MikeLigalig.com

Timeline of Text Messaging

1992 First text message sent

1995 T9 system invented, making texting quicker

2001 Text volume passes 1bn a month in the UK

2001 Text messaging is used to help organise protests that topple President Joseph Estrada in the Philippines

2002 A service called Text2TV from a Devon-based company says it will let you send texts to your TV and reply via your remote. It doesn't take off

2003 David Beckham sends a series of steamy text messages to his personal assistant Rebecca Loos; they are later published, and nearly end his marriage

2004 Tony Blair takes part in a live text chat

2005 The Eurovision song contest includes SMS votes, creating the biggest ever "televoting"

2008 Nielsen reports that the average US mobile user sends and receives more texts per month than phone calls â€" 357 v 204

2009 WhatsApp, a free text-like service that lets people send messages for free over data connections, is founded

2011 Number of texts sent at Christmas falls year-on-year in Finland, Hong Kong, Spain and the Netherlands

2012 Ofcom reports that text messages are the most-used method for daily communication with family and friends â€" 58% of UK adults do so at least once a day

2012 Rebekah Brooks reveals that David Cameron sent her texts signed "LOL" because he thought it meant "lots of love"; its usual meaning is "laughing out loud"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

it looked like she was neither here nor there:

The following senators voting in its favor: Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Estrada, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid Loren Legarda, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla, Jr., Vicente Sotto III and Manuel Villar.

Sen. Teofisto Guingona III was the lone dissenter.

-from http://technology.inquirer.net/18106/senator-backs-anti-cybercrime-law-but-draws-line-on-blocking-websites

hamboga uy.  suggestion ra gani ang gisulti.  it goes without saying uy.

ing-ana gyod nang tawhaha, gauros-uros ang confidence kunohay, kusog mopa-prontada aron ing.  press release ra na siya kutob, say n'yo.  paatubanga kuno siya ani and let him repeat the same words, kun nakalimot siya nga kadaghan na ta salbara ani nga institution:


Christine Lagarde
IMF Managing Director

oops, sorry.  this thread should have been in the board for mobile phones.

Evans said operators would adjust their pricing models even as texting declined. "They're going to start charging more money for more data. Transmitting 500 megabytes of data costs them more than transmitting 500 minutes of voice. So they'll readjust their prices."

But equally, he said, the idea of the short message between devices was here to stay. "Twitter was imagined as a text message service, that's why each tweet has to be so short. The mechanism by which it's delivered will change, but people will still find it convenient to send short messages to each other."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

In January the Finnish mobile network Sonera reported that the number of texts sent on Christmas Eve 2011 was 8.5m, down from 10.9m the previous year. In Hong Kong, Christmas messaging dropped by 14%.

But that doesn't mean messaging will go away, or that mobile operators are suddenly going to go bust. Texting has brought in more than $500bn and is still forecast to coin them $1tn over the next seven years as people use it for mobile banking in Africa and India, for charitable giving and for political donations.

mobileshop.com

By 2003 exam markers had grown concerned about text language being used in answers; a 13-year-old girl wrote an essay in text shorthand, which said in part: "My smmr hols wr CWOT. B4, we used 2go2 NY 2C my bro, his GF & thr 3 :- kids FTF. ILNY, it's a gr8 plc." (Or in longhand: "My summer holidays were a complete waste of time. Before, we used to go to New York to see my brother, his girlfriend and their three (!) kids face to face. I love New York, it's a great place.")

Now, though, it's texting rather than the English language that is under threat. The rise of smartphones and data services means the price of sending data has collapsed, and that has led to free services that can send data even when you can't get a phone signal to send a text.

The amount of data in a text message is tiny, at just 128 bytes. Charged at the same price per byte, a 650MB music CD would cost more than £60,000.

In the same year texting became key to people's lives â€" literally, for 14 British tourists stranded in the Lombok Strait off Bali who were saved after one sent a message to her boyfriend in England, and for a climber who was rescued with the help of a text from a mountain rescue team.

"Text language" emerged quickly because of the 160-character constraint of the keypad â€" and because to begin with it was time-consuming to enter words on a numerical keypad. Abbreviations such as "l8r", "gr8" and "b4" soon had befuddled adults complaining that kids had lost the ability to spell correctly.

The first text messages were free and could only be sent between people on the same network, but in 1994 Vodafone â€" then one of only two mobile networks in the UK â€" launched a share price alert system. The arrival in 1995 of the Tegic (aka T9) system, which created "predictive" texting based on the letters you had typed, meant texting could take off.


123rf.com

Commercial services soon followed, and though they started life as a free service â€" because operators hadn't figured out how to charge for them â€" it was quickly realised there was money to be made from texting as the number rose dramatically. By February 2001 the UK was sending one billion texts a month, which at the standard 10p-a-text charge meant the business was raking in about £100m a month.

123rf.com

"There's a lot of these services out there â€" I've counted 25 which have a total of 2.5bn reported accounts, though many of those will be duplicates," said Benedict Evans, telecoms analyst at Enders Analysis. "There are probably 10 which have more than 100 million users â€" and BBM isn't among them; that's only got 60 million."

The first text message was sent on 3 December 1992, when the 22-year-old British engineer Neil Papworth used his computer to wish a "Merry Christmas" to Richard Jarvis, of Vodafone, on his Orbitel 901 mobile phone. Papworth didn't get a reply because there was no way to send a text from a phone in those days. That had to wait for Nokia's first mobile phone in 1993.

Text messaging turns 20 â€" but is it past its peak?

Short message service born on 3 December 1992 has made phone firms billions, but there are signs it is losing popularity in some parts of the world

Charles Arthur, technology editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 2 December 2012
   
It has saved lives and ruined marriages, created a whole new dialect and made billions in profits for phone companies. But as the humble text message celebrates its 20th birthday, some wonder how much longer it will survive in a world of smartphones and all-you-can-eat data.

The number of SMS â€" short message service â€" messages being sent has rocketed year after year but there are signs it has peaked in a number of countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Finland, Hong Kong and Australia. A new generation of users who might once have used texts now use data services such as WhatsApp and BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) for free.

talking of PCs, well, let me go to the mouse.  kay kanunay lagi duwaan ug kapyotan sa mga cats ang akong mouse, maglayboglaybog intawon, dia natingkagol. 

nagpapalit na lang ko ni banana republic ug wireless nga mouse.  solb.  naay apan.  imbis molayboglaybog, mabusdak na hinoon diretso sa sawog karon kay wa namay wire nga maghawid.  hahay.  huwat na lang kog naay mouse nga invisible.  who knows.  it may be called mouse 8. 

tingalig PC 8 ang gikinahanglan.

Apart from this from these, the Senator affirmed HRW’s observations on the new law. “R.A. 10175 violates the right to privacy and the Constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure through allowing the warrantless real-time collection of traffic data,” she said.

http://gulfnews.com/

Defensor-Santiago said: “The MCPIF does not suffer from overbreadth and vagueness in its provisions on libel, unlike the law it tries to replace.” In her explanatory note on her proposed measure, Defensor-Santiago said: “Recognising that the growth of the internet and information and communications technologies both depend on and contribute to the growth of the economy, advances in science and technology and the development of human capital, and encourage democratic discourse and nation-building, the State reaffirms its policy of cooperation and amity with all nations, and its adoption of generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, in the pursuit of peace.”

The Cybercrime Prevention Act specifically carries a provision against committing libel which, HRW said, is already detailed in article 355 of the Philippines Revised Penal Code.

“It will now apply to acts committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future,” HRW said.

Human Rights Watch said the Cybercrime Prevention Act provides authorities with “excessive and unchecked” powers that could stifle freedom of speech.

“A new Philippine cybercrime law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information,” HRW said.

For years, the Philippines had made do without a law governing cyberspace. As a result, cybercriminals had regarded the country as a haven where they could conduct crimes such as cybersex and other similar offenses.

The proposed measure is more positively worded compared with the Anti-Cybercrime Law.

“While it is important to crack down on criminal activities on the internet, protecting constitutional rights like free expression, privacy, and due process should hold a higher place in crafting laws,” Defensor-Santiago said.

Earlier, President Benigno Aquino enacted Republic Act No 10175, or the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act, but before the edict could be enacted, civil liberties groups and cyber-activists slammed the measure.

Senator offers alternative to controversial Anti-Cybercrime Law

Proposed measure is more positively worded than the Anti-Cybercrime Law

By Gilbert P. Felongco, Correspondent
December 2, 2012
Gulf News

MANILA -  
A measure has been filed in the Senate as an alternative to the controversial Anti-Cybercrime Law, which has caused jitters among cyber-activists due to its perceived restrictive provisions.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed Senate Bill No. 3327, otherwise known as the “Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF)”.

It essentially seeks to provide parameters concerning the use of cyberspace and the internet while containing penal provisions for punishing crimes committed in cyberspace.

oh-oh.  bohol ang maigo aning super typhoon?  may god protect our province.

kinsa natoy naay ballet studies dinhi, this is your dog.

di tantong ikapanghambog kay wa ta moapil.  gwapo baya unta nga models ug adult diapers si hubag ug bugsay...

hinoon, arang-arang na lang ni kay sa world record holder sa kinatas-an ug kuko.

i hope china hasn't thought of relegating the philippines' scarborough shoal/panatag shoal as 'exotic romance'.

seriously, yes, i believe tibet is the trip of a lifetime, next to rome.  i hope to go there one day.

Quote from: Pikoy on December 01, 2012, 02:25:33 PM

hAPpy beeRday!! diaY.. lolLa naKo

nagsalig ay nga di makatubag si lolla ug "salamat, pikoy nako," kay, na, mahimo unya siyang gender bender.

kaluoy.  the dog patiently waits...

naa bitaw koy iro sa una one week wa mokaon pag-uli sa among boy cousin nga kusog makigduwa niya.  dogs really mourn.  the same with a cat of mine.  gi-board sa veterinarian for 3 days.  gitawgan ko kay klaro kunong gimingaw, way kaon-kaon, magsige lang ug luko.  sure enough, pakadungog niya sa akong tingog, diretsog tindog, meow-meow, unya nikaon.  if only i can train pets to use cellular phones...

i see it now, by the grace of the heavenly clouds, i see it now.  fortunately, i drive this:

let's look again at the countries that opposed this historic move:  Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.  four of these are surefire lackeys of the u.s.  they will do as the u.s. dictates.  (we would hate it if cambodia does the same as china dictates, to our own detriment as in the case of china's territorial claims.)  anyway:

Marshall Islands         
land area: 181 km2               
population: 68,000

Federated States of Micronesia               
land area: 702 km2            
population: 111,000

Nauru                     
land area: 21 km2                 
population: 9,378

Palau                     
land area: 459 km2               
population: 20,956

except for nauru, whose currency is australian dollar, the rest all have the u.s. dollar as currency, donated by who else.

p.s. generally, these countries even look down on filipinos (as usual, with exceptions).  blame it on our unscrupulous recruiters who make the unsuspecting believe that going to these cute countries is a step in the direction of the u.s. mainland.  warning: it is far from the truth. 

dinhi ta lahi, bai tigs, bisag hardly ta lahi in some other issues.

about time palestine is recognized as israel is recognized.  both nations have a right to exist.  nangilog lang ang usa ug lunang sa usa (i.e., ang israelis sige ug build ug settlements sa lugar sa palestinians).

the two nations' relationship had always been complicated.  but i personally go for the underdog, which in this case is palestine.  aside from landgrabs, their water source, banking system, air space, etc., are all controlled by israel.  what kind of a country can exist with that kind of occupation?  that's why their place is called 'occupied territories'.   

like the majority of countries in the world, the philippines had always voted for the existence of palestine.  it's something i take pride in.

He watched the man stand up and walk slowly, painfully, down the cold pavement of the sidewalk on the balls of his feet.

The officer went into a nearby Skecher's store and found a $100 pair of winter boots that he believed would keep the man warm through the winter.

Jose Cano, the assistant manager at the Skechers store in Times Square, said he discounted the Alamar Terence shoes from $100 to $75 as he was 'inspired'.

Mr Cano, 28, said: 'The cop came in here and said he wanted some shoes and was acting calm and normal,' he told the Times.

'When we asked about the size he explained what he wanted to do and that it was for a homeless guy.

'We guessed the size and it seems they fitted. We thought it was inspirational and have him a discount - we only get two of those a month but it was worth it.




Snug: A worker at Skechers shows off the
type of $100 boot donated to the homeless man

more at http://www.iconocast.com/11-30-2012/28/Good-Samaritan-NYPD-officer-credits-his-grandfather-with-inspiring-him-to-give-winter-boots-to.php

Good Samaritan NYPD officer credits his grandfather with inspiring him to give winter boots to barefoot homeless man

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 23:21 EST, 29 November 2012 | UPDATED: 23:55 EST, 29 November 2012
25) Share

The New York police officer, whose act of kindness in giving a pair of boots to a homeless man on a cold winter's night inspired thousands across the nation, has credited his grandfather with instilling in him the importance of generosity.

NYPD Officer Larry DePrimo was photographed on November 14 kneeling down to give the unidentified homeless man the boots and the heartfelt offering has sparked a massive response, with thousands on social media hailing the man's deed as an example of the transforming impact of a simple gift.

Now DePrimo has described in detail his exchange with the man on the street and revealed the influence of his grandfather in motivating him to step forward to engage with the man in need.


Making a difference: Officer Larry DePrimo said his grandfather taught him to do everything wholeheartedly

excerpt from http://www.iconocast.com/

Photo credit: NYPD Officer Larry DePrimo holds a pair of cufflinks that Commissioner Kelly gave him/Charles Eckert

‘I knew I had to help him’: NYPD officer on decision to buy boots for homeless man

National Post Staff | Nov 30, 2012


NYPD officer Lawrence DePrimo bought a pair of winter boots for a homeless man who had
no shoes and Jennifer Foster (left) snapped a photo of the exchange. (Today Show screengrab)

more at http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/i-knew-i-had-to-help-him-nypd-officer-on-decision-to-buy-boots-for-homeless-man/

Jennifer Foster, a tourist from Florence, Arizona who was visiting New York with her husband, happened upon the touching scene and snapped a photo with her cell phone camera. Foster, who works for the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office as a civilian communications director, forwarded the photo, along with a note, to the NYPD. It said:

    “Right when I was about to approach, one of your officers came up behind him. The officer said, ‘I have these size 12 boots for you, they are all-weather. Let’s put them on and take care of you.’ The officer squatted down on the ground and proceeded to put socks and the new boots on this man. The officer expected NOTHING in return and did not know I was watching.

    I have been in law enforcement for 17 years. I was never so impressed in my life. I did not get the officer’s name. It is important, I think, for all of us to remember the real reason we are in this line of work. The reminder this officer gave to our profession in his presentation of human kindness has not been lost on myself or any of the Arizona law enforcement officials with whom this story has been shared.”

By Wednesday, Foster’s Facebook post of the photo had been viewed more than 1.6 million times, liked more than 350,000 times and shared more than 100,000 times.

http://morallowground.com/

It was freezing out and you could see the blisters on the man’s feet,” DePrimo told the New York Times. “I had two pairs of socks and I was still cold.”

“He was the most polite gentleman I had met,” DePrimo said of the unnamed recipient of the boots, whose face “lit up” at the sight of the foot-saving gift.

“We were just kind of shocked,” store manager Jose Cano told the Times. “Most of us are New Yorkers and we just kind of pass by that kind of thing. Especially in this neighborhood.”

Photo of NYPD Cop Lawrence DePrimo Giving Boots to Homeless Man Goes Viral

November 29, 2012
by Brett Wilkins

Usually when Moral Low Ground reports on a police officer giving a homeless man boots, it’s because the cop planted them up his ass. Fortunately, that’s not the case today.

A random act of kindness by one New York cop has captured the hearts of hundreds of thousands of people who saw a photo of him giving a pair of boots to a barefoot and freezing homeless man in Times Square.

His name is Lawrence DePrimo. He’s a two-year NYPD veteran who saw a fellow citizen in need and decided to do something constructive about it. So he went into a Skechers store and bought the guy a pair of size 12 all-weather boots.


NYPD Officer Lawrence DePrimo bought a pair of boots for this
homeless man in Times Square. (Photo: Jennifer Foster)

Quote from: hubag bohol on December 01, 2012, 02:55:43 PM
Two of the wives...
http://www.yourjewishnews.com/Pages/21776.aspx

the husband.  at 71 years old, uroko onoja suffered a heart attack during the forced sex marathon, according to london tabloids.

from his stance, he strikes me as a social butterfly.

kalami na lang unta kun ing-ani ka-predictable ang earthquake.  thanks, mr weatherman.  unusually init baya ang manila.  could the coming typhoon be its explanation?

hahaha!  enjoy ko nga naahat ug kasabungera si lolla.

bitaw, ipasapasa tingali ning "powers" mag-modify kay nawala man sa ako.  panahon na tingali nimo, bai bugs.  sa naa pa na nako, bantay gyod kog tarong nga sakto akong mapindot, kay mohingok ra ko ug modify sa mga typographical errors, sama pananglit sa 'smile' nga nahimong 'smike' kay tapad ra baya ang k ug l sa keyboard.

from secret agent, islander is now a supreme court here at tb!  i'm enjoying this, mr webmaster.  (plus, there's the assurance at least that our senator is not tito sotto.)

hello, bopha aka pablo.  don't impose on our country's vaunted hospitality.  don't end up as an overstaying guest, okay?

aw, abi nakog ginamos de valencia ang iyahang expertise.  apil diay ang buwadsanga de jagna?

the real mccoy (it's alive!)

the world of the lacoste crocodile

how come doctors never warned us about what not to eat when they prescribe medicines?

Licorice And Heart Medicine

The FDA recommends avoiding licorice if you’re on digoxin, a drug for heart failure or abnormal heart rhythm because the herb-based candy can increase the risk of digoxin’s toxic effects.

Those taking angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for high blood pressure should also watch out for licorice, which can diminish their effectiveness and even lead to a build-up of potassium.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Caffeine And, Well, A Lot Of Things

Caffeine can interact with a wide range of medications. What’s more, some medications interfere with the body’s response to caffeine. Quinolones antibiotics, for example, can impede the body’s breakdown of caffeine, leading to extreme caffeine side effects like jitteriness and rapid heart beat. Estrogen, asthma medications and anti-anxiety medications can also have this effect.

What’s more, caffeine hinders blood clotting, so those who take anticoagulants may find their blood so thinned that they experience bleeding.

Stinky Cheese, Cured Meat And Antidepressants

If you’re into the gourmet tasting platters at pretty much any wine bar, beware. Both cured meats (salami, prosciutto, et al) and moldy, stinky cheeses like parmesan and blue cheese contain an amino acid called tyramine that can interfere with MAOI-based antidepressants.

That’s because tyramine, which also occurs naturally in the body and works to regulate blood sugar, can start to build up to dangerous levels within those who take MAOIs. That’s because MAOIs also inhibit an enzyme, monoamine oxidase, that helps to break down tyramine in the blood stream. The body will naturally calibrate tyramine levels, but consuming excess tyramine can lead to a dangerous spike in blood pressure. The Mayo Clinic has a full list of foods high in tyramine.

Dairy And Antibiotics

If you’re taking a course of quinolones-based antibiotics, beware of anything rich in calcium, which can interfere with the body’s ability to absorb the medication. Antibiotics made with quinolones include popular drugs like Ciprofloxacin and other treatments often used for common ailments like urinary tract infections, pneumonia and bronchitis. 

Foods that interact with medicines




Kale And Blood Thinners

Dark leafy greens like kale (but also: broccoli, chard and red leaf lettuces) are full of fiber and important vitamins and nutrients, including vitamin K -- an important antioxidant that also helps fortify bones and support brain function. The problem? It’s also a coagulant, so it promotes blood clotting. If you’re on a blood thinner, a healthful bowl of kale salad could counteract the work your medicine is doing.

ayaw mo kaguol, mga pikata mo.  bisag unsay kolor, angso gihapon na.

tblander ba kaha ang ikaduhang aswang?

Afghan Boys Are Prized, So Girls Live the Part


Mehran Rafaat, 6, left, and her twin sisters, Benafsha, center and Beheshta, near their home in Badghis Province, Afghanistan.

more at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/asia/21gender.html?pagewanted=all

Samuel, now dressed in pink

Masquerading girls as boys isn't so far-fetched, according to a 2010 New York Times article. In Afghanistan, families sometimes disguise girls because of societal and economic pressure to have boys, the Times reported, noting that the practice has endured across class boundaries and through wars and administration changes.

-excerpt from article by Ron Dicker, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28

no, no and no.  those who organize these should be jailed if not eaten by the animals themselves.

lingaw gihapon ko sa ka-creative sa gahimog lain nga istorya bahin ani.  as creative as hubag posting it here...

back to reality...


Time Magazine Picture of the Week: June 14-20, 2003
Three horses try to hide from the rain under an oversized table and chair in a pasture near Doellstaedt, eastern Germany. The huge garden furniture was installed by a local wood merchant to promote his products. (Wednesday, June 18, 2003)

this made my day, hahaha!  kompleto pa, with vase and table runner.  salute gyod ko ani.

The resolution would not confer statehood on the Palestinian Authority, which clearly failed to meet the relevant criteria.  The text would not enable the Palestinian Authority to join international treaties, organizations, or conferences as a State.  The resolution could not serve as an acceptable term of reference for peace negotiations with Israel.  “Let me tell you what his resolution does do,” he said, explaining that he believed it violated a fundamental binding commitment.  It sent a message that the international community was willing to turn a blind eye to peace agreements.  “Why continue to make painful sacrifices for peace, in exchange for pieces of paper that the other side will not honour?” he asked.



“There is only one route to Palestinian statehood.  And that route does not run through this chamber in New York,” he said, adding that that route ran through direct negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah.  “There are no shortcuts.  No quick fixes.  No instant solutions,” he said, recalling that United States President Barack Obama had said in 2010:  “Peace cannot be imposed from the outside.”  In closing, he said, “65 years ago the Palestinians could have chosen to live side by side with the Jewish State of Israel.  They could have chosen to accept the solution of two States for two peoples.  They rejected it then, and they are rejecting it again today.”  The United Nations had been founded to advance the cause of peace.  Today, the Palestinians were turning their back on peace.  “Don’t let history record that today the world body helped them along on their march of folly.”

http://www.un.org/
images from various online sources

The truth was that from 1948 until 1967, the West Bank had been ruled by Jordon, and Gaza had been ruled by Egypt.  The Arab States had not lifted a finger to create a Palestinian State.  Instead, they had sought Israel’s destruction, and had been joined by newly formed Palestinian terrorist organizations.  The truth was that to advance peace, Israel had dismantled entire communities and uprooted thousands of people from their homes in the Gaza Strip in 2005.  Rather than use that opportunity to build a peaceful future, the Palestinians had turned Gaza into an “Iranian terror base”, from which thousands of rockets had been fired into Israeli cities.  Last week, Gaza had been turned into a launching pad for rockets into Israeli cities, a haven for global terrorists and a munitions dump for Iranian weapons.



Three months ago, Israel’s Prime Minister had stood in the Assembly Hall and extended his hand in peace to President Abbas, reiterating that his goal was to create a solution of two-States for two-peoples â€" where a demilitarized Palestinian State would recognize Israel as a Jewish State.  This afternoon, “I did not hear you use the phrase ‘two States for two peoples’ and, in fact, I have never heard you say that phrase because the Palestinian leadership has never recognized that Israel is the nation-State of the Jewish people,” he said, adding:  “President Abbas, instead of revising history, it is time that you started making history by making peace with Israel.”

None of those vital interests appeared in the resolution, he said, and as such, Israel could not accept it.  The only way to achieve peace was through agreements that had been reached by the parties and not through United Nations resolutions that had completely ignored Israel’s vital security and national interests.  And because the resolution was so one-sided, it did not advance peace, but pushed it backwards.  No decision by the United Nations could break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.  The people of Israel waited for a Palestinian leader that was willing to follow in the path of President Sadat.  For as long as President Abbas preferred symbolism over reality, as long as he preferred to travel to New York for United Nations resolutions, rather than travel to Jerusalem for genuine dialogue, any hope of peace would be out of reach.



He said that President Abbas had described today’s proceedings as “historic”.  But the only thing historic about that official’s speech was how much it had ignored history.  The truth was that 65 years ago today, the United Nations had voted to partition the British Mandate into two States:  a Jewish State and an Arab State â€" two States for two peoples.  Israel had accepted that plan.  The Palestinians and Arab nations had rejected it and launched a “war of annihilation” to throw “the Jews into the sea”.

RON PROSOR ( Israel) said he represented the world’s one and only Jewish State; built in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland, with its eternal capital Jerusalem as its “beating heart”.  He declared:  “We are a nation with deep roots in the past and bright hopes for the future.  We are a nation that values idealism, but acts with pragmatism.  Israel is a nation that never hesitated to defend itself, but will always extend its hand for peace.”  The Bible stated “seek peace and pursue it”.  It had been the goal of the Israeli people and every Israeli leader since the re-established of Israel 64 years ago.  This week marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem.  In a speech just before that visit, that official had famously stood in the Egyptian Parliament and stated that he would go to the “ends of the Earth” to make peace with Israel.

Israel’s then-Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, had welcomed President Sadat to Israel and paved the way for peace.  This morning, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said of the resolution the General Assembly was about to act upon:  “Israel is prepared to live in peace with a Palestinian State, but for peace to endure, Israel’s security must be protected.  The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State and they must be prepared to end the conflict with Israel once and for all.”

However, he warned, “the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out”.  Indeed, “the rope of patience is shortening and hope is withering”.  It was time for action and time to move forward, he said, calling for support from those present in the Assembly today.  That support would send a promising message to millions of Palestinians “that justice is possible and that there is a reason to be hopeful”.  It would show that the world would not accept the continuation of the occupation.



In its endeavour to acquire non-Member State status today, Palestine reaffirmed that it would always adhere to and respect the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations and international law, uphold equality, guarantee civil liberties, uphold the rule of law, promote democracy and pluralism and uphold and protect the rights of women.  Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly had adopted resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned the land of Palestine into two States and had become “the birth certificate for Israel”.  It now had a moral and historic duty, as well as a practical one, to “salvage the chances for peace”.  In that regard, he asked the Assembly to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine” on an urgent basis.



http://www.un.org/
images from various online sources

He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State established years ago, but rather to affirm the legitimacy of the State that must now achieve its independence.  Nor was Palestine’s endeavour aimed at terminating what remains of the negotiation process â€" “which has lost its objectivity and credibility”.  Instead, it was aimed at trying to breathe new life into the negotiations.



“We will not give up, we will not tire, and our determination will not wane”, he emphasized, adding that the Palestinian people would not relinquish their inalienable rights, as defined by United Nations resolutions, including the right to defend themselves against aggression and occupation.  They would continue their popular, peaceful resistance and their “epic steadfastness”, and they would continue to build on their land.  “We will accept no less than the independence of the state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital”, on all the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, he stressed.

During the dark days of its past â€" which included one of the most dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern history â€" the Palestinian people had looked to the United Nations as a beacon of hope.  It had appealed for an end to injustice, for the achievement of peace and for the realization of its rights, “and our people still believe in this and continue to wait”.



Over the last months, the world had heard the “incessant flood” of Israeli threats to Palestine’s peaceful, political and diplomatic endeavour to acquire non-Member Observer status in the United Nations.  Some of those threats had been carried out in a “horrific and barbaric manner” in the Gaza Strip just days ago.  The conviction that Israel was above the law and that it had immunity was bolstered by the failure by some to condemn and demand the cessation of its violations and crimes, and by the position that “equates the victim and the executioner”.  “The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:  enough of aggression, settlements and occupation,” he affirmed.

MAHMOUD ABBAS, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian Authority, said that Palestine came before the Assembly at a time when it was “still tending to its wounds” from the latest Israeli aggression in the Gaza Strip, which had wiped out entire families, murdering men, women and children along with their dreams, their hopes, their futures and their longing to live an ordinary life in freedom and peace.  It came before the Assembly because it believed in peace, and because its people were in desperate need of it.

The international community now faced “the last chance to save the two-State solution,” he stressed in that regard.  Indeed, the recent Israeli aggression had confirmed, once again, the urgent and pressing need to end the Israeli occupation and for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence.

Abstain: 

Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu

Absent: 

Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Ukraine

http://www.un.org/

Against: 

Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States

Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu

Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan

Venezuela, Viet Nam

Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg

Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar

Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway

Oman

Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal

Qatar

Russian Federation

Finland, France

Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana

Honduras

Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy

Jamaica, Japan, Jordan

Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan

Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations

The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favor: 

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi

Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic

Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia

knock down man kog katug tibook hapon kutob hapit alas dose sa gabii uy.  mao nga karon lurat akong mata.

mga hingaon ug boritos ay...

gi-donate na intawon niya ang iyang merkana ug ipok uy, kamo gyod.

Polls in most Europeans cities overwhelmingly support Palestinians and take a dim view of Israel, he said. That explains why Portugal, Spain and Switzerland also sided with France.

"It's all local politics in Europe," Abrams said. "A politician in European countries is going to have to ask, 'What do I gain by supporting the Israelis on this?' The answer is you don't gain anything in political terms."

The United States views the bid as a bad idea, Abrams said, but that's an easier position to take for a country that is geographically alone and strong individually. Plus, the U.S. supports Israel and believes the only way to achieve peace and improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians is at the negotiating table, Abrams said.

http://edition.cnn.com/

What do Western countries think?

France made news this week by saying it would vote in favor of the Palestinians' request, becoming one of more prominent European countries to take that position. Portugal, Spain and Switzerland also supported the Palestinians' bid. The United States and Britain oppose it.

The French, who were once considering two scenarios, on Thursday backed the statehood bid.

"The game is to be in a better position down the road with the Palestinians," said Elliott Abrams, a Middle East expert with the Council of Foreign Relations. "France wants to be able to better influence them."

What is Israel's position on the statehood bid?

Israel has said any Palestinian attempt to elevate their status at the U.N. would amount to a unilateral action that would pre-empt final-status peace talks. This, Israel says, would violate their previous commitment to resolve outstanding issues through negotiations.

Along with the U.S., it believes U.N. action does not take the place of direct negotiations.

According to U.K. media reports, Britain has told the Palestinians they will support their bid only if they make an understanding not to pursue Israel for war crimes in the ICC and to resume peace talks.

In April, the ICC blocked a request to investigate the 2008-2009 Gaza war, saying it was up to other bodies to determine whether the Palestinians could be considered a state, which in turn would allow it to join the court.

"If Palestine gets statehood then makes a successful application to join the ICC, that could create problems for Israel because of the way it conducts military operations in the West Bank and Gaza," said Scobbie.

"If the ICC issues arrest warrants, those Israelis have limited choices of travel because states party to the ICC would be under obligation to arrest them if they landed on their territory."

Will this change anything on the ground?

Without the acknowledgment of Israel and the U.S., the U.N.'s recognition of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 boundaries is largely a symbolic move.

But to Palestinians, that recognition constitutes an important endorsement of the legitimacy of their claim to statehood, said Scobbie, potentially strengthening their hand in talks with Israel on sticking points.

In terms of substantive gains, it will assist a Palestinian attempt to join the International Criminal Court and to be able to ask the body to investigate acts committed by Israel as potential war crimes.

Why did this happen now?

The statehood bid is thought to have emerged as a strategy after the lack of progress in peace talks, which stalled in 2010 over disagreements on the issue of Israeli West Bank settlements.

The Palestinian Authority leadership said it launched its initial bid for U.N. membership in response to the lapsing of the September 2011 deadline set by U.S. President Barack Obama for the successful negotiation with Israel for a two-state solution.

It has also argued that in recent years it has made great strides toward meeting the criteria of a sovereign state, pointing to the improvements in governance, security and physical infrastructure as indicators of their readiness.

Hamas has also criticized Abbas's previous efforts to pursue Palestinian statehood at the U.N. but has reportedly said it supported Thursday's bid and that reconciliation talks with Fatah will take place after the U.N. vote.

"There are talks going on between Hamas and Fatah to realign themselves," said Scobbie. "They'd argue that separate political control over the two territories doesn't really matter that much."

The Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank, one of two Palestinian territories, but has virtually no sway in Gaza, run by Hamas, Fatah's Islamist rivals who were recently locked in conflict with Israel.

The Palestinian Authority -- which was not a party to the recent conflict with Israel -- has come to be widely viewed as sidelined by Hamas in terms of the effectiveness of its recent strategies in dealing with Israel.

Who was behind the move?

The statehood bid was driven by the Palestinian Authority, whose president, Mahmoud Abbas, is also chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

"It would then be seen as being a state in terms of international law and international relations," Iain Scobbie, the Sir Joseph Hotung Research Professor in Law at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, told CNN.

"But it wouldn't be a U.N. member, because they cannot get a membership vote through the Security Council."

The Palestinians have said they have not abandoned their application to become a full U.N. member state, but it is suspended at present.

However, unlike a bid for full membership, recognition as a non-member state only requires winning a majority vote among the 193 members of the General Assembly. There is no threat of a Security Council veto.

According to the PLO, more than 130 of the U.N.'s 193 members already recognize Palestinian statehood through bilateral relations.

Haven't the Palestinians tried this before without success?

In 2011, the Palestinians launched a bid for recognition as a full member of the U.N. But the effort stalled when it became apparent that the bid was not going to receive the requisite nine of 15 Security Council votes, and the U.S. promised to veto it if it came to a vote.

What does the new status mean?

The new recognition the Palestinians obtained is a formal upgrade from observer entity that would implicitly recognize Palestinian statehood. It places the Palestinians in the same category as the Vatican. Switzerland was also a non-member observer state for more than 50 years until 2002.

What is the Palestinians' former status at the U.N.?

The Palestinians had had "permanent observer" status at the U.N. since 1974, when the Palestine Liberation Organization was recognized as an observer, a position which is not defined in the U.N.'s charter.

The mission, which subsequently became officially referred to as "Palestine" within the U.N. system, was in 1998 granted privileges that had previously been held only by member states. These included the rights to participate in general debate at the start of the General Assembly and to co-sponsor resolutions, giving the delegation a unique status, somewhere between observer and member.

Palestinian United Nations bid explained

By Tim Hume and Ashley Fantz, CNN
November 30, 2012

(CNN) -- A year after failing to win United Nations recognition as an independent state, the Palestinian Authority achieved what is perhaps a largely symbolic though notable status change on Thursday by way of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

The body decided that their "non-member observer entity" status should instead be "non-member observer state," similar to the Vatican, giving Palestinians a certain implicit degree of statehood recognition.

The following answers a list of frequently asked questions that may help clarify this relatively unique scenario.

how dare pikoy, wa mo-greet.  hinaot unta nga nag-pm na lang siya.  o nagpadala ba sa western union.

tingnan natin.

Quote from: hubag bohol on November 30, 2012, 09:23:08 PM

http://flickrhivemind.net/

your excellency, you are looking at the colors orange and yellow.

puro sila naay bukol.  si marquez moingon nga na-slide siya sa banyo.  si pacquiao moingon nga gibunalan siya ni jinkee.