Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
WillyT
WillyT's Journal
WillyT's Journal
November 12, 2013
HuffPo
Posted: 11/11/2013 1:57 pm EST | Updated: 11/11/2013 2:57 pm EST
?8
This satellite image provided by PAGASA shows Tropical Depression Zoraida approaching the Philippines (http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/) | PAGASA
<snip>
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.'"
<snip>
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/zoraida-philippines_n_4255529.html
:evlfrown:
Shit...
New Storm Zoraida Approaches Philippines Days After Super Typhoon Haiyan Devastates CountryHuffPo
Posted: 11/11/2013 1:57 pm EST | Updated: 11/11/2013 2:57 pm EST
?8
This satellite image provided by PAGASA shows Tropical Depression Zoraida approaching the Philippines (http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/) | PAGASA
<snip>
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.'"
<snip>
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/zoraida-philippines_n_4255529.html
:evlfrown:
November 12, 2013
I'm Amused By The Folks Here Who Think We're Doing Just Fine...
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.
November 12, 2013
From: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/11/headlines
Lara Logan... "Journalist"...
Lara Logan: "When I look at what’s happening in Libya, it’s a big song and dance about whether this was a terrorist attack or a protest. And you just want to scream, 'For God's sake, are you kidding me?’ The last time we were attacked like this was the U.S.S. Cole, which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombings, which was a prelude to 9/11. And you’re sending in FBI to investigate. I hope to God that you’re sending in your best clandestine warriors who are going to exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil, that its ambassadors will not be murdered, and the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it."
From: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/11/headlines
November 11, 2013
Ya See... Whether It's Hillary, Elizabeth, NAFTA, TPP, The Grand Bargain, Chained CPI...
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.
November 11, 2013
By withholding details of Edward Snowden documents, the paper of record shows it cares more about power than news
PATRICK L. SMITH - Salon
11/9/13
<snip>
...
...
...
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 nation’s 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 security”—the 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 democracy’s 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. Snowden’s most fundamental threat—or value, depending on where one sits—is to show us the true extent of our democracy’s subversion and the collapse of the ethos that must be in place to propel it...
...
...
...
<snip>
More: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/09/middling_logic_middling_newspaper_new_york_times_bows_to_government_again_on_nsa/
Middling Logic, Middling Newspaper: New York Times Bows To Government, Again, On NSA - Salon
Middling logic, middling newspaper: New York Times bows to government, again, on NSABy withholding details of Edward Snowden documents, the paper of record shows it cares more about power than news
PATRICK L. SMITH - Salon
11/9/13
<snip>
...
...
...
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 nation’s 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 security”—the 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 democracy’s 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. Snowden’s most fundamental threat—or value, depending on where one sits—is to show us the true extent of our democracy’s subversion and the collapse of the ethos that must be in place to propel it...
...
...
...
<snip>
More: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/09/middling_logic_middling_newspaper_new_york_times_bows_to_government_again_on_nsa/
November 11, 2013
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)
And: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070046/
I remember it being in Sacramento for about a week...
Wow JFK Buffs... Remember THIS Movie ???
Executive Action is a 1973 film about the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, written by Dalton Trumbo, Donald Freed and Mark Lane, and directed by David Miller. Miller had previously worked with Trumbo on his film Lonely Are the Brave (1962). The film opened to a storm of controversy over the depiction of the assassination: in some places in the U.S., the film ran only 1 to 2 weeks in movie theaters or got pulled from them altogether. The movie was part fiction, but it would contest other reports of the assassination, including the controversial Warren Commission report of 1964, which led to attacks against the film. The trailers for the film never ran on certain television stations, including WNBC-TV in New York City. The criticism of the film and its suggestion of a Military-industrial complex conspiracy led to the film being removed totally from the movie theaters by early December 1973 and getting no TV/Video runs until the 1980s and mid-1990s, when it got legal release and distribution for TV and video. The film was originally released on November 7, 1973, almost two weeks before the tenth anniversary of the JFK Assassination.
Donald Sutherland has been credited as having the idea for the film and for hiring Freed and Lane to write the screenplay.[2] 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.[2]
Donald Sutherland has been credited as having the idea for the film and for hiring Freed and Lane to write the screenplay.[2] 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.[2]
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)
And: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070046/
I remember it being in Sacramento for about a week...
November 11, 2013
Question: How Many Books On The JFK Assassination Have YOU Read ???
Me... not as much as I should, but...
After watching Oliver Stone's 'JFK'... I marched down to the local bookstore and bought:
And...
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.
November 11, 2013
By: Barry Lando - FDL
Sunday November 10, 2013 1:48 am
<snip>
The embarrassing flap resulting from the 60 Minutes report on Benghazi—broadcasting a sensational interview with a security officer, Dylan Davies, an apparently totally trustworthy, convincing source, who later turned out to be a con artist–makes 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 researchers–who actually sift through and report the stories that the stars present–as their own exploits–each Sunday night.
The stars who pull down the seven figure salaries. But, it’s the producers and their assistants who are, far more than the stars, also responsible for checking out the veracity of those reports.
That’s 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. It’s 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.
There’s plenty of ammunition for error...
<snip>
More: http://my.firedoglake.com/barrylando/2013/11/10/60-minutes-benghazi-fiasco-there-could-have-been-so-many-more/
From A Former Producer Of 60 Minutes - FDL
60 Minutes Benghazi Fiasco: There could have been so many more!By: Barry Lando - FDL
Sunday November 10, 2013 1:48 am
<snip>
The embarrassing flap resulting from the 60 Minutes report on Benghazi—broadcasting a sensational interview with a security officer, Dylan Davies, an apparently totally trustworthy, convincing source, who later turned out to be a con artist–makes 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 researchers–who actually sift through and report the stories that the stars present–as their own exploits–each Sunday night.
The stars who pull down the seven figure salaries. But, it’s the producers and their assistants who are, far more than the stars, also responsible for checking out the veracity of those reports.
That’s 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. It’s 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.
There’s plenty of ammunition for error...
<snip>
More: http://my.firedoglake.com/barrylando/2013/11/10/60-minutes-benghazi-fiasco-there-could-have-been-so-many-more/
November 11, 2013
For Those Of Us... Of Non-Tender Years... Name The School And The Year... You Were Integrated ???
Me...
1965 - Alice Birney Elementary School.
The school that came over was Argonaut Elementary.
Became fast friends with my new school-mates.
November 11, 2013
Centrism... Is Basically Saying... You're A Reagan Democrat...
Choose a fucking side, already.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 72,631
