Posted: 11/11/2013 1:57 pm EST | Updated: 11/11/2013 2:57 pm EST
This satellite image provided by PAGASA shows Tropical Depression Zoraida approaching the Philippines (http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/) | PAGASA
Just days after super typhoon Haiyan leveled huge swathes of the Philippines, a new storm threatens the devastated country as it struggles in rescue and cleanup efforts.
Tropical depression Zoraida reached the Filipino island of Mindanao on Monday and is expected to accelerate northwest. The storm is projected to make landfall in Surigao del Sur Tuesday morning, the Philippines Star reported.
The newspaper added that classes were suspended in seven areas of the island.
Four days after super typhoon Haiyan made landfall, rescue workers in the Philippines continue searching for survivors of the year's strongest storm. According to some estimates, more than 10,000 people have perished in the disaster.
"I was talking to the people of Tacloban," Senior Presidential aide Rene Alemendras told the Associated Press. "They said 'we were ready for the wind. We were not ready for the water.'"
Done soup kitchens, "challenged" chilrdrens schools, non-profit cancer orgs... many more.
It really ain't that fine... unless being fine for you... is enough.
There IS GOING to be an intra-party fight for 2016.
Why... because it's an "open seat".
And all parts of all parties are gonna make their arguments known, promote them, defend them, and work for them.
A primary is a way to see where the "soul of the party" is at that point in time.
I for one... welcome the debate.
By withholding details of Edward Snowden documents, the paper of record shows it cares more about power than news
PATRICK L. SMITH - Salon
Here is the nub of it now. Edward Snowden is welcome in Germany. This takes things beyond sanctuary in Venezuela, or Cuba, or Bolivia, or any other nation cast as fringe-y among the orthodox (and against all of which one can hold pretty much nothing). But he cannot come home. Time to ask why. We have not asked this yet.
There are two parts to this question.
Most immediately, the Obama administration and the intelligence community he may or may not control have but one commitment. This is to sustain global, illegal sweeps of data at the forward edge of capability, and the edge moves outward more or less constantly. What we hear from our nations capital splits neatly in half: Yes, we must have our national conversation on the matter of surveillance. No, there is little prospect of altering the current course.
The latter point is crystal clear in any review of official utterances. The most stringent dissent one hears at senior levels in Washington is articulated by figures such as Diane Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California. Feinstein raised her voice when the Merkel revelations came out. But she supports the surveillance program; her objection was that intelligence committees in Congress were out of the loop. Terrible thing, this. Cannot have it.
At the moment, Washington and the media have packaged consideration of the surveillance question as a well-wrapped choice between liberty and securitythe most common of several such phrases. This is illusory; the frame does not hold the picture.
Snowden at home would disrupt this now-containable arrangement. This is his virtue and his curse. A national debate now intended to relieve political pressure but lead nowhere would assume consequence were Snowden present among us. His status as a criminal would fall apart. Many of us would ask to hear as much as the Germans now want to hear. The liberty-and-security charade would break its banks. In the end, security derives from liberty, of course. The alternative thought is to profess a suspicion of democracys outcome.
The second half of the question, then. It appears that many among us are not prepared to consider as we should what the country is doing in our names and what we are allowing to be done to us (and others, of course). This matter extends well beyond secrets and intrusions. Snowdens most fundamental threator value, depending on where one sitsis to show us the true extent of our democracys subversion and the collapse of the ethos that must be in place to propel it...
Donald Sutherland has been credited as having the idea for the film and for hiring Freed and Lane to write the screenplay. Sutherland planned to act in and produce Executive Action, however, he abandoned the project and took a role in another film after failing to obtain financing for the film.
I remember it being in Sacramento for about a week...
Me... not as much as I should, but...
After watching Oliver Stone's 'JFK'... I marched down to the local bookstore and bought:
Because I couldn't believe what the movie was suggesting. But since these were the two books it was based on... I figured it was my responsibility to read them.
Have since changed my mind. As have many.
And I'm truly curious to find out how may people with opinions here, have read ANY of the books... pro, or con.
By: Barry Lando - FDL
Sunday November 10, 2013 1:48 am
The embarrassing flap resulting from the 60 Minutes report on Benghazibroadcasting a sensational interview with a security officer, Dylan Davies, an apparently totally trustworthy, convincing source, who later turned out to be a con artistmakes me shudder.
I recall the number of times during my thirty years as a producer with 60 Minutes when I only narrowly missed being caught in the same kind of devastating, career-shattering trap. But first, what does it mean to be a producer at 60 Minutes? Each report on the show has produced by written on the art work introducing it, but most viewers have no clue what produced by really entails.
Indeed, the great irony of 60 Minutes is a question of truth in packaging. That is, 60 Minutes, which prides itself on ruthless truth telling, exposing cant and fraud, is in itself, something of a charade.
The fact is that, although the viewers tune in to watch the on-going exploits of Lara, Morley, Bob, etc. etc., most of the intrepid reporting, writing, and even many of the most probing questions posed in the interviews, are not the handiwork of the stars, but much more the effort of teams of producers. associate producers, and researcherswho actually sift through and report the stories that the stars presentas their own exploitseach Sunday night.
The stars who pull down the seven figure salaries. But, its the producers and their assistants who are, far more than the stars, also responsible for checking out the veracity of those reports.
Thats a daunting task. Most investigative reports on 60 Minutes (or anywhere else) are usually told in terms of black and white, the bad guys vs. the good guys. The problem is most of life is played out in shades of grey. When you start digging into any supposed scandal you usually find that the bad guy is not all that bad; the good guy not all that good, and often the supposed villain is not really a villain at all. Or, as the former City Editor of the old Chicago Herald American, Harry Romanoff, famously said, If you dig deep enough, any story collapses.
Usually producers and correspondents recognize when they arrive at that point, and drop the project. But not always. Particularly when the devastating revelation occurs after you have already committed several weeks and tens of thousands of dollars to a report. Its then that blowing the whistle is most painful, and the temptation to continue, in spite of what you have uncovered, the greatest. In addition to that is the constant pressure to be turning out sensational pieces; the rivalry, not just with other news shows, but, even more pronounced, among the producers and correspondents of 60 Minutes themselves.
Theres plenty of ammunition for error...
1965 - Alice Birney Elementary School.
The school that came over was Argonaut Elementary.
Became fast friends with my new school-mates.
Choose a fucking side, already.