mio

20090115-20090208 catch up….

In Uncategorized on February 9, 2009 at 4:57 am

0115 (2009-02-08)

Australia wildfires kill 108

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/584300

* related to global warming?

0116 (2009-02-08)

Middle-class communities disappearing

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/584203

* level of immigration = too high?  $ on them.

* multicultural policy right?  keep their own culture rather than melt into..

* immigrant = low income, high crime rate? skilled labour not recognized…

0117 (2009-02-08)

Vet’s relationship with accused firm at issue

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/583873

* is there no debate on whether euthanasia on pet is right or not..?

0118

Toronto man breaks record for watching TV 72 hours straight

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/584367

* totally a waste of time…  however i think many housewives can easily break this record..

0119

0120

0121

0122

0123

0124

0125

0126

0127

0128

0129

0130

0131

0201

0202

0203

0204

0205

0206

0207

0208

20090114 Israel’s Goals in Gaza? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: January 13, 2009

In Uncategorized on January 15, 2009 at 5:07 am

permalink: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14friedman.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I have only one question about Israel’s military operation in Gaza: What is the goal? Is it the education of Hamas or the eradication of Hamas? I hope that it’s the education of Hamas. Let me explain why.

I was one of the few people who argued back in 2006 that Israel actually won the war in Lebanon started by Hezbollah. You need to study that war and its aftermath to understand Gaza and how it is part of a new strategic ballgame in the Arab-Israel arena, which will demand of the Obama team a new approach.

What Hezbollah did in 2006 — in launching an unprovoked war across the U.N.-recognized Israel-Lebanon border, after Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon — was to both upend Israel’s longstanding peace strategy and to unveil a new phase in the Hezbollah-Iran war strategy against Israel.

There have always been two camps in Israel when it comes to the logic of peace, notes Gidi Grinstein, president of the Israeli think tank, the Reut Institute: One camp says that all the problems Israel faces from the Palestinians or Lebanese emanate from occupying their territories. “Therefore, the fundamental problem is staying — and the fundamental remedy is leaving,” says Grinstein.

The other camp argues that Israel’s Arab foes are implacably hostile and leaving would only invite more hostility. Therefore, at least when it comes to the Palestinians, Israel needs to control their territories indefinitely. Since the mid-1990s, the first camp has dominated Israeli thinking. This led to the negotiated and unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza.

Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack from Lebanon into Israel in 2006 both undermined the argument that withdrawal led to security and presented Israel with a much more vexing military strategy aimed at neutralizing Israel’s military superiority. Hezbollah created a very “flat” military network, built on small teams of guerrillas and mobile missile-batteries, deeply embedded in the local towns and villages.

And this Hezbollah force, rather than confronting Israel’s Army head-on, focused on demoralizing Israeli civilians with rockets in their homes, challenging Israel to inflict massive civilian casualties in order to hit Hezbollah fighters and, when Israel did strike Hezbollah and also killed civilians, inflaming the Arab-Muslim street, making life very difficult for Arab or European leaders aligned with Israel.

Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”

Here’s what Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said the morning after the morning after about his decision to start that war by abducting two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006: “We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 … that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.”

That was the education of Hezbollah. Has Israel seen its last conflict with Hezbollah? I doubt it. But Hezbollah, which has done nothing for Hamas, will think three times next time. That is probably all Israel can achieve with a nonstate actor.

In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?

But that requires diplomacy. Israel de facto recognizes Hamas’s right to rule Gaza and to provide for the well-being and security of the people of Gaza — which was actually Hamas’s original campaign message, not rocketing Israel. And, in return, Hamas has to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel by deploying longer and longer range rockets. That’s the only deal. Let’s give it a try.


notes

Hezbollah.  真主黨

20090113 Apple Chief Temporarily Steps Aside By BRAD STONE Published: January 14, 2009

In Uncategorized on January 15, 2009 at 5:06 am

permalink http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/technology/companies/15apple.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Casting a pall over one of the world’s most closely watched companies, Steven P. Jobs, chief executive of Apple, said on Wednesday that he was taking a leave of absence because of health concerns.

Mr. Jobs wrote in a letter to Apple employees, released after the markets closed, that he had learned over the last week that his health problems were “more complex” than he originally thought. He said he planned to return to Apple at the end of June and in the meantime would hand day-to-day control of Apple over to Timothy D. Cook, its longtime chief operating officer.

Mr. Jobs, 53, wrote that curiosity about his health continued “to be a distraction not only for me and my family, but everyone else at Apple as well.” He said he would maintain the chief executive title and stay involved in major strategic decisions.

Mr. Jobs’s leave of absence is the latest twist in a story that has left the company’s shareholders, analysts and ardent fans exasperated and straining to divine any hidden meanings in the company’s vaguely worded communications.

In his letter, Mr. Jobs offered no new details about the cause of his health problems. In a letter last week that was meant to calm fears about his condition, he said a “hormone imbalance” was robbing his body of proteins and causing him to lose weight. Mr. Jobs recovered from pancreatic cancer after surgery in 2004, but has appeared unusually gaunt at recent appearances.

Two people who are familiar with Mr. Jobs’s current medical treatment said he was not suffering from a recurrence of cancer, but a condition that was preventing his body from absorbing food. Doctors have also advised him to cut down on stress, which may be making the problem worse, these people said.

An Apple spokesman, Steve Dowling, said the company had no comment beyond Mr. Jobs’s letter.

Apple shares dropped sharply in after-hours trading after the release of the letter, losing $6.03, or 7.1 percent, to $79.30. The stock fell 2.71 percent in regular trading amid a broad market slump.

Charles Wolf, an analyst at Needham & Company who follows Apple, said the stock market would probably fear the worst.

“It is reasonable to expect, given the history of Steve’s illness, that the market is probably going to assume that he is not going to return to Apple,” Mr. Wolf said.

In June, when Mr. Jobs appeared strikingly thin at a company conference for programmers, an Apple spokeswoman said he was recovering from a “common bug.” Soon afterward, Mr. Jobs acknowledged to The New York Times that he was suffering from digestive difficulties related to an operation he had as part of his cancer treatment.

Then last week, Mr. Jobs sought to calm speculation about his withdrawal from his regular keynote speech at the annual Macworld conference by acknowledging he had a “hormone imbalance.”

“The letter last week pretty much tried to reassure people that his health condition was extremely minor, but obviously it is more serious than first thought,” Ryan Jacob, founder of the Jacob Internet Fund, which owns a stake in Apple and is based in Los Angeles, said. “It’s disturbing.”

As news trickles from Apple about Mr. Jobs’s health, some shareholders and analysts have expressed frustration.

A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission, John J. Nester, declined to comment on Apple’s situation. But he said that in general, while there were no specific requirements for companies to disclose the health of their officers or directors, companies needed to assess whether health problems could have a material impact on results.

For most companies, such information is not crucial because they are not as closely associated with one person. But Apple may be an exception. Since he helped found Apple in 1976, and particularly since he returned in 1997 after a decade-long absence, Mr. Jobs has been inextricablylinked to the company and its brand.

Over the last eight years, he has, seemingly single-handedly, powered Apple back to the forefront of the technology industry. Apple has sold 180 million iPod music players, and in the last 18 months, it has sold more than 20 million units of its iPhone.

But Mr. Jobs does not run Apple alone, and now at least one of his deputies will have a moment in the sun. Mr. Cook joined Apple in 1998 from the computer maker Compaq and is responsible for the company’s manufacturing and sales operations.

“I don’t think we know enough about Tim since he has never really been in the limelight,” said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. “What we can say is Apple has a complicated business model with enormous seasonality. But it has been exceptionally well run across a number of dimensions for a number of years. I think a lot of that credit goes to Tim.”

By all accounts, Mr. Cook does not have the long-term vision or showmanship of Mr. Jobs, who appears capable of peering around corners into the future of technology, and can whip crowds into a frenzy merely by taking something new out of his pocket.

That is why analysts and shareholders saw so much portent in Mr. Jobs’s 170-word letter.

“These are times where you reflect about what Steve Jobs means for the company,” said Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray. “At the end of the day, investors need to come to grips with the reality of a post-Steve Jobs world. This is the most urgent wake-up call they have had.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.