drug wars, a slaughter that would outrage the world if caused by any other industry (such as oil). Mexico's experience puts in the shade the gangsterism of America's last failed experiment in prohibition, the prewar alcohol ban.
As a result, it is South American governments and not the sophisticated west that are now pleading for reform. A year ago an Argentinian court gave American and British politicians a lesson in libertarianism by declaring that "adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state". Mexico declared drugs users "patients not criminals". Ecuador released 1,500 hapless women imprisoned as drug mules – while the British government locks them for years in Holloway.
Brazil's ex-president Fernando Cardoso and a panel of his former judges announced emphatically that the war on drugs had failed and that "the only way to reduce violence in Mexico, Brazil or anywhere else is to legalise the production, supply and consumption of all drugs". Last month, Mexico's desperate president, Felipe Calderón, acknowledged that his four-year, US-financed war on the drug cartels had all but failed and called on the world for "a fundamental debate on the legalising of drugs".
The difficulty these countries face is the size of the global industry created by the west to meet its demand for drugs. That industry is certain to deploy lethal means against legalisation, as the alcohol barons did against the ending of prohibition. They have been unwittingly sponsored for decades by western leaders, and particularly by the United Nations which, with typical fatuity, declared in 1998 that it would "create a drug-free world" by 2008. All maintained the fiction that demand could be curbed by curbing supply, thus presenting their own consumers as somehow the victims of supplier countries.
The UN's prohibitionist drugs czar, Antonio Maria Costa, comfortably ensconced in Vienna, holds that cannabis is as harmful as heroin and cocaine, and wants to deny individual governments freedom over their drug policies. In eight years in office he has disastrously protected the drug cartels and their profits by refusing to countenance drug legalisation. He even suggested recently that the estimated $352bn generated by drug lords in 2008-09 helped save the world banking system from collapse. It is hard to know whose side he is on.
The evil of drugs will never be stamped out by seizing trivial quantities of drugs and arresting trivial numbers of traders and consumers. That is a mere pretence of action. Drug law enforcement has been the greatest regulatory failure in modern times, far greater in its impact on the world than that of banking. Nor is much likely to come from moves in both Europe and America to legalise cannabis use, sensible though they are. In November Californians are to vote on Proposition 19, to give municipalities freedom to legalise and tax cannabis. One farm in Oakland is forecast to yield $3m a year in taxes, money California's government sorely needs.
This will do nothing to combat the misery now being visited on Mexico. The world has to bring its biggest illegal trade under control. It has to legalise not just consumption but supply. There is evidence that drug markets respond to realistic regulation. In Britain, under Labour, nicotine use fell because tobacco was controlled and taxed, while alcohol use rose because it was decontrolled and made cheaper. European states that have decriminalised and regulated sections of their drug economies, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Portugal, have found it has reduced consumption. Regulation works, anarchy does not.
In the case of drugs produced in industrial quantities from distant corners of the globe, only international action has any hope of success. Drug supply must be legalised, taxed and controlled. Other than eliminating war, there can be no greater ambition for international statesmanship. The boon to the peoples of the world would be beyond price.
The ‘Meaning’ of 9/11
Bookmark and Share
The ‘Meaning’ of 9/11
It’s not what you think
By Justin Raimondo
September 10, 2010 "Antiwar" - - One would think that after nine years at least some of the anger, the horror and shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have dissipated: but no. A glimpse at the headlines, a few days before the somber anniversary, disabuses us of this hopeful notion: a crazed pastor out in the boonies somewhere is burning Korans, and the commander of our forces in Afghanistan feels compelled to respond, as does the President. The proposal to build a Muslim community center blocks from "ground zero" – modeled on Jewish community centers ubiquitous in New York – is met with furious opposition, and the "anti-Islamization" movement spearheaded by bigots takes off, with mosques all over the country under attack. Physical attacks on Muslims, or people perceived as Muslim, escalate: a New York City cabbie is assaulted by a crazed Islamophobe, and people who have lived in this country for the whole of their lives are afraid.
What’s going on? Andrew Sullivan, writing on his popular blog, writes he is "at a loss to understand why so many have reacted so ferociously to this project." After all, Imam Feisel Rauf, the Muslim cleric who wants to build Cordoba House, is a moderate who has condemned Islamic extremism: Rauf was sent by the Bush administration overseas to act as an ambassador of good will to Muslim countries. So where is the ferocity coming from?
To find the answer to this question, we just have to follow the money, and thankfully Ken Vogel and Giovanni Russonello over at Politico have done just that. After detailing the money coming into the Cordoba House project from mainstream donors like the Rockefellers, they write:
"There’s also big money behind the mosque opposition, as highlighted by the relationship between [David] Horowitz’s Los Angeles-based nonprofit, Jihad Watch – the website run by Spencer "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world" – and Joyce Chernick, the wife of a wealthy California tech company founder.
"Though it was not listed on the public tax reports filed by Horowitz’s Freedom Center, Politico has confirmed that the lion’s share of the $920,000 it provided over the past three years to Jihad Watch came from Chernick, whose husband, Aubrey Chernick, has a net worth of $750 million, as a result of his 2004 sale to IBM of a software company he created, and a security consulting firm he now owns.
"A onetime trustee of the …Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aubrey Chernick led the effort to pull together $3.5 million in venture capital to start Pajamas Media, a conservative blog network …
"The David Horowitz Freedom Center had a budget of $4.5 million last year, according to its tax filings, of which $290,000 came from the conservative Bradley Foundation, which also gave $75,000 to the Center for Security Policy last year. Horowitz has received an average of $461,000 a year in salary and benefits over the past three years, while Spencer has pulled in an average of $140,000, according to the center’s IRS filings."
Laura Rozen follows up on her Politico blog, detailing the trail of donations from 2008 990 filings for Chernick’s charitable foundation, the Fairbrook Foundation, listing all the familiar suspects – CAMERA, Horowitz, MEMRI, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the Israeli nationalist "Stand With Us" campus project – and a few less familiar, such as the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, dedicated to thwarting our stated policy of no more settlements where it counts: in East Jerusalem.
Millions pour into the coffers of these groups, all of which are dedicated to one overriding principle, one goal: advancing Israel’s national interests in the US. The serpentine convolutions of the Chernick connection, linking one front group to another, encircle the political and temperamental spectrum, ranging from the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles (over $900k) to the many hundreds of thousands given to hardline neoconservative outfits like the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, not to mention Pajamas Media ($7 million, in collusion with venture capitalist James "extensively experienced in multimillion-dollar technology transfer and license agreements " Koshland) and a mass campaign to distribute DVDs of the virulently anti-Muslim film "Obsession."
The aim of all this giving is to create and sustain an obsessive hatred of Muslims, all Muslims, and garner support for Israel. The fulminations of Newt Gingrich and the flaxwn-haired harpies of Fox News, who rail against the "ground zero mosque" seem, on the surface, to make no sense. Are they really saying that they want the US to declare war on the billion-plus Muslims who inhabit the planet earth? This, after all, is precisely what Osama bin Laden has repeatedly said: that all the world’s Muslims must unite under al-Qaeda’s bloody banner because the West, in alliance with Israel, is out to destroy Islam, and it is therefore the duty of the faithful to wage jihad against the US.
The Israelis, having long ago declared war on all the other nations of the region, want us in their camp, and that is precisely what occurred with stunning speed before the smoke cleared from the site where the World Trade Center once stood. "We’re all Israelis now!" exulted Martin "Palestinians are subhuman" Peretz, over at The New Republic. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is today the Prime Minister of Israel, told an audience at Bar Ilan University “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” according to the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv. The attack, he averred, “swung American public opinion in our favor” – and now that he and his fellow extremists are in power in Tel Aviv, they are making sure public opinion stays in their favor.
The craziness that ensued in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had to be sustained if Israel was to take full advantage of the moment – a moment their intelligence operatives anticipated, according to Fox News, in a four-part series by their topnotch journalist Carl Cameron, which started out as follows:
"Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’"
Fox News has never retracted a word of this story, although they did – after pressure from the Israel lobby – delete it from their web site. It was never mentioned again, at least in "respectable" quarters, and, to be sure, it was never forgotten, thanks to the Internet, where Carl Cameron will be exposing the Israeli connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks unto eternity.
Cameron’s noting that "more than sixty" Israelis had been arrested immediately after 9/11, along with and under the same legal rubric as thousands of Arabs, had also been noted here in this space, before the Fox News broadcasts. Why, I asked in a column, was the US government rounding up Israelis, of all people – unless there was some kind of Israeli connection to the attacks? The answer came in Cameron’s reporting, and subsequent stories in the "mainstream" media: the Israelis, whose intelligence services had been very active on our soil in the months leading up to 9/11, had been following the hijackers, shadowing their every move, without telling us – almost as if they were protecting them rather than trying to stop them.
What happened on September 11, 2001, has changed the shape of history, and certainly determined the utterly disastrous course of US foreign policy since that day. We have launched a war of retribution against the entire Muslim world, a vast campaign of bombings, drone attacks, occupation, and terror unleashed on the peoples of the Middle East, from Iraq to Pakistan. This is precisely why the Israelis didn’t tell us what Mohammed Atta and his co-conspirators were up to, although – if we take Fox News seriously, and I realize there are plenty who don’t – there is no doubt that they had it in their power to stop the whole operation before the hijackers had a chance to strike. All they had to do was tell us – and they didn’t. This is the "intelligence failure" – not the lack of centralized information, not the competition between the CIA and the FBI – that made the 9/11 terrorist attacks possible: the perfidy of our Israeli "ally."
The Israelis didn’t dive-bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with commandeered airliners: Atta and his gang did. Yet they could have prevented it – but why should they have? After all, the attacks have swung public opinion in their favor, as Netanyahu boasted – surely a foreseeable development.
Today, nine years after the event, the Israel lobby is using the anniversary of the attacks to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria to a fever pitch, and they have plenty of bucks to do it. These people – who, as Juan Cole points out, represent a minuscule fraction of the pro-Israel population in the US, and stand out like a couple of sore thumbs from the overwhelmingly liberal Jewish community – mean business, and there’s only one way to fight them. It’s time to play hardball – just like they do.
I was warned, before raising the possibility of an Israeli connection to 9/11, that I was touching a live wire, that my career – such as it is – would be destroyed, and that I would be banished to the hinterlands, where various obsessives trade conspiracy theories and argue over whether it’s the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati who control the world.
It hasn’t happened, but I wouldn’t care if it did. As Ayn Rand once said: I’m not brave enough to be a coward – I see the consequences too clearly. We see the consequences of 9/11 all around us, in the hate-wrinkled face of the Koran-burning preacher, in the shrill shrieking of Pamela Geller whose anti-Muslim rallies in the vanished shadow of the Trade Towers are as ugly as she is: we see it in the faces of Pakistani refugees, huddled in disease-infested camps, as they flee the US invasion of death-dealing drones.
Think about it: the leadership of a nation that betrayed us, that watched, impassively – or, perhaps, gleefully – as Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities, has a vast and well-funded propaganda network in this country dedicated to stoking hatred of Muslims. And they are certainly doing a very good job of it.
How do they get away with it?
So, you want to know the "meaning" of 9/11? It is, as Martin Luther King put it, this:
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I’m taking my show on the road this autumn, to campuses around the country, talking about some of the ideas expressed in Wednesday’s column on "Anti-Interventionism: The Left-wing Tradition." My talk is entitled "Why Has the Left Sold Out the Antiwar Movement?" – which is sure to provoke a controversy, or at least that’s the hope.
The libertarian student movement, organizing nationally under the leadership of Young Americans for Liberty, is the most exciting – and important – development since the birth of contemporary libertarianism itself. Murray Rothbard, who founded the modern libertarian movement in his living room (and, back then, believe me, it was just big enough to fit in his modest-sized living room), would be thrilled if he were alive today. That’s because they’re hard core, and hard workers, busy building a burgeoning organization dedicated to ending the Fed and ending the wars the Fed makes possible. Who would’ve thought?! That’s one reason I’m taking this tour, but another is to engage in dialogue with the left: to wake them up to the fact that a united antiwar movement, organized around the single issue of US military intervention overseas, is a moral imperative.
If you’re interested in booking me at your campus, write wendy@antiwar.com, or call the Antiwar.com office, at: 510-217-8665.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).
He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
The ‘Meaning’ of 9/11
It’s not what you think
By Justin Raimondo
September 10, 2010 "Antiwar" - - One would think that after nine years at least some of the anger, the horror and shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have dissipated: but no. A glimpse at the headlines, a few days before the somber anniversary, disabuses us of this hopeful notion: a crazed pastor out in the boonies somewhere is burning Korans, and the commander of our forces in Afghanistan feels compelled to respond, as does the President. The proposal to build a Muslim community center blocks from "ground zero" – modeled on Jewish community centers ubiquitous in New York – is met with furious opposition, and the "anti-Islamization" movement spearheaded by bigots takes off, with mosques all over the country under attack. Physical attacks on Muslims, or people perceived as Muslim, escalate: a New York City cabbie is assaulted by a crazed Islamophobe, and people who have lived in this country for the whole of their lives are afraid.
What’s going on? Andrew Sullivan, writing on his popular blog, writes he is "at a loss to understand why so many have reacted so ferociously to this project." After all, Imam Feisel Rauf, the Muslim cleric who wants to build Cordoba House, is a moderate who has condemned Islamic extremism: Rauf was sent by the Bush administration overseas to act as an ambassador of good will to Muslim countries. So where is the ferocity coming from?
To find the answer to this question, we just have to follow the money, and thankfully Ken Vogel and Giovanni Russonello over at Politico have done just that. After detailing the money coming into the Cordoba House project from mainstream donors like the Rockefellers, they write:
"There’s also big money behind the mosque opposition, as highlighted by the relationship between [David] Horowitz’s Los Angeles-based nonprofit, Jihad Watch – the website run by Spencer "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world" – and Joyce Chernick, the wife of a wealthy California tech company founder.
"Though it was not listed on the public tax reports filed by Horowitz’s Freedom Center, Politico has confirmed that the lion’s share of the $920,000 it provided over the past three years to Jihad Watch came from Chernick, whose husband, Aubrey Chernick, has a net worth of $750 million, as a result of his 2004 sale to IBM of a software company he created, and a security consulting firm he now owns.
"A onetime trustee of the …Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aubrey Chernick led the effort to pull together $3.5 million in venture capital to start Pajamas Media, a conservative blog network …
"The David Horowitz Freedom Center had a budget of $4.5 million last year, according to its tax filings, of which $290,000 came from the conservative Bradley Foundation, which also gave $75,000 to the Center for Security Policy last year. Horowitz has received an average of $461,000 a year in salary and benefits over the past three years, while Spencer has pulled in an average of $140,000, according to the center’s IRS filings."
Laura Rozen follows up on her Politico blog, detailing the trail of donations from 2008 990 filings for Chernick’s charitable foundation, the Fairbrook Foundation, listing all the familiar suspects – CAMERA, Horowitz, MEMRI, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the Israeli nationalist "Stand With Us" campus project – and a few less familiar, such as the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, dedicated to thwarting our stated policy of no more settlements where it counts: in East Jerusalem.
Millions pour into the coffers of these groups, all of which are dedicated to one overriding principle, one goal: advancing Israel’s national interests in the US. The serpentine convolutions of the Chernick connection, linking one front group to another, encircle the political and temperamental spectrum, ranging from the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles (over $900k) to the many hundreds of thousands given to hardline neoconservative outfits like the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, not to mention Pajamas Media ($7 million, in collusion with venture capitalist James "extensively experienced in multimillion-dollar technology transfer and license agreements " Koshland) and a mass campaign to distribute DVDs of the virulently anti-Muslim film "Obsession."
The aim of all this giving is to create and sustain an obsessive hatred of Muslims, all Muslims, and garner support for Israel. The fulminations of Newt Gingrich and the flaxwn-haired harpies of Fox News, who rail against the "ground zero mosque" seem, on the surface, to make no sense. Are they really saying that they want the US to declare war on the billion-plus Muslims who inhabit the planet earth? This, after all, is precisely what Osama bin Laden has repeatedly said: that all the world’s Muslims must unite under al-Qaeda’s bloody banner because the West, in alliance with Israel, is out to destroy Islam, and it is therefore the duty of the faithful to wage jihad against the US.
The Israelis, having long ago declared war on all the other nations of the region, want us in their camp, and that is precisely what occurred with stunning speed before the smoke cleared from the site where the World Trade Center once stood. "We’re all Israelis now!" exulted Martin "Palestinians are subhuman" Peretz, over at The New Republic. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is today the Prime Minister of Israel, told an audience at Bar Ilan University “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” according to the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv. The attack, he averred, “swung American public opinion in our favor” – and now that he and his fellow extremists are in power in Tel Aviv, they are making sure public opinion stays in their favor.
The craziness that ensued in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had to be sustained if Israel was to take full advantage of the moment – a moment their intelligence operatives anticipated, according to Fox News, in a four-part series by their topnotch journalist Carl Cameron, which started out as follows:
"Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’"
Fox News has never retracted a word of this story, although they did – after pressure from the Israel lobby – delete it from their web site. It was never mentioned again, at least in "respectable" quarters, and, to be sure, it was never forgotten, thanks to the Internet, where Carl Cameron will be exposing the Israeli connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks unto eternity.
Cameron’s noting that "more than sixty" Israelis had been arrested immediately after 9/11, along with and under the same legal rubric as thousands of Arabs, had also been noted here in this space, before the Fox News broadcasts. Why, I asked in a column, was the US government rounding up Israelis, of all people – unless there was some kind of Israeli connection to the attacks? The answer came in Cameron’s reporting, and subsequent stories in the "mainstream" media: the Israelis, whose intelligence services had been very active on our soil in the months leading up to 9/11, had been following the hijackers, shadowing their every move, without telling us – almost as if they were protecting them rather than trying to stop them.
What happened on September 11, 2001, has changed the shape of history, and certainly determined the utterly disastrous course of US foreign policy since that day. We have launched a war of retribution against the entire Muslim world, a vast campaign of bombings, drone attacks, occupation, and terror unleashed on the peoples of the Middle East, from Iraq to Pakistan. This is precisely why the Israelis didn’t tell us what Mohammed Atta and his co-conspirators were up to, although – if we take Fox News seriously, and I realize there are plenty who don’t – there is no doubt that they had it in their power to stop the whole operation before the hijackers had a chance to strike. All they had to do was tell us – and they didn’t. This is the "intelligence failure" – not the lack of centralized information, not the competition between the CIA and the FBI – that made the 9/11 terrorist attacks possible: the perfidy of our Israeli "ally."
The Israelis didn’t dive-bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with commandeered airliners: Atta and his gang did. Yet they could have prevented it – but why should they have? After all, the attacks have swung public opinion in their favor, as Netanyahu boasted – surely a foreseeable development.
Today, nine years after the event, the Israel lobby is using the anniversary of the attacks to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria to a fever pitch, and they have plenty of bucks to do it. These people – who, as Juan Cole points out, represent a minuscule fraction of the pro-Israel population in the US, and stand out like a couple of sore thumbs from the overwhelmingly liberal Jewish community – mean business, and there’s only one way to fight them. It’s time to play hardball – just like they do.
I was warned, before raising the possibility of an Israeli connection to 9/11, that I was touching a live wire, that my career – such as it is – would be destroyed, and that I would be banished to the hinterlands, where various obsessives trade conspiracy theories and argue over whether it’s the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati who control the world.
It hasn’t happened, but I wouldn’t care if it did. As Ayn Rand once said: I’m not brave enough to be a coward – I see the consequences too clearly. We see the consequences of 9/11 all around us, in the hate-wrinkled face of the Koran-burning preacher, in the shrill shrieking of Pamela Geller whose anti-Muslim rallies in the vanished shadow of the Trade Towers are as ugly as she is: we see it in the faces of Pakistani refugees, huddled in disease-infested camps, as they flee the US invasion of death-dealing drones.
Think about it: the leadership of a nation that betrayed us, that watched, impassively – or, perhaps, gleefully – as Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities, has a vast and well-funded propaganda network in this country dedicated to stoking hatred of Muslims. And they are certainly doing a very good job of it.
How do they get away with it?
So, you want to know the "meaning" of 9/11? It is, as Martin Luther King put it, this:
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I’m taking my show on the road this autumn, to campuses around the country, talking about some of the ideas expressed in Wednesday’s column on "Anti-Interventionism: The Left-wing Tradition." My talk is entitled "Why Has the Left Sold Out the Antiwar Movement?" – which is sure to provoke a controversy, or at least that’s the hope.
The libertarian student movement, organizing nationally under the leadership of Young Americans for Liberty, is the most exciting – and important – development since the birth of contemporary libertarianism itself. Murray Rothbard, who founded the modern libertarian movement in his living room (and, back then, believe me, it was just big enough to fit in his modest-sized living room), would be thrilled if he were alive today. That’s because they’re hard core, and hard workers, busy building a burgeoning organization dedicated to ending the Fed and ending the wars the Fed makes possible. Who would’ve thought?! That’s one reason I’m taking this tour, but another is to engage in dialogue with the left: to wake them up to the fact that a united antiwar movement, organized around the single issue of US military intervention overseas, is a moral imperative.
If you’re interested in booking me at your campus, write wendy@antiwar.com, or call the Antiwar.com office, at: 510-217-8665.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).
He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
SEMBANG 5
Dulu
- Sewaktu aku mula nak belajar kenal abjad dan angka, ibu ayah, abang kakak, pakcik, makcik, cikgu-cikgu, ustaz-ustaz dan tok-tok guruku menasihatkanku "Sekolah dan belajar rajin-rajin, jadi pandai sampai dapat masuk universiti. Nanti senang dapat kerja-dapat gaji. Dapat duit, dapat beli kereta, dapat beli rumah, dapat beli tanah. Ada anak bini, hidup senang lenang."(Begitulah lebih kurang bunyinya tapi maksudnya sama.
Kini;
- Aku juga menuturkan nasihat yang senada itu kepada adik-adikku, anak-anak cucuku, anak-anak didikku. Anak-anakku,Kekawanku, para atasanku, para pemimpinku dan masyarakatku juga menutur nasihat yang sebegitu kerana Kita percaya kita berjaya memenuhi segala hajat, impian,keperluan dan kehendak diri kita kerana kita sentiasa ingat dan ikut nasihat ayah ibu dan guru-guru kita yang sebegitu rupa dan kurasa generasi mendatang juga akan memberi nasihat yang sama.
Dan
- Dipagi syawal ini, aku mencari kebenarannya. Mencari adakah Ilahi dan Rasul yang aku ikuti menasihatkanku sebegitu ?
Wallahualam
- Sewaktu aku mula nak belajar kenal abjad dan angka, ibu ayah, abang kakak, pakcik, makcik, cikgu-cikgu, ustaz-ustaz dan tok-tok guruku menasihatkanku "Sekolah dan belajar rajin-rajin, jadi pandai sampai dapat masuk universiti. Nanti senang dapat kerja-dapat gaji. Dapat duit, dapat beli kereta, dapat beli rumah, dapat beli tanah. Ada anak bini, hidup senang lenang."(Begitulah lebih kurang bunyinya tapi maksudnya sama.
Kini;
- Aku juga menuturkan nasihat yang senada itu kepada adik-adikku, anak-anak cucuku, anak-anak didikku. Anak-anakku,Kekawanku, para atasanku, para pemimpinku dan masyarakatku juga menutur nasihat yang sebegitu kerana Kita percaya kita berjaya memenuhi segala hajat, impian,keperluan dan kehendak diri kita kerana kita sentiasa ingat dan ikut nasihat ayah ibu dan guru-guru kita yang sebegitu rupa dan kurasa generasi mendatang juga akan memberi nasihat yang sama.
Dan
- Dipagi syawal ini, aku mencari kebenarannya. Mencari adakah Ilahi dan Rasul yang aku ikuti menasihatkanku sebegitu ?
Wallahualam
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
sembang 4 - ISLAM JEWS or YAHUDI ISLAM ? fikir-fikirkanlah sendiri
You can't be a Jewish Muslim
Instead of bringing about the secularization of Judaism, Zionism turned religion into the central element of the definition of national identity, and turned the State of Israel into a tool of the religious redemption project.
By Lev Grinberg
Just like the story about the late Israeli politician Moshe Sneh, who raised the tone of his voice because his arguments were not persuasive, Professor Shlomo Avineri raises the tone in his reply to Salman Masalha, both of whose opinion pieces appeared on these pages earlier this month, and paints him as a racist. But Masalha did not claim that there is no Jewish people or that Jews do not have the right to self-determination. His argument is simple: If the state is defined by religion, it cannot treat all its citizens equally, as required of a democratic system of government.
Its true that from its inception, Zionism intended to turn the Jewish people from a religious community into a modern nation, but Avineri ignores the regrettable fact that the project of secularizing the Jewish people has failed. Israel has no legal definition for Judaism other than the religious definition, it does not recognize an Israeli national identity defined on the basis of citizenship, and it does not recognize a Hebrew nationality that is culturally defined.
The comparison to other countries where religion and nationality are linked is irrelevant, because those countries have a secular definition of the state and citizenship. You can be a Polish Jew or an Egyptian Jew, but you can't be a Jewish Muslim or a Jewish Christian.
In the attempt to make the Jewish people a nation like all others, Zionism strove to unite it through one language and concentrate it in one territory. There were arguments and struggles over this, and they were decided in favor of preserving the centrality of religion in the definition of the national collective. Instead of picking one of the languages that Jews spoke day in and day out, Hebrew, the holy tongue, was chosen.
Regarding territory as well, absolute secularists did indeed think that Jews could be settled in Uganda or Argentina, but the gravitational pull of the Land of Israel was decisive. The Bible was transformed from a religious text into Zionism's title deed, the justification for the demand for ownership of the territory. In other words, instead of bringing about the secularization of Judaism, Zionism turned religion into the central element of the definition of national identity, and turned the State of Israel into a tool of the religious redemption project, especially after the capture and settlement of biblical areas since 1967.
Defining the State of Israel solely as democratic and revoking the special privileges of Jews does not contradict Zionism, and certainly not Judaism. The connection to Judaism will remain in the calendar and the Hebrew language, in the name of the state and in the Jewish majority (if we manage to free ourselves from our rule over the Palestinians in the territories ).
Democracy is based on universalist Jewish values, such as "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Ye shall have one statute, both for the stranger, and for him that is born in the land." That requires separation of religion and state, something that will be good for both. Because in the current situation, not only does religion corrupt the state, but the state corrupts religion and pushes it toward nationalistic extremism.
Why isn't Israel a modern, democratic nation-state? I suspect that the secular Jews are not ready to relinquish the special privileges that the Jewish state grants them. With no other definition for Judaism, they are ready to accept the yoke of the religious establishment and give up democracy and equality. In my view, that is the meaning of the continued impossible defense of a Jewish and democratic state.
Woe to such Zionism: conservative and complacent, lacking imagination and vision. After such a bitter failure, we should start thinking of tikkun, of repair. Tikkun is a kosher concept; it's both Jewish and democratic.
The writer is a political sociologist and the author of books including "Imagined Peace, Discourse of War: The Failure of Leadership, Politics and Democracy in Israel, 1992-2006" (in Hebrew)
Instead of bringing about the secularization of Judaism, Zionism turned religion into the central element of the definition of national identity, and turned the State of Israel into a tool of the religious redemption project.
By Lev Grinberg
Just like the story about the late Israeli politician Moshe Sneh, who raised the tone of his voice because his arguments were not persuasive, Professor Shlomo Avineri raises the tone in his reply to Salman Masalha, both of whose opinion pieces appeared on these pages earlier this month, and paints him as a racist. But Masalha did not claim that there is no Jewish people or that Jews do not have the right to self-determination. His argument is simple: If the state is defined by religion, it cannot treat all its citizens equally, as required of a democratic system of government.
Its true that from its inception, Zionism intended to turn the Jewish people from a religious community into a modern nation, but Avineri ignores the regrettable fact that the project of secularizing the Jewish people has failed. Israel has no legal definition for Judaism other than the religious definition, it does not recognize an Israeli national identity defined on the basis of citizenship, and it does not recognize a Hebrew nationality that is culturally defined.
The comparison to other countries where religion and nationality are linked is irrelevant, because those countries have a secular definition of the state and citizenship. You can be a Polish Jew or an Egyptian Jew, but you can't be a Jewish Muslim or a Jewish Christian.
In the attempt to make the Jewish people a nation like all others, Zionism strove to unite it through one language and concentrate it in one territory. There were arguments and struggles over this, and they were decided in favor of preserving the centrality of religion in the definition of the national collective. Instead of picking one of the languages that Jews spoke day in and day out, Hebrew, the holy tongue, was chosen.
Regarding territory as well, absolute secularists did indeed think that Jews could be settled in Uganda or Argentina, but the gravitational pull of the Land of Israel was decisive. The Bible was transformed from a religious text into Zionism's title deed, the justification for the demand for ownership of the territory. In other words, instead of bringing about the secularization of Judaism, Zionism turned religion into the central element of the definition of national identity, and turned the State of Israel into a tool of the religious redemption project, especially after the capture and settlement of biblical areas since 1967.
Defining the State of Israel solely as democratic and revoking the special privileges of Jews does not contradict Zionism, and certainly not Judaism. The connection to Judaism will remain in the calendar and the Hebrew language, in the name of the state and in the Jewish majority (if we manage to free ourselves from our rule over the Palestinians in the territories ).
Democracy is based on universalist Jewish values, such as "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Ye shall have one statute, both for the stranger, and for him that is born in the land." That requires separation of religion and state, something that will be good for both. Because in the current situation, not only does religion corrupt the state, but the state corrupts religion and pushes it toward nationalistic extremism.
Why isn't Israel a modern, democratic nation-state? I suspect that the secular Jews are not ready to relinquish the special privileges that the Jewish state grants them. With no other definition for Judaism, they are ready to accept the yoke of the religious establishment and give up democracy and equality. In my view, that is the meaning of the continued impossible defense of a Jewish and democratic state.
Woe to such Zionism: conservative and complacent, lacking imagination and vision. After such a bitter failure, we should start thinking of tikkun, of repair. Tikkun is a kosher concept; it's both Jewish and democratic.
The writer is a political sociologist and the author of books including "Imagined Peace, Discourse of War: The Failure of Leadership, Politics and Democracy in Israel, 1992-2006" (in Hebrew)
SEMBANG 3 - QBB GHEE
Be careful what we eat…
Salam Semua,
QBB Ghee ada Lard (Lemak Babi)
Forward this email to boycott the product.
2 April 2010
Atte n tion: Ms. Tan Poh Hong
CEO
Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority
5, Maxwell Road
Tower Block, MND Complex
Singapore 069110
Dear Madam
We wish to inform your goodself that for years, our consumer group as many other faithful consumers have been using “QQB” Ghee for various delicacies and religious functions without doubt, with full confidence that the said product is manufactured from the milk of dairy cows by its highly reputable manufacturer based in Queensland, Australia.
However, lately, we found that although the colour and aroma had now varied much, the taste seemed to be somewhat different. Therefore, we investigated this matter and concluded the following matters:
· Its manufacturer Butter Producers’ Co-operative Federation Ltd (BPCF) addressed as No. 489, Kingsford Smith Drive, Hamilton, Brisbane, Australia had ceased operations in September 2006 and was no longer listed in the website of Australian trade authority being http://www.austrade/ . gov.au/ . In fact the satellite picture as the website http://maps . google.com shows that the following site is vacant land.
· Printed on the tin is that the said product is manufactured from milkfat of dairy cows of Australia and in even smaller and rather unclear script, it is mentioned that its manufacturer is Q.B.I. Packaging Sdn Bhd, No. 19, Lorong Keluli 1C, Kawasan Perindustrian Bukit Raja Selatan, 41050 Shah Alam, Selangor DE., Malaysia and that the said product is manufactured under license from QBB (Pte.) Ltd., Singapore.
· QBB Pte Ltd.., Singapore was originally the sole agent for “QBB” Ghee for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei and it is not clear whether at the time when BPCF ceased operations in 2006, the “QBB” trademark rights were transferred from BPCF to QBB Ptd Ltd., Singapore. We suspect that Q.B.I. Packaging Sdn Bhd and QBB Ptd Ltd., Singapore are together carrying an act of piracy i.e. producing and selling a product whose legitimate manufacturing and sales rights were not transferred to them by its original manufacturer BPCF who was since wound up.
· The report of an analysis conducted by a reputable food technology laboratory in Australia on the contents of a 2-lb tin of this product, where the said tin was taken from Malaysia to Australia by one of our group members, mentions the following:-
“This product constitutes of decolorized and deodorized lard (pig fat) in semi-solid state with permitted additives giving the product color, flavor and aroma similar to that of pure ghee color, flavor and aroma.” (Original report is with the sender of this letter).
Therefore, our consumer group had to boycott the use of this product as:-
a) Our muslim members cannot use this product as it is haram by religion
b) Our Hindu and Sikh members cannot use this product for burning of ghee lamps, religious functions or for preparing sweetmeats as places of worship which forbid the use of any animal oil/animal fat.
c) Our vegetarian friends who only consume vegetarian diet cannot consume the said product.
We believe that the “QBB Ghee” sold in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei ever since BPCF closed down, is a product which is violating the related laws on the principle of “misrepresentation of label”. Therefore we hope that your goodself will take the appropriate action to stop the sale of this product.
Thanking you.
Letter signed by Mohd Kadir bin Mohd Karim (I/C No. 601223-10-6157)
Secretary of Kumpulan Konsumer Satu Malaysia (KKSM)
Note: Copy of this letter and analysis report sent to
YAB Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Abd. Khalid bin Ibrahim, Menteri Besar Selangor DE
Salam Semua,
QBB Ghee ada Lard (Lemak Babi)
Forward this email to boycott the product.
2 April 2010
Atte n tion: Ms. Tan Poh Hong
CEO
Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority
5, Maxwell Road
Tower Block, MND Complex
Singapore 069110
Dear Madam
We wish to inform your goodself that for years, our consumer group as many other faithful consumers have been using “QQB” Ghee for various delicacies and religious functions without doubt, with full confidence that the said product is manufactured from the milk of dairy cows by its highly reputable manufacturer based in Queensland, Australia.
However, lately, we found that although the colour and aroma had now varied much, the taste seemed to be somewhat different. Therefore, we investigated this matter and concluded the following matters:
· Its manufacturer Butter Producers’ Co-operative Federation Ltd (BPCF) addressed as No. 489, Kingsford Smith Drive, Hamilton, Brisbane, Australia had ceased operations in September 2006 and was no longer listed in the website of Australian trade authority being http://www.austrade/ . gov.au/ . In fact the satellite picture as the website http://maps . google.com shows that the following site is vacant land.
· Printed on the tin is that the said product is manufactured from milkfat of dairy cows of Australia and in even smaller and rather unclear script, it is mentioned that its manufacturer is Q.B.I. Packaging Sdn Bhd, No. 19, Lorong Keluli 1C, Kawasan Perindustrian Bukit Raja Selatan, 41050 Shah Alam, Selangor DE., Malaysia and that the said product is manufactured under license from QBB (Pte.) Ltd., Singapore.
· QBB Pte Ltd.., Singapore was originally the sole agent for “QBB” Ghee for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei and it is not clear whether at the time when BPCF ceased operations in 2006, the “QBB” trademark rights were transferred from BPCF to QBB Ptd Ltd., Singapore. We suspect that Q.B.I. Packaging Sdn Bhd and QBB Ptd Ltd., Singapore are together carrying an act of piracy i.e. producing and selling a product whose legitimate manufacturing and sales rights were not transferred to them by its original manufacturer BPCF who was since wound up.
· The report of an analysis conducted by a reputable food technology laboratory in Australia on the contents of a 2-lb tin of this product, where the said tin was taken from Malaysia to Australia by one of our group members, mentions the following:-
“This product constitutes of decolorized and deodorized lard (pig fat) in semi-solid state with permitted additives giving the product color, flavor and aroma similar to that of pure ghee color, flavor and aroma.” (Original report is with the sender of this letter).
Therefore, our consumer group had to boycott the use of this product as:-
a) Our muslim members cannot use this product as it is haram by religion
b) Our Hindu and Sikh members cannot use this product for burning of ghee lamps, religious functions or for preparing sweetmeats as places of worship which forbid the use of any animal oil/animal fat.
c) Our vegetarian friends who only consume vegetarian diet cannot consume the said product.
We believe that the “QBB Ghee” sold in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei ever since BPCF closed down, is a product which is violating the related laws on the principle of “misrepresentation of label”. Therefore we hope that your goodself will take the appropriate action to stop the sale of this product.
Thanking you.
Letter signed by Mohd Kadir bin Mohd Karim (I/C No. 601223-10-6157)
Secretary of Kumpulan Konsumer Satu Malaysia (KKSM)
Note: Copy of this letter and analysis report sent to
YAB Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Abd. Khalid bin Ibrahim, Menteri Besar Selangor DE
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
IDEOLOGY & IDEOLOGUES
Bookmark and Share
Ideology and Ideologues
By James Keye
September 03, 2010 "Dissident Voice" -- No one can go through life without believing in some general principles, even if most of us act on those principles regularly without giving them much, if any, thought. But, if you stop a moment in your daily hunt for living your life with some success and dignity; just stop a moment, lift your head up from that ‘walking into a strong wind’ position and widen out that tunnel vision to see more broadly than a specific ambition, job or encounter, then you just might begin to see what humanity is up against.
People are presented with millions of pieces of information every day, from the chemistry of your liver to the latest political outrage, from which they can only select a small percentage to recognize and overtly respond – thus, in part, the head down, tunnel vision push through life hoping for the best. Most people accept this state of affairs, stay at least a little light on their feet, even as they try to find some reasonable and reliable pattern so as not to start each day from scratch, set upon with overwhelming sensation and information.
Karl Marx made the argument that different classes in the same society can have quite different ideas and beliefs about what is real. He called this ‘ideology’ – like styles of clothing and an accent might identify someone in the mid 1800s in England as belonging to a certain class, so would their ideas and beliefs – and these would form the possibilities for their lives. Marx also assumed that such class-based ideologies were inherently untrue in their details measured against human potential and a reality larger than prescriptions of a particular society and its classes.
Ludwig von Mises dismisses this seemingly sound bit of thinking by suggesting, in what sounds to my ear like a “best of all possible worlds” sophistry, that these are beliefs adapted to reality, functionally true beliefs, and thus are not ideological in the sense that Marx means. Why or even how, he asks, could people function from a set of belief principles that are untrue. He argues that mechanical devices depend on correct theory and application and that there could not be an ideological (false) science of mechanics; and by implication that if societies function, then the principles that underlie them cannot be ideologies since they must be ‘true’ working principles.
A larger reality, I would note, can be thought of as a rocky ground that we can cushion with adapted beliefs in good times, but that delivers its full discomfort, demonstrating the narrowness and failures of those beliefs, in bad times. A whole social design can be ultimately mal-adjusted to biophysical reality – a condition that might not critically show itself for some generations.
Some people are not so disposed to the ambiguities of a general ideology. Such people construct an internal system of ideas bulwarked and buttressed against all bending and flexing – prepared to go through life like an ice-breaker ship, crushing out a path in a hostile environment – and even thinking, because they can allow themselves to see only what they wish to see, that the narrow channel created is really the whole ocean. These are the ideologues.
Ideologues are confident, certain and claim to be in complete possession of THE truth. They use the language of reality and truth just as if they possessed them. Actually humanity has been deciding between the Real (what would be functioning in the universe if people were not present) and realities that are local in a time, a place and a belief system for a very long time. Add to this difficulty what I will call ‘highly adaptive individuals’ who use existing ideas, confusions, beliefs and desires without regard to their connection to Reality, as social and political devices for their own ends.
But remember the analogy to an ice-breaker; the world of their competence is very narrow and often fleeting. One of the signs that a person is an ideologue is an unwillingness to consider anything beyond their narrow path as being part of the actual world (the rejection of consideration does not prevent the ideologue from claiming wide, forthright examination of all opinion). Such a test is useful, though not fool-proof: the ideologue can claim that a refusal to accept their reality is the true act of narrow exclusion.
If we stir together a large number of regular people with a few hard-core ideologues, many of the regular folks end up sticking to the ideologues; drawn by the crushing power of their certainty and the way that certainty appears to ease the path through life.
Religions are good examples of ideology-based systems and the role of ideologues (though once religions were local environmentally-based belief systems that organized complex highly adaptable human behavior to function ecologically in the environment). Religious people, for the most part regular folks stuck to ideological institutions, believe that their way of making observance to their image of a higher power is the correct way and that other ways range from misguided to dangerous. It is necessary for religious (regular) people to gather in sufficient number that their local individual realities are mutually supported in the face of inevitable contrary evidence; and often they require a true ideologue (or ‘highly adaptive person’ to play one) to act as the prow on the ice-breaker.
An issue of greatest concern is how to measure notions of truth, accuracy, honesty, reality, effective adaptation, environmental fit – the actions of our human world that are answerable to biophysical reality – in a social/political world in which ideologies are the standards of truth and ideologues can seem like honest brokers.
Now everything cannot be true. It has become our habit these days to assume that there is “some truth in everything.” At least it is the habit among the least ideological. But that is just foolishness. The atomic mass of chlorine is about 35.46 atomic mass units. This is not open to argument; you can’t pick an atomic mass that you like for chlorine. Why this mass and not another is more open to opinion, but that opinion needs to be informed; the theoretical foundations for atomic structure are pretty solid these days. While it is clearly, and unarguably sound, to have “true” answers for the nature of chlorine, would it not be very useful to have testable and measured answers to many questions that, today, we leave to typical ideologues?
What is believed depends on how those beliefs are arrived at. If it is our dominant social habit to believe in authority, beliefs will come from established institutions and adapt in the self-referenced way that they have for thousands of years. It was the great contribution of the Enlightenment that knowing should come from direct experience and that there had to be epistemological principles to properly use that experience; an understanding of understanding that seems to be weakening just as we need it the most.
More than ever humans are confronted with new and surprising experiences: many a day whether we realize it or not. What belief system, what ideology, would be best for a world in which two conditions, previously not a primary concern, have become essential to respond to; (1) huge amounts of rapidly changing information and (2) an immediate need for our actions to comport very closely with biophysical reality. Would you select an ideology that is confident in an existing set of answers even as new information is conflicting or would you select an ideology that doesn’t base its beliefs on unchallengeable facts, but on a method to evaluate new information and with a track record of discovering the ‘truths’ that underlie our understanding of the physical and biological worlds?
This is not a new observation. How to discover the truth of things and make an understanding of what is true into appropriate and meaningful lives is one of the oldest questions on the books. You’d think that an animal that can build the Large Hadron Collider and produce energies approaching those of the origin of the universe might spend an effective moment or two getting clear how not to destroy the world it lives in through the madness of its political and economic actions… you’d think!
What if part of a belief system is the demand that the specific content of belief be put to test? What if the ideology – the belief system – required testing and replication of basic data from which testable hypotheses are organized into theories about the general form and function of the stuff that happens in the world? Is it not possible that an ideology of process, scientific method and epistemological philosophy, would more accurately and consistently discover ways of thinking and behaving that are closer to capital ‘R’ Reality than the local adaptation of idea to form, ad hoc, in the service of the immediate and the self-interested?
This would demand a great deal of people, to learn about these things, to develop a clear understanding and reasoned use of scientific method, have a basic comprehension of statistical probability and epistemology, but what the hell! It was demanding for 4 or 5 guys to kill a mammoth; it was difficult and demanding to sail in a little tub of a wooden ship around the world; it was demanding to march across Europe in 1944 -45.
I am talking about a critical mass of humanity developing the critical understandings and using processes that have demonstrably attached our human technical reality to the physical reality. It is time that we attach our human reality to the biophysical reality – there is just no choice. Now how is that for an ideological statement?
Ideology and Ideologues
By James Keye
September 03, 2010 "Dissident Voice" -- No one can go through life without believing in some general principles, even if most of us act on those principles regularly without giving them much, if any, thought. But, if you stop a moment in your daily hunt for living your life with some success and dignity; just stop a moment, lift your head up from that ‘walking into a strong wind’ position and widen out that tunnel vision to see more broadly than a specific ambition, job or encounter, then you just might begin to see what humanity is up against.
People are presented with millions of pieces of information every day, from the chemistry of your liver to the latest political outrage, from which they can only select a small percentage to recognize and overtly respond – thus, in part, the head down, tunnel vision push through life hoping for the best. Most people accept this state of affairs, stay at least a little light on their feet, even as they try to find some reasonable and reliable pattern so as not to start each day from scratch, set upon with overwhelming sensation and information.
Karl Marx made the argument that different classes in the same society can have quite different ideas and beliefs about what is real. He called this ‘ideology’ – like styles of clothing and an accent might identify someone in the mid 1800s in England as belonging to a certain class, so would their ideas and beliefs – and these would form the possibilities for their lives. Marx also assumed that such class-based ideologies were inherently untrue in their details measured against human potential and a reality larger than prescriptions of a particular society and its classes.
Ludwig von Mises dismisses this seemingly sound bit of thinking by suggesting, in what sounds to my ear like a “best of all possible worlds” sophistry, that these are beliefs adapted to reality, functionally true beliefs, and thus are not ideological in the sense that Marx means. Why or even how, he asks, could people function from a set of belief principles that are untrue. He argues that mechanical devices depend on correct theory and application and that there could not be an ideological (false) science of mechanics; and by implication that if societies function, then the principles that underlie them cannot be ideologies since they must be ‘true’ working principles.
A larger reality, I would note, can be thought of as a rocky ground that we can cushion with adapted beliefs in good times, but that delivers its full discomfort, demonstrating the narrowness and failures of those beliefs, in bad times. A whole social design can be ultimately mal-adjusted to biophysical reality – a condition that might not critically show itself for some generations.
Some people are not so disposed to the ambiguities of a general ideology. Such people construct an internal system of ideas bulwarked and buttressed against all bending and flexing – prepared to go through life like an ice-breaker ship, crushing out a path in a hostile environment – and even thinking, because they can allow themselves to see only what they wish to see, that the narrow channel created is really the whole ocean. These are the ideologues.
Ideologues are confident, certain and claim to be in complete possession of THE truth. They use the language of reality and truth just as if they possessed them. Actually humanity has been deciding between the Real (what would be functioning in the universe if people were not present) and realities that are local in a time, a place and a belief system for a very long time. Add to this difficulty what I will call ‘highly adaptive individuals’ who use existing ideas, confusions, beliefs and desires without regard to their connection to Reality, as social and political devices for their own ends.
But remember the analogy to an ice-breaker; the world of their competence is very narrow and often fleeting. One of the signs that a person is an ideologue is an unwillingness to consider anything beyond their narrow path as being part of the actual world (the rejection of consideration does not prevent the ideologue from claiming wide, forthright examination of all opinion). Such a test is useful, though not fool-proof: the ideologue can claim that a refusal to accept their reality is the true act of narrow exclusion.
If we stir together a large number of regular people with a few hard-core ideologues, many of the regular folks end up sticking to the ideologues; drawn by the crushing power of their certainty and the way that certainty appears to ease the path through life.
Religions are good examples of ideology-based systems and the role of ideologues (though once religions were local environmentally-based belief systems that organized complex highly adaptable human behavior to function ecologically in the environment). Religious people, for the most part regular folks stuck to ideological institutions, believe that their way of making observance to their image of a higher power is the correct way and that other ways range from misguided to dangerous. It is necessary for religious (regular) people to gather in sufficient number that their local individual realities are mutually supported in the face of inevitable contrary evidence; and often they require a true ideologue (or ‘highly adaptive person’ to play one) to act as the prow on the ice-breaker.
An issue of greatest concern is how to measure notions of truth, accuracy, honesty, reality, effective adaptation, environmental fit – the actions of our human world that are answerable to biophysical reality – in a social/political world in which ideologies are the standards of truth and ideologues can seem like honest brokers.
Now everything cannot be true. It has become our habit these days to assume that there is “some truth in everything.” At least it is the habit among the least ideological. But that is just foolishness. The atomic mass of chlorine is about 35.46 atomic mass units. This is not open to argument; you can’t pick an atomic mass that you like for chlorine. Why this mass and not another is more open to opinion, but that opinion needs to be informed; the theoretical foundations for atomic structure are pretty solid these days. While it is clearly, and unarguably sound, to have “true” answers for the nature of chlorine, would it not be very useful to have testable and measured answers to many questions that, today, we leave to typical ideologues?
What is believed depends on how those beliefs are arrived at. If it is our dominant social habit to believe in authority, beliefs will come from established institutions and adapt in the self-referenced way that they have for thousands of years. It was the great contribution of the Enlightenment that knowing should come from direct experience and that there had to be epistemological principles to properly use that experience; an understanding of understanding that seems to be weakening just as we need it the most.
More than ever humans are confronted with new and surprising experiences: many a day whether we realize it or not. What belief system, what ideology, would be best for a world in which two conditions, previously not a primary concern, have become essential to respond to; (1) huge amounts of rapidly changing information and (2) an immediate need for our actions to comport very closely with biophysical reality. Would you select an ideology that is confident in an existing set of answers even as new information is conflicting or would you select an ideology that doesn’t base its beliefs on unchallengeable facts, but on a method to evaluate new information and with a track record of discovering the ‘truths’ that underlie our understanding of the physical and biological worlds?
This is not a new observation. How to discover the truth of things and make an understanding of what is true into appropriate and meaningful lives is one of the oldest questions on the books. You’d think that an animal that can build the Large Hadron Collider and produce energies approaching those of the origin of the universe might spend an effective moment or two getting clear how not to destroy the world it lives in through the madness of its political and economic actions… you’d think!
What if part of a belief system is the demand that the specific content of belief be put to test? What if the ideology – the belief system – required testing and replication of basic data from which testable hypotheses are organized into theories about the general form and function of the stuff that happens in the world? Is it not possible that an ideology of process, scientific method and epistemological philosophy, would more accurately and consistently discover ways of thinking and behaving that are closer to capital ‘R’ Reality than the local adaptation of idea to form, ad hoc, in the service of the immediate and the self-interested?
This would demand a great deal of people, to learn about these things, to develop a clear understanding and reasoned use of scientific method, have a basic comprehension of statistical probability and epistemology, but what the hell! It was demanding for 4 or 5 guys to kill a mammoth; it was difficult and demanding to sail in a little tub of a wooden ship around the world; it was demanding to march across Europe in 1944 -45.
I am talking about a critical mass of humanity developing the critical understandings and using processes that have demonstrably attached our human technical reality to the physical reality. It is time that we attach our human reality to the biophysical reality – there is just no choice. Now how is that for an ideological statement?
Saturday, September 4, 2010
from zahiruddin.net
Zaharuddin.net
Zaharuddin.net Sedarlah rezekimu tidak akan dimakan orang lain, maka hatimu tenteram. Sedarlah amalmu tidak akan dikerjakan oleh orang lain, maka sibuklah mengerjakannya. Sedarlah kematian itu datang tiba-tiba, maka bersiap-siaplah menghadapinya. Sedarlah hartamu tiada kekal, maka jgn diizin ia terikat dihati. Sedarlah tiada yg lepas... dari penglihatan Allah, maka Malulah kepadaNya sentiasa.
Zaharuddin.net Sedarlah rezekimu tidak akan dimakan orang lain, maka hatimu tenteram. Sedarlah amalmu tidak akan dikerjakan oleh orang lain, maka sibuklah mengerjakannya. Sedarlah kematian itu datang tiba-tiba, maka bersiap-siaplah menghadapinya. Sedarlah hartamu tiada kekal, maka jgn diizin ia terikat dihati. Sedarlah tiada yg lepas... dari penglihatan Allah, maka Malulah kepadaNya sentiasa.
from zaharuddin.net
Zaharuddin.net
Sahabat semua, jika individu soleh sentiasa TAKUT & SEDIH DIMARAHI, gementar diherdik, gentar dipukul, diboikot dan lain-lain atas teguran kebaikan & larangan kesalahan sekelilingnya nescaya kezaliman akan mendominasi dunia, keadilan akan berhijrah jauh & kuranglah syurga dari penghuni.
Sahabat semua, jika individu soleh sentiasa TAKUT & SEDIH DIMARAHI, gementar diherdik, gentar dipukul, diboikot dan lain-lain atas teguran kebaikan & larangan kesalahan sekelilingnya nescaya kezaliman akan mendominasi dunia, keadilan akan berhijrah jauh & kuranglah syurga dari penghuni.
Zaharuddin.net
Jangan sesekali kehadiran Syawal menambah beban HUTANGmu & jangan pula pembayarannya tertangguh. Hasil Ramadanmu mampu dilihat bermula Syawal, jika pedulimu terhadap hutang yang boleh menggugat akhiratmu diabai, ia tanda iman masih belum diisi sempurna di Ramadan, juga tanda kamu ingin merasai nikmat dunia melebihi nikmat akhiratmu. Perhatikanlah kemampuanmu.
Jangan sesekali kehadiran Syawal menambah beban HUTANGmu & jangan pula pembayarannya tertangguh. Hasil Ramadanmu mampu dilihat bermula Syawal, jika pedulimu terhadap hutang yang boleh menggugat akhiratmu diabai, ia tanda iman masih belum diisi sempurna di Ramadan, juga tanda kamu ingin merasai nikmat dunia melebihi nikmat akhiratmu. Perhatikanlah kemampuanmu.
Friday, September 3, 2010
tak perlu
Kita
Tak perlu menjadi tua
andai seharian sebok dengan fail
dan folder didokumentasikan
sebagai bukti kerja kita lakukan
Tak perlu menjadi tua
Andai yg wajib, yg sunat, yg haram
Tak nak ditentu
Hanya nak ikut kehendak tertentu
Tak perlu menjadi tua
andai yg miskin dipergunakan
dieksploitasikan untuk mendokumentasikan
amal kebajikan telah dilaksanakan
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai tipu muslihat
ditentatifkan
mengabui mata yang berkuasa
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai kawan sendiri digigit jari
tuduhan palsu ke atas kawan diwar-warkan
diminit mesyuaratkan
dibiarkan tanpa diperbetulkan
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai skt, pangkat, ganjaran, profesionalisme
dijadi senjata mengumpan bawahan
membuat kerja
tak perlu menjadi tua
Andai bebudak yg baik
dan yg pandai saja ditumpu
yang bodoh, yg nakal, yg undisiplined
dibiar melalak, menghilai, menjerit-jerit macam hantu
dikutuk dicaci dihina hanya di belakang pintu
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai kecemerlangan dikejarkan
adab sopan budaya bangsa tak diendahkan
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai yang berdahi licin menutup mata
meng’sah’kan segala tanpa disemak dibaca
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai masih terkial-kial
yang mana emas yang mana kaca
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai hidup masih berpura
di depan memuji menyokong merangsang
mengutuk mengeji membenci di belakang
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai masih tak kenal AKU siapa
hamba siapa
siapa siapa
tak perlu menjadi tua
tapi kita perlu Pengetua
berjiwa waja bersikap terbuka
memahami dan merendah diri
seperti DR yg kita miliki
terima kasih guruku menganugerahiriku
sedikit ilmu ilham dan upayaMu
memaparkan rasa
terdendam di dada
dan kupinta
perkuatkan aku untuk
mengharung risiko kerananya.
Tak perlu menjadi tua
andai seharian sebok dengan fail
dan folder didokumentasikan
sebagai bukti kerja kita lakukan
Tak perlu menjadi tua
Andai yg wajib, yg sunat, yg haram
Tak nak ditentu
Hanya nak ikut kehendak tertentu
Tak perlu menjadi tua
andai yg miskin dipergunakan
dieksploitasikan untuk mendokumentasikan
amal kebajikan telah dilaksanakan
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai tipu muslihat
ditentatifkan
mengabui mata yang berkuasa
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai kawan sendiri digigit jari
tuduhan palsu ke atas kawan diwar-warkan
diminit mesyuaratkan
dibiarkan tanpa diperbetulkan
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai skt, pangkat, ganjaran, profesionalisme
dijadi senjata mengumpan bawahan
membuat kerja
tak perlu menjadi tua
Andai bebudak yg baik
dan yg pandai saja ditumpu
yang bodoh, yg nakal, yg undisiplined
dibiar melalak, menghilai, menjerit-jerit macam hantu
dikutuk dicaci dihina hanya di belakang pintu
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai kecemerlangan dikejarkan
adab sopan budaya bangsa tak diendahkan
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai yang berdahi licin menutup mata
meng’sah’kan segala tanpa disemak dibaca
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai masih terkial-kial
yang mana emas yang mana kaca
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai hidup masih berpura
di depan memuji menyokong merangsang
mengutuk mengeji membenci di belakang
tak perlu menjadi tua
andai masih tak kenal AKU siapa
hamba siapa
siapa siapa
tak perlu menjadi tua
tapi kita perlu Pengetua
berjiwa waja bersikap terbuka
memahami dan merendah diri
seperti DR yg kita miliki
terima kasih guruku menganugerahiriku
sedikit ilmu ilham dan upayaMu
memaparkan rasa
terdendam di dada
dan kupinta
perkuatkan aku untuk
mengharung risiko kerananya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)