text:
Cebu Journalism & Journalists
CJJ13
The Cebu working press
Media Issues
Speak truth to power; keep power in check!
May 4, 2018 12:41 pm May 4, 2018
World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2018
A Report by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR),
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP),
Philippine Press Institute (PPI), and
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)
Rodrigo R. Duterte's presidency has altered and controlled the public discourse so radically in its favor in ways rude and bold. Its tragic result: it has restricted and narrowed the celebrated freedom of the Philippine press and the people's cherished right to know.
In his first 22 months in power, Mr. Duterte has earned the dubious honor of logging 85 various cases of attacks and threats on these dual values that the Constitution upholds as inalienable rights of the citizens. The number far exceeds those recorded under four presidents before him.
Separately and together, these 85 cases–murders, death threats, slay attempts, libel, online harassment, website attacks, revoked registration or denied franchise renewal, verbal abuse, strafing, and police surveillance of journalists and media agencies from June 30, 2016 to May 1, 2018–have made the practice of journalism an even more dangerous endeavor under Duterte.
These cases project the force of presidential power dominating the political sphere, with zealous support from Duterte allies and appointees, and their sponsored misinformation army online and off. They have hurled at members of the press insults and unfair labels, and allegations of corruption and misconduct without firm basis in fact or in law.
These cases linger amid effete efforts at solution by state agencies, and in the context of the hostile and vicious discourse against the administration's critics and the critical media.
The President, Cabinet members, and the House of Representatives have imposed and proposed unprecedented restrictions on journalist access to official news events. Congress and executive agencies have denied or delayed the corporate registration or franchises required for operation of media companies.
Some journalists and media groups have also reported police surveillance of their movement and their places of work.
Attacks on press freedom diminish not just the news media. These weaken the capacity of the news media to sustain the people's unfettered exchange of ideas about public issues. Presidential intolerance of criticism is now a well-established aspect of Duterte's leadership. While he is not the only chief executive who has become sensitive to press criticism, Duterte has made sure that everyone understands that misfortunes could hound and befall his critics.
And yet Duterte has promised change; his government should wish to tell the people when and where change has come to fruition, and whether it has triggered better or worse results. By keeping citizens and voters fully informed, the media empowers the public to check whether those they elected to power are doing right or wrong. A free press sustains and strengthens democracy.
So far, that is not quite the situation under Duterte. Intimidated, restrained, and threatened with consequences, the news media have been significantly restricted to report well and fully on the war on drugs, the siege of Marawi, cases of alleged corruption in high office, questions about the wealth of the Duterte family, the public debate on Charter change and federalism, the shutdown of Boracay, and not the least significant, the incursions of China in the West Philippine Sea.
To be sure, the state of press freedom in the Philippines reflects longstanding problems that beset the practice of the press, taking into account the economic inequalities among media organizations, the poor pay for many working in the provinces, and the opportunities for corruption for those vulnerable to political manipulation.
The phrase "attacks and threats" has been used by media watch organizations to sum up the many ways in which a free press is weakened, leading to the failure of its function as well as to its own dysfunctional operations.
Attacks and Threats: 22 Months, 85 Cases
By the diligent and independent monitoring of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), from June 30, 2016 to May 1, 2018, the following cases of attacks of press freedom have been recorded under the Duterte administration:
• 9 journalists had been killed in the line of duty, with their last reports focusing separately on the drug trade, and local crime and corruption.
• 16 libel cases with mostly by state officials/agencies as complainants, including three that had been filed before June 30, 2016. The courts have dismissed two of these three and acquitted the respondent in the third case.
• 14 cases of online harassment, perpetrated mostly by Duterte supporters;
• 11 death threats, after delivering reports critical of public officials, including Duterte;
• 6 cases of slay attempts, mostly by gunmen riding in motorcycles;
• 6 cases of harassment, mostly by state officials/agencies;
• 5 cases of intimidation, mostly by local officials;
• 4 cases of website attack;
• 4 cases of physical assault, mostly by local officials;
• 3 cases of cyber libel;
• 3 instances of reporters barred from coverage, by the Office of the President;
• 2 cases of registration revoked or franchise denial;
• 1 strafing incident that occurred in Region XII; and
• 1 case of verbal assault in Metro Manila, excluding multiple instances when the President himself took verbal broadsides, cursed, and scolded journalists, and threatened certain media agencies with closure.
Nearly all media platforms had been bruised and battered. The 85 cases have affected journalists and media agencies from radio, 30 cases; online, 22 cases; print, 19 cases; television, 12 cases; and online print/radio/TV and photojournalism, 1 case each.
By gender, nearly a third or 53 of the cases involved male journalists, while 16 female journalists and 16 media organizations make up the balance.
By location, nearly half or 40 of the 85 cases occurred in the National Capital Region or Metro Manila. One case of denial of access imposed by Philippine officials occurred in Singapore, to the prejudice of foreign correspondents working in Manila.
No cases were recorded during the period in four regions: Cagayan Valley (Region II), the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, MIMAROPA (Region IV-B, Southwestern Tagalog) and Northern Mindanao (Region X).
The other regions and their case breakdown follow:
• Region XIII CARAGA, 7 cases;
• Region IV-A, CALABARZON, 5;
• Region V, Bicol Region, 5;
• Region I, Ilocos Region, 4;
• Region VIII, Eastern Visayas, 4;
• Region XI, Davao Region, 4;
• Region IX, Zamboanga Peninsula, 3;
• Region VII, Central Visayas, 4;
• Region XII SOCCSKSARGEN, 3;
• Region III, Central Luzon, 2;
• Region VI, Western Visayas, 2; and
• Cordillera Administrative Region, 1.
Journalist killings
The killing of journalists whether or not in the line of duty is not a new problem. It is linked to other institutional flaws and weaknesses in the government system, not the least of which is the failure to punish, aligned with other conditions described as "a culture of impunity." Such violence grows as it feeds on the indifference of many, including some working in the media who also believe, as some government officials have claimed, that those who are killed are corrupt. CMFR analysis has shown that corruption has figured only in a small number of cases of journalists killed.
The nine journalists killed during the first 22 months of Duterte's presidency are a perfect match to the number recorded during the same covered period under Benigno S. Aquino III.
Duterte's record, however, exceeds those in the first 22 months of Fidel V. Ramos, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and Joseph Ejercito Estrada. In the first 22 months in office of Ramos, five journalists were killed, as would be the case during Arroyo's term. Three journalists were felled during the same period in Estrada's tenure. Arroyo's total number during her nine years tops the roster, though, as it included the Ampatuan Massacre of Nov. 23, 2009 where 58 persons, including 32 journalists and media workers, were killed.
While cases have been filed against suspects in some of these killings, most have barely received police investigation. Only the hired gunmen have been arrested and tried, with the masterminds escaping arrest and prosecution.
Of the 156 cases of journalists killed in the line of duty since 1986, only 17 have been partly resolved, with the conviction only of the gunmen while the masterminds remain free. In the case of Bombo Radyo-Kalibo broadcaster Herson Hinolan who was killed on Nov. 13, 2004, the murder case filed against convicted mastermind former Mayor Alfredo Arsenio of Lezo town in Aklan province, has been downgraded to homicide.
The trial of the 188 men charged in the 2009 Ampatuan Massacre entered its eighth year in 2017. The alleged masterminds in the killing of 58 people including 32 journalists are among those charged, together with policemen and paramilitaries in the pay of the Ampatuan clan. So far, only 112 have been arraigned. Not one of the accused has been convicted.
A strongman president could go far, if he chooses, to improve the capacity of police for forensic investigation as well as strengthen the prosecutorial skills of lawyers working in the Department of Justice. Such efforts would redound to the benefit of all Filipinos, especially those without the means to hire their own lawyers, and not just the besieged workers of media.
State-sponsored anti-media propaganda
President Duterte has recklessly accused the news media of inaccuracy and bias, of deliberately spreading "fake news" supposedly to discredit his administration. These accusations are echoed mostly online by Duterte supporters, some of whom have even incited others to commit violence against journalists.
Over social media, journalists and media organizations continue to be attacked by regime-sponsored trolls. Hate speech and threats are perennial and rampant occurrences in the comment sections of reports critical of the administration.
The phenomenon can be traced to 2016 when in an obviously orchestrated campaign, some bloggers and social media pages trumpeted Mr. Duterte's candidacy for his promise of change. When he won the presidency, these same bloggers and pages continued to function as disseminators of his every word and even of false information. This they do while demonizing, along with the political opposition, his critics, dissenters, including journalists doing their mandated duty of reporting the truth.
Attacks on media organizations now include surveillance of journalists by state security forces. A journalist has reported that his news organization had been subjected to an unwanted police visit. At least two other news organizations have noted plainclothes men around the location of their offices, but these organizations decided not to make any attempt to identify who the policemen were and did not report the incident to authorities.
Also reminiscent of martial law, background checks have become a part of Philippine National Police (PNP) protocol for journalists covering the police beat. Members of the PNP Press Corps reported police visits and interrogations. Some of the questions were personal. In January this year, the PNP Chief denied that the checks were going on. But in February, media reported the PNP's admission that it was indeed doing background checks on reporters newly assigned to cover the PNP.
Controlling the media
At the center of this shrinking space for press freedom and the people's right to know stands a leader who has used his power against the press with such hostility and with utter disregard for the constitutional protection of the press from such incursions on press freedom.
Mr. Duterte seems ready to do just as he pleases–heap personal insult at his perceived enemies and proclaim damning charges without evidence to discredit and intimidate the press, from the presidential podium.
Verbal abuse by itself would make the practice of independent journalism more difficult and problematic. But Duterte has unleashed much more violence against the autonomy of the press than has been seen since the overthrow of the Marcos regime in 1986. Indeed, even without the legal instruments used during the period of Marcos-era martial law, the press has been placed effectively under government control.
All the President has had to do is show how he handles his critics and demonstrate what he is capable of doing to anyone who dares to stand up and oppose him.
It can be a missionary sister who is declared persona non grata and ordered deported with haste. It can be a sitting senator detained for imprecise charges. It can be an individual journalist asking an annoying question in a press conference, who is then shamed by his angry outburst complete with expletives. It can be media organizations whose reporters and photojournalists reporters have tracked the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children, that some have described as extra-judicial killings or EJKs.
Rodrigo R. Duterte has brandished the power of fear. His threats and attacks bear the full weight of his office, the highest in the land. No need to test constitutional limits. All he seems to want to do is to make enough journalists understand that they should be very afraid.
But, like fear, courage could be contagious. And unlike fear that disempowers, courage built on the power of truth and the unity of all in media is a force that empowers.
To stand firm and to stand united for press freedom and democracy, to speak truth to power and to keep power in check–this much the press owes the people. Whoever is president, the paramount duty of a free press in a democracy is to defend and uphold the people's right to know, in courage and in unity. –– CMFR, NUJP, PPI, PCIJ, World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2018
Cebu Journalism & Journalists is committed to help retrieve scraps of the past and record thrusts and changes of the present in Cebu media, even as it tries to inspire and embolden the shaping of the industry's future.
With the help of
The Early Cebu Press
The working press
Media Self-regulation through Media Literacy: Insights from the Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC)
Godofredo Roperos: A long love affair with writing
Frontliners: what sometimes happen behind the scene
Napoleon G. Rama: Fearless Cebuano journalist soars
Radio reaches 94% of Metro Cebu
Under-coverage of local governments: public officials' gripes, media's explanation
Cerge Remonde: the 'probinsyano' beat reporter who became Press Secretary
CJJ PUBLICATION, WEBSITE
THE 2019 DILI DIALOGUE FORUM
In his 50s, FCE (1927-2019) showed peers what grit looked like
CCPC cautions public in assessing "media plot"
Cebu Press Freedom Week
CJJ1
How the Press Stands
Journalism Tools and Trends
Newsroom Tales
Persons of Interest
Fake NewsMedia Issues
Legitimate media as source of fake news
Robredo, Sitoy on 'fake news': did Tiglao, Rappler fabricate?
Staffbox
Publisher CJJ | Editor: Atty. Pachico A. Seares | Editor: Cherry Ann T. Lim
Powered by InnoPub Media


*This Be My Valentine Letter Envelope Grahams Recipe contains Amazon links. Please note, as an affiliate marketer for them, clicking and purchasing from these links results in me making a small commission from this action.
Here's the thing, I confess I haven't written love letters in what feels like forever. However, I do write quick little notes to my girls sometimes that I guess border on love notes.
But back in my dating days, I wrote my fair share of love letters. See I learned from the best because I was privy to read my grandfather's love letters to my grandmother during WWII while he was stationed away from her in the army. My grandmother allowed me to read them after my grandfather had passed away. That was twenty years ago as we lost him Valentine's Day 1999. A day that honestly forever changed me as I have shared on my blog numerous times over the years.
But back to those love letters. To say those letters were beautifully written by someone that loved his fiance would be an understatement. I never doubted my grandparents loved each other. But reading those letters sealed it for me. After having read them, I asked my grandmother if I could have them in the event of her death.
Well, my grandmother left us back in February 2010. Her death was yet another day that found me profoundly altered. After it though, I was granted my wish and was indeed left those love letters. Not that I wouldn't give anything to have both my grandparents alive and well. But I honestly feel blessed to at least have their notes to carry on their grand love.
But what does this have to do with Valentine's Day and a Love Letter themed recipe?
Well, I got to thinking. Twenty years is a long time not to share some love letters. But I write pretty much every day whether on my blog or for clients. So, sometimes I don't have enough energy to write down an actual letter. I mean my blog probably could be considered a massive love letter to both my husband and girls. As I think I have made no secret how much I do love them on the blog over the years.
Still, my girls are all about fun treats and crafts. Something they can indeed see their own two eyes, as well as feel with their fingers, too. So, I couldn't resist as we are heading to Valentine's Day to take a bit of creative license with the Love Letters idea. But I turned it into a themed recipe treat for my gang.
Well, I started with graham crackers and fondant. Plus, use a square cookie cutter for that square effect. Put it all together for this frosted cookie envelope treat.
Then, I add some decorating touches with red edible food markers and little candy red hearts.
The effect is pure love letters delight with Be My Valentine Love Letter Envelope Grahams.
Seriously these are love letter perfect!
Want to make Be My Valentine Love Letter Envelope Grahams for all your love?
Then, keep scrolling to get the recipe tutorial now.
Gently knead the white fondant until pliable. Take a small handful at a time and gently roll out to 1/4" thick using the rolling pin. If the fondant gets sticky, use the powdered sugar on your rolling pin and surface to prevent sticking.
Once the fondant is rolled to about 1/4" use the square cookie cutter to cut the fondant into small squares.
Set the fondant squares on the baking sheet for 30-60 minutes to set.
After the fondant hardens a bit spread a small amount of frosting on the back of the square and place on top of the graham cracker.
Use the edible food marker to make 4-5 dashes on on all sides of the square and then a small triangle in the middle.
Use the toothpick to place a small amount of frosting on the back of the candy heart and then affix onto the 'envelope flap'.
Repeat with all 10 graham crackers.
There you have it the perfect way to show your love to all those who hold your heart dear with Be My Valentine Love Letter Envelope Grahams!
Do you like to write love letters?
Now, share with me all about your love letter writing.
I love hearing about your love for your grandfather, and the love between your grandparents. One for the ages!
They live on in you.
Boy, these are cute treats by the way!
I think I've mentioned before…we don't do Valentine's Day. Bev's idea, not mine. But this is very clever so I'll pass it on to friends who are a bit more traditional than we are.
Have a great weekend. Stay warm and safe!
Oh my goodness this is so cute! Love letters, both the edible and real kind are pretty dreamy. Love the story of your grandparents!
Memories of your grandfather are so so sweet, and Iove these crafts, so very much. You're amazing.
Edible food markers?! Oh my! what this world offers that I still have so much to learn.
Lovely tribute to your grandparents. I know how special you were to them….especially your grandfather. So nice to have those good memories. I too have good memories of my time with them as a child and young adult. They were very good to me and we shared good times.
I do like the valentine graham crackers and will try to make them….but no promises! Have a good week ahead.
Sending you hugs, sweet friend!
Ah, my heart is swelling reading about the love between your Grandfather and Grandmother! Those love letters are TRUE treasures, Janine!
I absolutely adore this idea. Those are PRECIOUS!!


text:
'use strict';

describe('personService', function () {

    var $q, $rootScope, personService, $httpBackend, apiBaseUrl, deferred, surnameService, treeService,
        resultData, resultError, mockLogService;

    function successHandler(data) {
        resultData = data;
    }

    function errorHandler(error) {
        resultError = error;
    }

    beforeEach(function () {

        module('onsApp');

        module(function($provide) {
            mockLogService = {
                log: jasmine.createSpy()
            };
            $provide.value('logService', mockLogService);
        });

        inject(function(_$q_, _$rootScope_, _personService_,
                        _$httpBackend_, _surnameService_, _treeService_) {
            $q = _$q_;
            $rootScope = _$rootScope_;
            personService = _personService_;
            surnameService = _surnameService_;
            $httpBackend = _$httpBackend_;
            treeService = _treeService_;
        });
        deferred = $q.defer();
        resultData = undefined;
        resultError = undefined;
    });

    describe('getPersons and surnames', function() {

        it('should return persons', function() {
            var result;
            $httpBackend.expectGET('http://localhost:8080/ons-command/rest/persons').respond({data: 'somePersons'});
            personService.getPersons().then(function(persons) {
                console.log('data:', persons);
                result = persons;
            });
            $httpBackend.flush();
            expect(result.data).toBe('somePersons');
        });

        it('should return surnames', function() {
            var result;

            $httpBackend.expectGET('http://localhost:8080/ons-command/rest/surnames').respond({data: 'someSurnames'});
            surnameService.surnames().then(function(surnames) {
                console.log('data:', surnames);
                result = surnames;
            });
            $httpBackend.flush();
            expect(result.data).toBe('someSurnames');
            expect(mockLogService.log).toHaveBeenCalled();
        });

        afterEach(function() {
            $httpBackend.verifyNoOutstandingExpectation();
            $httpBackend.verifyNoOutstandingRequest();
        })

    });

    describe('buildTree', function() {
       it('should return tree', function() {
           var result;
           var tree = 'ethertonTree';
           $httpBackend.expectGET('http://localhost:8080/ons-command/rest/trees').respond({data: tree});
           treeService.getTree(1).then(function(tree) {
               result = tree;
           });
           $httpBackend.flush();
           expect(result.data).toBe('ethertonTree');
       });
    });

//    describe('Add Person', function() {
//
//        var expectedPostData, person;
//
//        beforeEach(function () {
//            person = {firstName: 'martin', surname: 'etherton'};
//            expectedPostData = {
//                'firstName':'martin',
//                'surname':'etherton'
//            };
//        });
//
//        xit('should add person with correct POST data', function () {
//            personService.addPerson(person).
//                then(successHandler, errorHandler);
//
//            $httpBackend.expectPOST('http://localhost:8080/ons-command/rest/persons', expectedPostData).
//                respond({id : 'id'}
//            );
//            expect(resultData).toBeUndefined();
//            $httpBackend.flush();
//            expect(resultData.id).toBe('id');
//            expect(resultError).toBeUndefined();
//        });
//    });

});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


An RSS feed (or news feed) is a means by which you can stay informed about what's going on at Good Vibrations Choir without having to regularly visit the website.
Who is Good Vibrations Choir?
Good Vibrations is an a cappella community choir on the northern beaches singing an eclectic repertoire with an emphasis on fun! If you love to bop in the basement, croon in the car, shout in the shower, (maybe even keen in the kitchen?) and have a high tolerance for Dad jokes, then this is the choir for you!
Fiona Lamb is an a cappella vocalist with many years experience singing, arranging and conducting. She is super special, caring and good fun to boot!
Term 3 started on Thursday 26 July with our 'Open Night' and we had a few new members check us out! I was chatting to some choir directors in Hobart and we were talking about how if you perform often, each performance is less stressful. And of course, the opposite is true. So with that in mind, we'll hopefully sing at some local venues this term! I have a few in the pipeline already. I'd also really love it if we could start performing at a cappella festivals...watch this space!
Want to join Good Vibrations?
Want Good Vibrations Choir to sing at your next function?
Why not hire Good Vibrations Choir to entertain at your next event? We can perform at corporate functions, charity events, community Entertainment events, birthday parties, christmas parties, awards nights, weddings, engagements, anniversaries, engagements, and even funerals and memorial services.
Term 4 Begins Thursday 18th October!


text:
Rainstorm destroys property valued at 400 million cedis
Sat, 28 May 2005 Source: GNA
Tamale, May 28, GNA- A severe rainstorm has destroyed 14 houses and a Vocational Training Centre at Kandiga Junction of the Akuru-Dorboo electoral area in the Kassena-Nankana District of the Upper East Region. The storm destroyed almost everything standing in its way, ripping off roofs, crushing down houses and displacing about 200 families who are now staying with relatives and friends.
The storm destroyed property valued at about 400 million cedis. Osofo Patrick A. Appullah, Proprietor of Hans Rudat Skills Training Centre at Navrongo told the Ghana News Agency in Tamale that the badly damaged structures include the Centre and a five-bedroom hostel, which provides accommodation for the field staff of the Navrongo Health Research Centre and the Widows' Ministry, which provides vocational training skills for widows.
Osofo Appullah who built the Centre with proceeds from his farming activities, appealed for assistance in cash or in the form of building materials to rehabilitate the destroyed buildings.
Osofo Appulah who is also the National Vice Chairman of the Cotton Farmers' Association and General Secretary of the Apex Farmers Organisation of Ghana, appealed to the National Disaster Management Organisation, the Member of Parliament for Navrongo Central, the District Assembly and Non- governmental Organisations for assistance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


While in a season of quietness, contemplating past years while also looking for signposts for the future, Holy Spirit clearly spoke to my heart and said, "Faith grows by using it, a seed grows by sowing it, and love grows by being it." At the surface of this statement, I realize that most of us already know this. But when we receive an utterance from heaven, the Lord's Spirit speaking to our spirit, that word becomes ours. It's like a prophetic arrow that hit the bull's-eye, a word for this time and for this season.
The faith that God has been building in you, those seeds you've sown in different arenas of your life, and all the love the Lord has poured in and out of you is about to explode for the purposes of God in this coming year. This year is going to be a year of convergence for many in the body of Christ. Let's take a look at the three areas the Lord spoke to my heart—faith, seeds, and love—before we look at how they all converge together.
Now when all the nation had finished crossing the Jordan, the Lord spoke to Joshua, saying, "Take for yourselves twelve men from the people, one man from each tribe, and command them, saying, 'Take up for yourselves twelve stones from here out of the middle of the Jordan, from the place where the priests' feet are standing firm, and carry them over with you and lay them down in the lodging place where you will lodge tonight.'" So Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the sons of Israel, one man from each tribe; and Joshua said to them, "Cross again to the ark of the Lord your God into the middle of the Jordan, and each of you take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Israel. Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?' then you shall say to them, 'Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord; when it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off.' So these stones shall become a memorial to the sons of Israel forever" (Joshua 4:1–7).
The more stones of remembrance we accumulate over our lifetime, the more our faith becomes actual knowledge. We no longer think the Lord will do something for us; rather, we know He will do it. And knowing that God is actually working on our behalf leads us to Habakkuk 2:17, where we see that we are to fill the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord: "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." What is the knowledge of the glory of the Lord that the earth will be filled with? Well, no human can truly define glory any more than we can define God. But, we do know that glory is the fullness of God, and it is a topic that's higher than our ways and too complex for our finite minds. We also know that when God gives His glory, He gives of Himself. So glory is all that God is—His splendor, honor, praise, worthiness—and all that He has.
As our faith grows by using it, then it becomes usable knowledge. When we accumulate this knowledge by cultivating faith in our hearts, then we are filled with the Lord's glory so that we become more like Him, more Christlike, and we have more of what He has. Therefore, filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, we have provision for our vision.
Romans 12:3 tells us that each of us is given a measure of faith: "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith." As our measure of faith is stretched, it grows—our measure of faith increases. God longs to strengthen our faith, causing us to grow more and more in the use of our faith so that when the Son of Man returns He truly will find faith on the earth (Luke 18:8).
Let's be attentive, beloved, and make certain that our measure of faith is growing. I see too many people get stuck in survival mode, and their faith lies dormant. We know that the Israelites went from not enough to just enough to more than enough—that's what the Lord wants for us as well. This is because the more we are blessed, the more we can be a blessing to others. The Apostle Paul reminds us of in 2 Thessalonians, declaring that faith grows as we use it: "We ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing" (2 Thessalonians 1:3). Think about it: how will you know how much faith you have if you don't use what God has already given to you?
The second thing Holy Spirit said was that a seed grows by sowing it. He didn't say that we throw our seed about; He said that we actually have to sow it. Paul wrote, "A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6:7). That means that if a farmer plants corn, then that same farmer will reap corn; if he plants soy beans, then of course he reaps soy beans; likewise, if he plants cotton, then he'll reap cotton. Whatever we sow is what we are going to reap. Or to say it another way is that we never reap something we didn't sow. When I need clothes, I sow clothes. When I need money, I sow money. In my life I have sown dining room sets, bedroom suites, entertainment centers and even a car. To God be the glory, I have reaped them all back when the Lord knew I needed them.
So, as we travel on our journey with Jesus we learn to sow our seeds and we speak life over them. We pray and water them with the Word of God, nurturing them in our heart, being careful never to speak curses but blessings over them. Not only that, but we also expect a harvest of the seeds that we have sown.
Just as our faith grows by using it, so our seed should grow by sowing it. And, keep in mind here that the seeds we sow should be getting bigger and bigger, because we are reaping larger blessings as a result. If we sowed $1.00 ten years ago, we'd better still not be sowing the same $1.00. The Word of God commands us to be fruitful and multiple (Genesis 1:22). The smallest number that we can multiply is 2, which means if we sowed $1,000 last year, then this year we should be thrilled to sow at least $2,000. We don't add a little every season—we multiply it.
Many years ago someone significant in my life said to me, "I just don't like people. I mean, I just don't." When this individual said this to me, I knew in my heart that it was just not right. And so I thought, "I'm going to love people. That's what God would do." I relate this brief interaction to illustrate the point that we have to make the conscious choice to love someone—it doesn't always flow naturally out of who we are.
In fact, love is the bedrock of Christianity. Christ died for us because the Father was motivated by nothing other than His great love toward us. Jesus didn't call 10,000 angels to get Him down from the cross—it was because of love that Jesus became a human, dying the death we deserved so that we could have the life He deserved. It was love that held him on the cross so that we could be forgiven. Likewise, everything that we do as disciples of Christ should be motivated out of love. Especially as a prophetic people, we cannot be prophesying without love or we are nothing but a clanging cymbal or a noisy gong.
The love we carry will be consistently tested so that it can grow. Alleluia . . . I think. God doesn't want us to stay at the same love level as we walked in last year. He longs for us to grow as we continue to behold the God of love: Jesus Christ Himself.
When a man came up to Jesus to ask Him what the greatest commandment was, Jesus quoted an Old Testament Scripture, saying that a person is to love God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is the greatest commandment. But then Jesus quickly followed it up by saying that the second commandment, which is much like the first, is that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39). If you're really struggling with loving someone, then press into God and His love will flow through you. Jesus said in John 13, "Love one another, as I have loved you." We only love because He first loved us.
I think that one of the greatest ways to test our love level is to go on a mission's trip. When you have ten women staying together in one room, then you'll know what I mean when I say that we have to consciously choose to love others. This can also happen in our day-to-day lives—at the marketplace, the grocery store, or even in the church parking lot. Each time we bump into others, there is an opportunity for our love to be tested. Consequently, our love can't really grow if we're isolated. How exciting it is to know that each time we pass a love test, our level of love is bumped up. Let's make it our prayer this year to ask God for a fresh baptism of love—ask Him to fill you to overflowing with His abundant and steadfast love.
Convergence is when your dreams, gifts, talents, skills, and Christlike character all come together at a point in time, and they come into alignment so your destiny can explode.
A while back I ordered a stainless steel pizza rack for a large luncheon I was hosting. When the pizza rack arrived, I took it out of the box and for a moment I couldn't find the opening where eleven pizza pans could slide onto the shelves. It was then that I realized the company I ordered from had inadvertently sent two pizza racks, which were locked together. As I separated the two racks, Holy Spirit spoke to me about seasons of convergence for Believers.
Of course we need to first build up and develop our dreams and our destiny otherwise there wouldn't be anything to converge. But when we have built and prayed and used our faith, sown our seeds and loved as Christ loves, there is an amazing convergence that takes place where we see an explosion of Kingdom productivity. We can't actually make a convergence happen but there are a number of ways we can cooperate with what Holy Spirit is doing in our lives.
For one thing, we can stay focused and avoid distractions, learning to stay in the rhythm or the flow of heaven and not strive. We need to be faithful, sowing seeds, loving God's people, and always listening for the still, small voice of God. And of course we trust God, remaining grateful to cultivate an atmosphere where convergence takes place.
I believe that convergence is always God's intention from the time we're born. We see it in the Old Testament with Joseph, who had favor in prison and everywhere else he went, and he ended up ruling a nation. We see it manifested in the life of Daniel, as he interpreted the king's dream with his spiritual gift—his gifts converged with his environment and he had provision for the vision. Sadly, however, I think many, many people never get to the point of convergence in their lives because they aren't aware of the Kingdom process.


text:
Episode Summary: Data Management Systems and Artificial Intelligence with Arun Kumar
By Mert Saner
Article Monday, September 13 2021
Arun Kumar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering and the Halicioglu Data Science Institute at the University of California, San Diego. His primary research interests are in data management and systems for machine learning/artificial intelligence-based data analytics.
His Advanced Data Analytics Lab (ADALab) focuses on basically improving machine learning and artificial intelligence-based data analytics from a holistic standpoint of concerns such as scalability, usability, ease of deployment, ease of development. He calls all of this democratization of machine learning-based data analytics. He is building software systems, abstractions, tools, devising new algorithms, and also studying the theory behind empiricism. The experimental analysis behind this whole process of making machine learning-based analytics easier, and faster, and cheaper for people.
The lifecycle of advanced Data Analytics consists of three phases which are sourcing, building and deploying. The sourcing stage consists of converting raw data in data lakes and data warehouses into ML-ready data. Data preparation is basically reformatting the data. In the second step, the build stage is converting that into a prediction pipeline. MLflow is one of the tools that people use for standardized data. The building stage is where a lot of machine learning and data mining classes focus their efforts on things like how to prepare features. For data scientists, the first thing they need to worry about is defining the application goal. Finding out how data is going to achieve something for the application is the first step towards finding the application goal. The objectives themselves are a big bottleneck, for a lot of users of machine learning.
Data building involves applying the knowledge to the algorithms and the theory of machine learning and connecting them with the application goals that users have. Fairness, inference latency, training cost, interpretability and explainability of data are things that matter significantly. Finally, the deploying step is integrating a prediction pipeline with an application and monitor and oversee the life cycle as the data and application evolve.
Over the last couple of decades, the complexity of the model deployment landscape has exploded due to cloud computing, the internet of things (IoT), heterogeneity of hardware and models. All of these things have caused an explosion of complexity. In the web companies, app companies and the IoT world, deployment is very heterogeneous, and the machine learning environment is no exception. Usage of MLflow, TensorFlow Extended (TFX) and TensorFlow Serving makes it easier for people who do model building and data sourcing. Hence, users can build prediction pipelines.
In these three stages, the amount of scientific inquiry scientists have is still not at the level that they want it to be. A big portion of the computing research in his lab is fundamentally answering questions like, What are practitioners doing accurate enough? Can we reduce the cost and improve productivity? Arun Kumar says he has to interact with practitioners to understand where the bottlenecks are.
One of the projects in Arun's Data Analytics lab focuses on Project Cerebro. In the Cerebro project, they propose a new system for Artificial neural network (ANN) model selection that raises model selection throughput without raising resource costs. Their target setting is small clusters (10s of nodes), which covers a vast majority (almost 90%) of parallel ML workloads in practice. We have four key concerns: scalability, statistical convergence efficiency, reproducibility, and system generality. To satisfy all these, they develop a novel parallel execution strategy.
There are many tradeoffs that are inherent in a real-world application of ML. For instance, correct model selection is a key bottleneck in raising the accuracy of the data. The Cerebro project aimed at making the process of model selection easier. Arun and his coworkers want to make a sort of high-throughput exploration process so that they will reduce resource costs and reduce runtimes. Therefore, people will be more willing to do more of the sort of exploration and reach better accuracy and better metrics. And that was what they observed in the Cerebro project. He says that is what motivated them to build out the Cerebro system. The Cerebro system was designed in a way that scientists planned to use the tools that they are comfortable with. So they don't have to change their TensorFlow, PyTorch or Kerris implementation.
The Data stored on data lakes, data warehouses and database systems. Colleagues of Arun Kumar at VMware would like to do machine learning tasks like sentiment mining and named entity recognition. Hence, they could just specify the off-the-shelf transformer architectures, doing hyperparameters for fine-tuning on the data sets, and then give that to the Cerebro API's, and then they could build it at a higher throughput. This is an example of an application that uses Cerebro as a tool to improve model selection.
Arun Kumar says, "Any prediction task where you would need to build a model and need to tune hyperparameters, need to tune the architecture, Cerebro is useful there. It's really a very general system for all these sorts of model selection tasks, where you're building a neural computational graph."
Neural computational graph frameworks that they currently support are TensorFlow and PyTorch. They are the most commonly used frameworks for specifying neural computation graphs, and executing them and training them with Stochastic gradient descent (SGD). In the future, it can be extended to other frameworks as well.
Cerebro project born out of academic needs. Big corporate companies like Google, Amazon or Facebook could try to solve a problem with 100 GPUs. However, this is not the case in academia. In academia, people need to share their total computation power properly so that everyone on the campus could benefit from it. The technique of model parallelism in Cerebro mitigates the cons of this kind of shared usage. Arun and his team invented Cerebro because they find it necessary for academicians like themselves and also for a lot of domain scientists, academics, enterprises and tech companies.
Regarding excessive usage of resources in the big technology corporations, Arun Kumar says, "They think they could just throw machines at everything and get away with it. And in turn, it comes back to bite people. Like if you're in the cloud, and you're just throwing machines at it, who is going to benefit from it? It's the cloud vendors because they can pocket more money from the enterprises."
The importance of resource efficiency is one of the reasons why the Cerebro project took this course. VMware is also a big tech company. But their philosophy is very different from all these other companies. Arun believes big tech companies and cloud providers will eventually come around to this worldview because if they're going to sell products to enterprises, enterprises are going to demand bills that are lower than what they have today.
For the future of data science, Arun thinks, problems are getting wilder and less well-defined. Hence, there will be a lot of research attention that is going to be needed. Scientists need a lot more work on data preparation and data sourcing part of the lifecycle from the scientific and research standpoint. There is also a need for more industry-academia partnerships on the deployment side.
This summary is based on an interview with Arun Kumar, Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering and the Halicioglu Data Science Institute at the University of California, San Diego. To listen to the full interview, click here.
Mert Saner
Mert is a Scientific Computing Master of Science Student at the Technical University of Berlin. He's interested in data science and quantum computing.


South America Capitals Map Quiz click here. Europe Map Quiz click here. North America Map Quiz click here. Africa Map Quiz click here.
South America doesn't have an overwhelming number of countries, so there is no excuse for not knowing all the countries on the South American Map. Learn the South American and Central American countries with this South America Map game.


text:
What were JFK's two greatest speeches?
June 12, 2017jeffmorleyAssassination, Video50 comments
President Kennedy gave two speeches, on June 10 and June 11, 1963 that changed the course of American history, says historian Andrew Cohen, author of "Two Days in June." Cohen explained what JFK wrought in a recent interview with CBC TV host Peter Mansbridge.
Two excellent speeches indeed. I was glad to see the appearance by Ted Sorensen, as he was the speechwriter. I agree with Cohen that JFK was coming into his own as POTUS by that time, and also that JFK would have avoided sending ground soldiers into Vietnam. There were many things that "might have been" had JFK not been killed, and those "what might have been"s would have kept this country great and confident, something that I don't think we've seen since 11-22-63.
I certainly agree that there was a respect for the office and the president himself that has faded since the passing of JFK. Today the office of president seems to be a running joke.
Several items I think should be noted for historical accuracy;
1. JFK had "ground troops" in Vietnam and some were killed. Calling them "advisers" doesn't make them any less dead. JFK did not send "combat UNITS" to Vietnam.
2. Cohen states that there was no bombing policy like Rolling Thunder under JFK. That is correct but fails to mention the bombing policy going on in SVN. There JFK did in fact have a bombing policy and the fight between the "bombers" and the "hearts and minds" men on the ground is well documented.
3. Cohen flatly states that the civil rights bill would have been passed under JFK had he lived. This is pure speculation on his part.
4. And of course JFK would have saved us from Vietnam. Maybe, maybe not. More speculation.
And of course speculating that JFK would have invaded Vietnam is Not speculation?
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/virtual_jfk_2.html
"1. JFK had "ground troops" in Vietnam and some were killed. Calling them "advisers" doesn't make them any less dead."
Obama has "ground troops" in Iraq and Putin has "ground troops" in Ukraine but neither has invaded – contrary to chicken little NATO. American advisers have died in plenty of places that were not invaded: http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/#toc
Bc. I have always said anyone who tells you what Jack would have and would not have done is full of it. I don't see where I said JFK would have "invaded" Vietnam. Can you show me?
Bc. The reference you gave me is junk. Let me show you a bit of your references dishonesty.
1. "Frederick Logevall is a Professor of History at Cornell who in 1999 wrote an extraordinary volume called Choosing War. This was an exhaustive study of Johnson's decision making from Kennedy's death until the great escalations of 1965 and beyond."
Bc. What DiEugenio leaves out is that the book is also an exhaustive study of JFK decision making on Vietnam from summer of 1963 until his death. Not flattering to the "Jack would have saved us from Vietnam" crowd, JFK resisted all request by the communist to negotiate on Vietnam during this time. Part of the reason Diem was disposed was the rumors Nhu was talking to the communist. Page numbers on request.
2. "It was precipitated by the influence of Newman's compelling and fully documented 1992 book, JFK and Vietnam". (Newman is mentioned at several points in the discussion.)
It is not "fully documented". In fact there is much speculation and little scholarship in the book. Here are the main points of Newman's book page 322.
"Kennedy decided to use Taylor's and Harkin' reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning." Italics by Newman.
"Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction…."
"Withdraw come what may". How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn't supporting evidence for these bloopers. There is none and none is listed in the book. No footnote, no Kenny O'Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk. DiEugenio thinks highly of Newman's "JFK and Vietnam". If you wish to read the true history you'll have to go somewhere else.
And then DiEugenio gets down to Fletcher Prouty and that is as far as I am going.
gerry campeau says:
Peter Mansbridge – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansbridge
Peter Mansbridge, OC (born July 6, 1948), is an English-Canadian broadcaster and news anchor. He is chief correspondent for CBC News and anchor of The …
Nationality: English, Canadian
Children: two daughters, one son
Willy Whitten says:
Yes, listen for yourselves. Kennedy was sincere in his quest for peace.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx
And to get back to the purpose of this site, JFKfacts; It was this quest for peace that led to his assassination by those who had no vested interest in peace, those arrogant warmongers who were too short sighted to see that their vested interests were deeper than their bloated hubris could grasp.
\\][//
I certainly agree to that, Willy. The"warmongers" knew that they'd have a better chance of success with LBJ as POTUS.
This very good piece sets out the fact that both JFK and Khrushchev were removed from office within three months of one another. One is forced to consider the possibility that Cold War hardliners in each country were behind the removals.
It was in the interest of the military-industrial-complex of both the US and USSR (which were totally entangled – See Sutton) to get rid of both of their peace seeking leaders.
Clarification to the above post- Wikipedia says Brezhnev began organizing Khrushchev's ouster in March 1964 and he was removed in October 1964.
Fearfaxer says:
As I recall, the last straw was a trip he made to Egypt in the summer of that year, attempting to get Nasser to enter into an alliance that would have drawn Egypt as close to the USSR as Cuba and the Warsaw Pact nations were. Nasser turned him down.
Watching President Kennedy's speech at American University was what sparked my interest in his presidency — and ultimately his death — in the first place. It is probably the single finest speech any president gave in the 20th century, and seems as relevant today as it was in 1963.
Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:
I have to place American University as top speech. I'm not sure if I would place it as high as #2, but if anyone has not heard it, the JFK speech at Yale– the one in which he quips "I have the best of both worlds, a Harvard Education and a Yale Degree"– is fascinating on many different levels. Everyone should hear it at least twice. New facets wait to glisten.
ed connor says:
Andrew Cohen attributes the assassination to a climate of hate in Dallas, due to JFK's civil rights speech and his initiative toward peace with the soviets following his American University speech of June, 1963.
He also sides with the LN view.
LHO, assuming the LN view, would have agreed with the rapprochement with the USSR, as well as the civil rights initiative. Everything Kennedy did in June was in concert with LHO's supposed communist goals.
But where was LHO that summer? Not in the Dallas "hate climate," but at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans, with the anti-Castro Cubans and "Col. Roselli" and the mob.
Mr. Cohen reminds me of Dawn Gilpin Faust, president of Harvard, who made her mark by writing that the Civil War produced great grief in the land. Big whoop. The South didn't like civil rights in 1963. Big whoop.
This author adds nothing to the discussion.
That is actually Peter Mansbridge interviewing Cohen.
Alan Dale says:
JFK: Imperialism – The Enemy of Freedom July 2, 1957
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/congress/jfk020757_imperialism.html
Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort, September 12, 1962
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/Rice-University_19620912.aspx
He was quite a guy.
Thank you Alan Dale, for turning me on to the; JFK: Imperialism – The Enemy of Freedom July 2, 1957.
It is a rather astonishing thing, the lucid wisdom of Kennedy as a young Senator, especially in those times of single and narrow minded anticommunism. For an American statesman to admit to western imperialism in that era is remarkable. JFK's trajectory towards reasonable negotiation and diplomacy in favor of belligerence was so rare then … as it is yet today.
You're welcome, Willy.
You may be interested in this article written by Jim DiEugenio, JFK's Embrace of Third World Nationalists:
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/25/jfks-embrace-of-third-world-nationalists/
My conversation with Jim on this topic may be heard here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
Bc. I find it hard to accept JFK as the darling of the third world since I know what the man did in the third world. He tried to overthrow two third world governments. One attempt failed so he continued attempting an overthrow with Operation Mongoose and assassination attempts on Castro. The tragic result of his overthrowing Ngo Dinh Diem is well known. I also note several problems with the scholarship of Mr. DiEugenio's article.
"In April 1962, Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith volunteered to get a message to North Vietnam through Indian diplomats about a possible truce in return for a phased withdrawal of American forces. Almost everyone at senior levels of the Kennedy administration opposed Galbraith's venture. The one man who liked the idea was Kennedy, who instructed Assistant Secretary of State Averell Harriman to follow up on the proposal."
Bc. That is strange since one of the reasons JFK approved the overthrow of Diem was because of rumors that Nhu was talking to the communist. Did JFK think it acceptable for the U.S. to chat with the communist but it wasn't acceptable for Nhu to do likewise?
Bc. Beginning in the summer of 1963 until near the end of 1964 the communist made an offer to negotiate in hopes of preventing the Americans from escalating the war. They didn't offer much, just a two year face saving period for the Americans before they rolled over SVN. Kennedy and Johnson both not only ran like hell from it they did all they could to prevent any talks from happening. See "Choosing War", Fredrik Logevall. So did JFK change his mind or what?
"At a key meeting in Hawaii in May 1963, McNamara was presented with an update on the planning for the withdrawal. He deemed the plans too slow and asked them to be speeded up. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 366-367) But the point was that the plan was in place. Kennedy activated it in October 1963 by signing National Security Action Memorandum 263, stating that the withdrawal would begin in December of 1963 and be completed in 1965."
Bc. This is not true. NSAM 263 does not say that. The point isn't debatable since NSAM 263 has been in print since 1963. It won't ever be changed although many try.
"In other words, Kennedy's plan for a military withdrawal wasn't just some vague notion or, as New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson recently wrote, a belief among his admirers "rooted as much in the romance of 'what might have been' as in the documented record."
Bc. I believe the statement of Abramson is bang on. I believe it is this "what might have been' oath of the Camelot crowd that makes so many people, even some of some note, dishonestly claim what NSAM 263 says.
H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:
Well stated, Mr. Clark. Very well stated. Sad that one must worship at the Kennedy altar in order to be taken seriously by some folks… I value your facts, Bill.
Excellent article by John Prados. I have several of his books but don't have the one concerning the tapes. I'll have to get that one.
I don't know of any hard evidence that JFK approved or even knew of the assassination attempts on Castro either. As Richard Helms said, "you won't find it on paper but….". In fact if you could find it on paper the CIA would be guilty of failing the presidential use of denial plausibility.
But as deeply involved as Bobby was in Cuban affairs I find it hard to believe that he didn't know and if Bobby knew I find it hard to believe JFK didn't know. Just my opinion.
David Regan says:
10/2/1963 McNamara explains in his book that at a ""very important" National Security Council meeting on Oct. 2, 1963, President Kennedy made three decisions: (1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965; (2) to withdraw 1,000 U.S. troops by the end of 1963 to begin the process; and (3) to make a public announcement, in order to put this decision ""in concrete." After the Oct. 2 meeting, Kennedy asked McNamara to issue these recommendations as a ""report" from himself as secretary of defense along with Gen. Maxwell Taylor. McNamara made the announcement personally from the steps of the White House. As he headed off to face the reporters, JFK yelled after him, ""And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too."
10/4/1963 Armed Forces' Pacific Stars and Stripes, "White House Report: U.S. Troops Seen Out of Viet[nam] by '65"
10/11/1963 President Kennedy issues National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official government policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of "1 ,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963″ and " by the end of 1965 . . . the bulk of U.S. personnel. "
11/14/1963 JFK said in a press conference: "We do have a new situation there [in Vietnam], and a new government, we hope, an increased effort in the war" and his goal was "to bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country, and permit democratic forces within the country to operate – which they can, of course, much more freely when the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the north, is ended." He talked about the upcoming Honolulu conference: "How we can bring Americans out of there. That is our object, to bring Americans home." He said that the exact number of men to be brought home would be determined at the conference, and he added, "I don't want the United States to have to put troops there."
10/2/1963 McNamara explains in his book that at a ""very important" National Security Council meeting on Oct. 2, 1963, President Kennedy made three decisions: (1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965; (2) to withdraw 1,000 U.S. troops by the end of 1963 to begin the process; and (3) to make a public announcement, in order to put this decision ""in concrete."
Bc. This "to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965" is troubling. If JFK made the decision why isn't it found in NSAM 263 or heard in the tapes of that meeting?
Bc. McNamara is a self-serving liar. David Halberstam called "In Retrospect" shockingly dishonest. It is. I don't believe anyone here will argue with me that McNamara willfully lied to Congress about the Tonkin Gulf incident. If a man will lie to you once he will lie to you again. That would look great for McNamara if we thought he had convinced JFK to pull out of Vietnam by 1965. The man should have been shot for his conduct of our efforts in Vietnam.
Bc. David, I need a little help here please. I lost my hardbound copy of "In Retrospect" in Hurricane Ike so now I have a First Vintage Books Edition paperback. On page 80 (Chapter 3) I find the part where JFK accepts the 1,000 man withdrawal and the part about putting it in concrete. I do not find the part about JFK approving "(1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965;" Could you give me a page number or other help here? Thanks in advance.
10/4/1963 Armed Forces' Pacific Stars and Stripes, "White House Report: U.S. Troops Seen Out of Viet[nam] by '65″
Bc. You won't win many debates using Stars and Stripes. It was a joke. They did list the dead each week and we'd look at it to see if we lost any friends that week. All you can see here is the headlines you quote. I once tried to run the article down to see what it actually said but ran into a wall and stopped. Do you have anything besides the headlines? If so I'd be interested in seeing it.
Bc. No, NSAM 263 does not say that. It says, from memory, that we "should be able" to withdraw the bulk of our troops then. It doesn't say we WILL or we ARE going to withdraw the bulk in 1965, come what may (As Newman suggest).
"McNamara explains in his book that at a ""very important" National Security Council meeting on Oct. 2, 1963, President Kennedy made three decisions: (1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965; (2) to withdraw 1,000 U.S. troops by the end of 1963 to begin the process; and (3) to make a public announcement, in order to put this decision ""in concrete.""
Here are the minutes of the NSC meeting. Please point out where it says that.
170. Record of Action No. 2472, Taken at the 519th Meeting of the National Security Council1
Washington, October 2, 1963.
McNAMARA-TAYLOR REPORT ON VIETNAM2
a. Endorsed the basic presentation on Vietnam made by Secretary McNamara and General Taylor.
Noted the President's approval of the following statement of U.S. policy which was later released to the press:3
"1. The security of South Viet Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet Nam to deny this country to Communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet Nam.
"2. The military program in South Viet Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
"3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet Nam are capable of suppressing it.
"Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet Nam can be withdrawn.
"4. The political situation in South Viet Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
"5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society."
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d170
The Escalation at Kennedy's Death
Four days after Kennedy was killed, NSAM 273 incorporated the new president's directives into policy. It made clear that the objectives of Johnson's policy remained the same as Kennedy's: "to assist the people and government of South Vietnam to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy" through training support and without the application of overt U.S. military force. But Johnson had also approved intensified planning for covert action against North Vietnam by CIA-supported South Vietnamese forces.
With this, McNamara confirms one of Newman's central claims: NSAM 273 changed policy. Yes, the "central objectives" remained the same: a Vietnamese war with no "overt U.S. military force." But covert force is still "U.S. military force." And that was introduced or at least first approved, as McNamara writes, by NSAM 273 within four days of Kennedy's assassination.Moreover, McNamara effectively supports Newman on the meaning of NSAM 273's seventh paragraph, which was inserted in the draft (as we have seen) sometime between November 21 and 26—after the Honolulu meeting had adjourned and probably after Kennedy died.
John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision. The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified. These decisions were taken, and even placed, in an oblique and carefully limited way, before the public."~James K. Galbraith
Read whole article at:
http://new.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html
As per NSAM 263, President Kennedy had approved Section I B (1-3) of the McNamara-Taylor report:
B. Recommendations.
We recommend that:
1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965.
2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d167
On October 2, 1963 it was announced some 1,000 men would be withdrawn from Vietnam by year end
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-061-005.aspx
Willy Whitten
ww. But Johnson had also approved intensified planning for covert action against North Vietnam by CIA-supported South Vietnamese forces.
Bc. Willie, be advised that the CIA ran the operations under JFK. MACV-SOG (military) ran the operations under LBJ.
ww. With this, McNamara confirms one of Newman's central claims: NSAM 273 changed policy. Yes, the "central objectives" remained the same: a Vietnamese war with no "overt U.S. military force." But covert force is still "U.S. military force." And that was introduced or at least first approved, as McNamara writes, by NSAM 273 within four days of Kennedy's assassination. Moreover, McNamara effectively supports Newman on the meaning of NSAM 273's seventh paragraph, which was inserted in the draft (as we have seen) sometime between November 21 and 26—after the Honolulu meeting had adjourned and probably after Kennedy died.
Bc. If McNamara actually said that he was lying again. It doesn't take much research to prove it. Try a little history of Operation 34-A, Willy.
These PTFs were manned with South Vietnamese crews and conducted a series of coastal attacks against targets in North Vietnam as part of Operation 34A. Originally begun by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1961, 34A was a highly-classified program of covert operations against North Vietnam. After several early failures, it was transferred to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group in 1964, at which time its focus shifted to maritime operations. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vietnamwar/p/gulfoftonkin.htm
1. The operations began in 1961 and ran by the CIA! We both know who was president at that time. So LBJ didn't create this operation.
2. Due to these failures it was transferred to MACV-SOG not until early 1964.
3. It remained a failure under LBJ. And this is what you boys want to call a "reversal of Jack's policy before he was cold in his grave". Pure BS.
4. I like your statement that McNamara supports Newman! They both need all the support they can get.
bc. Pure speculation.
That if fine David but I'd like to clear up this quote by McNamara; "(1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965;".
If you found it in McNamara's book I'd appreciate a page number. If it is a cut and paste from one of these books written by those that misquote NSAM 263 I'd appreciate knowing who wrote it.
Bill: While I doubt anyone would argue that McNamara frequently lied while in power, I'm not sure I can understand why he would lie about Kennedy wishing to withdraw from Vietnam. It doesn't make him look better; quite the opposite. If McNamara believed that Kennedy was planning to withdraw, it raises the question why he (McNamara) pushed for such a hawkish policy during the Johnson administration, when Johnson himself was not inclined to pursue such a policy.
According to Gareth Porter, McNamara actually lied to Johnson about the Tonkin Gulf incident: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2014/08/05/robert-s-mcnamara-and-the-real-tonkin-gulf-deception/
I don't think that Noam Chomsky is a reliable writer on Vietnam, or anything related to Kennedy. For whatever reason, Chomsky despises Kennedy so much that he is unable to write objectively about him. It is difficult to take anyone seriously who argues, as Chomsky does, that anyone who admires Kennedy is a member of a "millenarian movement" comparable to "the cargo cults of South Sea islanders," or that there was no significant difference between Kennedy's politics and those of Ross Perot.
Gentlemen, it is my opinion that Roger Hilsman was bang on in his open letter to the New York Times of January 20, 1992.
"The historical record, in sum, is clear: President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war — that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam. This does not prove he would have withdrawn completely, including the 16,500 advisers. However, the record is clear that he had laid the groundwork for doing so. Shortly before his death, he took the first step by ordering the first 1,000 advisers home."
How Kennedy Viewed the Vietnam Conflict http://nyti.ms/1yWDz2f
Perhaps, JD, it is because McNamara knew that JFK was not withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his death. Add to that perhaps McNamara, with all his arrogance and ego, simply could not accept the fact that he couldn't devise a statistical model to win the war so he kept trying under LBJ.
These are just my guesses for sure. Otherwise I don't know.
To be clear, NSAM 263, approved by JFK, is most certainly a withdrawal plan. But it wasn't a cut and run order. It was based on the performance of ARVN and for ARVN to be trained to a level to handle the situation. I honestly do not believe JFK was prepared to abandon SVN at the time of his death. He might have been glad to abandon them in 1965 but we'll never know.
I fear I have to apologize for the Chomsky reply. I think he is an over educated fool and jackass. But I've been bombarded by comments that quote John Newman's "JFK and Vietnam", a junk book. So I decided to reply in ridiculous kind and could think of no better way than Chomsky. Chomsky and Newman both being full of it.
lysias says:
Something else that must have happened, at latest immediately after JFK was assassinated, was an acceleration of the Israeli nuclear weapons program. The reactor at Dimona went critical on Dec. 24, 1963.
In terms of the Diem coup, the following provides interesting insight: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB302/
I know of no information to show that JFK approved Castro's assassination. His actions towards Cuba after the Missile Crisis and Castro's own statements about Kennedy seem to contradict this.
JohnR says:
For Bill Clark: With all due respect, how does Mr. Regan's 7:40 posting affect your argument?
JohnR
Have you seen my reply of 1:51am this morning? David does good work finding the documents and I've been reading the same documents for decades now. So this was mostly old news and the now sadly common misquotes of NSAM 263.
The one biggie is the statement by McNamara that JFK had made the decision, "(1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965;".
It is one thing when these pseudo historians and self acclaimed researchers go around misquoting (I'm being kind here) NSAM 263. It would be something else for McNamara, liar that he is, to make this claim.
I can't find McNamara's statement which certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm hoping David will provide me some help on this matter. Then I'll know how David's message affects my argument.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."~John F. Kennedy
I can't find McNamara's statement which certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm hoping David will provide me some help on this matter. Then I'll know how David's message affects my argument."~Bill Clarke
It is right here Bill, read the whole thing:
http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.htm
Bill, here are some tidbits I am curious to get your thoughts on.
May 8, 1962: Following President Kennedy's instructions, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara orders General Paul Harkins at a Saigon conference "to devise a plan for turning full responsibility (for the war in Vietnam) over to South Vietnam and reducing the size of our military command, and to submit this plan at the next conference."
An early supporter of Ngo Dinh Diem, Mike Mansfield had a change of heart on the Vietnam issue after a visit to Vietnam in 1962. He reported to President Kennedy on December 2, 1962, that US money given to Diem's government was being squandered and that the US should avoid further involvement in Vietnam. He was thus the first American official to comment adversely on the war's progress.
Report by the Senate Majority Leader – December 18, 1962 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v02/d330
Kennedy's Planned Vietnam Pullout
http://www.proudprimate.com/resources/jfk_124-7.htm
I won't bore you by rehashing the story of the spring 1963 Vietnam discussion between JFK and Mansfield with O'Donnell present.
Roger Hilsman has also stated JFK would never had committed combat units and had ignored requests to do so by military advisors (JCS).
McNamara offers his argument that President Kennedy would surely have withdrawn from Vietnam, had he not been assassinated:
"He would have concluded that the South Vietnamese were incapable of defending themselves, and that Saigon's grave political weaknesses made it unwise to try to offset the limitations of South Vietnamese forces by sending U.S. combat troops on a large scale. I think he would have come to that conclusion even if he reasoned, as I believe he would have, that South Vietnam and, ultimately, Southeast Asia would then be lost to Communism. He would have viewed that loss as more costly than we see it now. But he would have accepted that cost because he would have sensed that the conditions he had laid down — i.e., it was a South Vietnamese war, that it could only be won by them, and to win it they needed a sound political base — could not be met." Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam(96)
Daniel Ellsberg interview with Robert F. Kennedy – October 1967
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ELLSBERG.TXT
McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam http://nyti.ms/1DhVrHV
Willy, I've read that article until I'm blue in the face. I don't remember McNamara being quoted as saying JFK made the decision; "(1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965;".
Do you find it in this article?
A final military document is relevant here. Dated December 11, 1963, it is titled "Department of Defense Actions to Implement NSAM No. 273, 26 November 1963." This document was prepared by Marine Lieutenant Colonel M. C. Dalby; it is from CINCPAC files and is labeled "Group 1—Excluded from Automatic Downgrading and Declassification." The document begins coldly:
"After reviewing the recent discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu and after discussing the matter further with Ambassador Lodge, the President directed that certain guidance be issued to various Government Agencies. This was promulgated in the form of National Security Action Memorandum 273, 26 November 1963."
There is no reference to the change of commander in chief, which had occurred within the time frame indicated by the opening sentence. The particular importance of this document is its reference to paragraph 7 of NSAM 273.
Planning for *>intensified action against North Vietnam was directed following the Honolulu Conference (JCS 3697, 26 Nov 1963) in the form of a 12-month program. . . . A deadline of 20 Dec 63 has been set for completion of the plan."
Bc. No problem here. That is exactly what NSM 263 orders done in October and it was a good plan but before it's time. The problem comes when those that makes false claims, either by ignorance or dishonesty, about what NSAM 263 has to say. It does not say 1965 is a deadline for removing ALL or even the BULK of our troops. "JFK: Well, let's say it anyway. Then '65 if it doesn't work out {unclear] we'll get a new date.". http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
Bc. Judging from the mess we made in Vietnam I would say that Mansfield was correct on both counts.
Bc. "There is no doubt that he had shifted definitely and unequivocally on Vietnam but he never had the chance to put the plan into effect." BS. He could have cut a deal with the communist the summer of 1963. He didn't.
Bc. Thank you.
Bc. That is Hilsman's opinion and is speculation. JFK never flat out told the generals he would never send combat units to Vietnam. The proposal was always "tabled for more study. JFK is sometimes faulted for this.
Bc. By now you know my opinion of what McNamara says. Unless I can confirm it by other documents or credible people I take his words with a very heavy dose of salt.
Bc. I believe we have discussed the difference in what Bobby said to Ellsberg and what he says in his oral interview on record at the JFK Library.
Bc. More crap by McNamara.
There is no reference to the change of commander in chief, which had occurred within the time frame indicated by the opening sentence.
Good grief Willy. It is dated Dec 11. Don't you think any change in command documents had gone out by then?
The particular importance of this document is its reference to paragraph 7 of NSAM 273.
"The two versions of NSAM 273 differ in no relevant way, apart from the weakening of paragraph 7 in the final version. Furthermore, the departure from NSAM 263 is slight, and readily explained in terms of changing assessments. Efforts to detect nuances and devious implications have no basis in fact, and if pursued, could easily be turned into a (meaningless) "proof" that LBJ toned down Kennedy aggressiveness.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209–.htm
Bill, have you come across anything in your studies about JFK leaking a story to the press that circumvented the Joint Chiefs calls for combat units? In October 1961, the planted story to the NY Times erroneously reported that the JCS were hesitant for sending combat troops to Southeast Asia. We know this was incorrect.
The following memorandum of Nov 8, 1961 shows McNamara and Gilpatric supported sending in troops along with the JCS. "The introduction of a U.S. force of the magnitude of an initial 8,000 men in a flood relief context" and expanding to as many as six divisions of ground forces, "or about 205,000 men."
No David, I can't recall any leak of that nature. This might surprise you but our military wasn't very keen about going into Laos. Sure, they gave JFK a troop force requirement number but most didn't want to go, for various reason. Mostly because it was land locked and would have been impossible to resupply.
The 8,000 men for flood relief was a Max Taylor deal. It didn't wash with JFK.
Sorry Bill, are you referencing Laos by the Nov 8, 1961 memo or the leaked story to the NY Times? These were made in reference to Vietnam.
But speaking of Laos, JFK seemed to take an approach with the neutral settlement that was not recommended to him by Eisenhower during a transitional briefing on January 19, 1961. When Kennedy raises the possibility of the U.S. supporting a coalition government in Laos that would include Communists, Eisenhower says it would be far better to intervene with U.S. troops
JFK's speech to the Irish Dáil was nothing to sneeze at either.
Agreed, some excellent speeches on that tour in the face of several assassination threats.
I would note his Medicare speech at MSG in New York of May 1962. He had an incredible gift for public speaking off the cuff.
Ronnie Wayne says:
Let's not leave out his inaugural speech which introduced him to the world. "Ask not….." are some of the best known words in the World.
It's been a long while since I've read any of them but if I remember right the speech he was going to give at the Trade Mart held some prescient tidbits. He was not going to simply kiss the feet of the Dallas elite but address some of their views.
Check out 'JFK: BUILDING PEACE FOR ALL TIME | Updated' on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/68061146?ref=tw-share #Vimeo #americanuniversity #au #jfk #kennedy #peace #coldwar #speech
Jeremy on The History Channel series 'JFK Declassified' is MIA but we have the latest
Norman on RIP: Dr. Robert McClelland, the most important JFK witness
jeffmorley on Fetzer Loses Sandy Hook Defamation Case


I love a fresh start and that includes New Years Resolutions. I don't care if they're cheesy or cliche or if the media says they never work, I always make a couple each January. I'm not talking about fad diets or dropping big bucks on a gym membership I'll never use, but getting clear on what I want from the next 12 months and setting some intentions on how to make it all happen.
Because I love resolutions so much I asked a couple of my favourite fellow wellness pros to share some inspiration to make 2017 your best year ever. Here are a some simple tips and habits that are easy to implement on a daily or weekly basis that will add up to big changes over the year.
Tell me about your resolutions. Leave a comment here or find me over on Instagram! Happy New Year!
Acknowledge your need to sleep by going to bed at a time that is appropriate for your sleep needs. The average healthy adult needs 7-9 hours of sleep each night (some need a little more, and some need a little less). Track the number of hours you get each night and evaluate how you feel in the morning. Is it difficult to get out of bed? Do you look or feel fatigued? Are you emotional, irritable or short-tempered? Is your productivity level low? Do you rely on caffeine? If you answer yes to these questions on a regular basis, then you may need to adjust your bedtime earlier to allow for more sleep. And don't forget to periodically re-evaluate your bedroom conditions. A calm, cool, quiet and dark environment will also help to facilitate better quality sleep. – Rebecca Earl, Sleep Coach // The Sugar Plum Sleep Co.
Some great ideas here. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Naveen! I hope you found some inspiration to make a positive change or two this year!


Alpha Mom is a consumer lifestyle brand, new media and research company for moms and moms-to-be. It was founded and is run by Isabel Kallman, a mother to a 13-year-old son.
Even though Alpha Mom is New York-based, our writing contributors and online visitors are from all over the United States.
Alpha Mom was started because, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, motherhood is not a natural instinct for many (many) women.
Rather, connectedness is a new mom's first instinct. And, with non-judgmental support and advice from other moms and parenting professionals, we try to help women embrace motherhood with confidence.
As with everything, we all still have lots of questions and believe that there are no easy answers in parenting. You'll often find us engaged in conversations either seeking or providing advice, all while trying to raise happy and healthy children.
At Alpha Mom we are tolerant of all styles of parenting as we can all learn from each other. We don't believe there is a perfect mom style. In fact, we see humor in motherhood's imperfections. So, join us to learn, support and laugh at the messy and magical experience of being a mom.
If you are a company and would like to reach our community of moms, we would love to talk to you and create a customizable program that achieves your marketing objectives. You can reach us at [email protected].
We have affiliate revenue relationships with Amazon.com, and with other retailers that are handled by third parties like Skimlinks, RewardStyle, Commission Junction and Linkshare. If you see a link to a retailer, please assume that it is an affiliate link. However, rest assured that our affiliate relationships do not guide our product recommendations, at all.
"Alpha Mom" is a Registered Trademark and we are its only legal owner. All text, logos, images, tutorials, and other items appearing on Alphamom.com are copyright of Alpha Mom, LLC unless otherwise specified and may not be transferred or copied in any manner without written permission of Alphamom.com. No alterations or modifications whatsoever may be made to any of our logos, images, or tutorials without written permission. Violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
You can use only one (1) photo from each post and that image may not be modified in any way (e.g. no banners or text added to it).
You are not allowed to list the craft's or recipe's supplies or tutorial (or rewrite the tutorial. That includes translation).
You are not allowed to upload any of our printables to your website.
You are not allowed to use any photos if they are to be used in a post that is sponsored.
Using images from this site to try to leach web traffic is not cool and in some cases putting you at legal risk. If you want to share, you can do that appropriately by following the above guidelines. (If you don't ask us for permission beforehand, we reserve the right to ask you to remove our images or intellectual property for whatever reason).
As of the end of March 2010, Alpha Mom is part of a test group for Thinkstock — called ThinkCorps — and in return Thinkstock is helping us make Alphamom.com more beautiful by providing us with royalty-free photos. These photos are used as the opening photos for articles (however, for craft tutorials and recipes we use original photos that are copyright-protected). We think Thinkstock Photos is the bees' knees.
We abide by the Blog with Integrity guidelines.


This course is designed for non-science students as an introduction to current scientific thinking on the possibility of extraterrestrial life and intelligence. Ideas, observations, and experiments from the frontiers of many areas of science converge in this unique interdisciplinary field. Emphasis will be on topics of current interest, including searches for life in our Solar System, detection of extrasolar planets, and the origins of life on Earth.
Antirequisite(s): Physics 1028A/B, Physics 1301A/B, Physics 1401A/B, Physics 1501A/B or the former Physics 1020, the former Physics 1024, the former Physics 1026.
Extra Information: 3 lecture hours. May not be taken for credit by students in the Faculty of Science.