Authorities urged to do more to get people out of harm’s way as new violent storm forecasted The authorities in the Missouri town devastated by the worst tornado in modern history tested their warning sirens on Tuesday amid calls for better alarm systems to get people out of reach of violent storms. At least 117 people were killed when the town of Joplin took a direct hit from a tornado. Hundreds of others remain missing in the town, which saw 30% of its buildings flattened. Seventeen survivors have been found in the rubble of the town, officials said, but recovery operations were affected by violent weather. Two emergency workers were struck by lightning on Monday. With forecasts of a new violent storm system heading for Oklahoma and south-western Missouri, the head of the national weather service said the authorities needed to do more to get people out of harm’s way. “We need to ask ourselves, what can we do to protect Americans?” Jack Hayes, the federal agency’s director, said. “I have to say, it’s not enough. We have to do more.” The national weather service is considering introducing smartphone warnings and other systems to increase its warning capability. Storm sirens sounded more than 20 minutes before the tornado hit Joplin just before 6pm on Sunday – more than the 13- or 14-minute average warning time, said Greg Carbin, the meteorologist who heads the weather service’s storm prediction centre. That should have been ample time to get to cover. But forecasters are growing concerned that people – especially those living in tornado-prone areas of the south and central United States – are becoming blase about warnings, or that the warnings are not getting through in time. Increasing the warning lead time might even make the problem of complacency worse because it would also affect accuracy of forecasts, said Carbin. “That is something we grapple with all the time,” said Carbin. “If we want to push the envelope with respect to predictions are we also going to overwarn or cry wolf too often? I would argue that there may be some signs we are already doing that.” However, Missouri’s governor, Jay Nixon, suggested some people in Joplin could not hear the tornado sirens over strong winds and heavy rain. “When the pressure caused those alarms to go off, there was so much rain, so much hail many of the folks couldn’t even hear it,” he said. There were similar complaints after last month’s deadly tornadoes in Alabama and other southern states when thunderstorms blew down powerlines and weather service systems, leaving mobile phones as the only means of communication, Bob Henson of the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research said. “People tend to confirm a warning themselves before acting. Did the sirens go off? What is the TV meteorologist saying? What are my family and friends Does it look like a tornado is approaching?doing?” he said. Fast-changing conditions also lead people to underestimate the danger or assume they have more time to get to safety. And, Henson wrote in a recent blog, there may be no readily safe haven anyway. “As with other tornado outbreaks across the southern US, it’s likely that a disproportionate number of deaths occurred in mobile homes, which are not designed to withstand major tornadoes or other severe wind and water hazards.” Missouri United States Natural disasters and extreme weather Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …For many in the media Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction to Barack Obama insistence that his country return to the 1967 borders was out of bounds. ABC's Christiane Amanpour declared she was “stunned” by his “public lecture” of the President and NBC's Andrea Mitchell hissed, “it was really rude,” and charged he treated Obama ” like a school boy.” Mitchell didn't reserve her criticism to Netanyahu as she even went after Republicans who dared to take his side, accusing them of “piling on the president.” The following is a collection of some of the media's most outrageous outbursts over the Israeli prime minister's response to Obama, over the last couple of days: First up, on the May 22 edition of Meet the Press, Mitchell was offended “in the fashion” Netanyahu “lectured” the President, “treating him like a school boy.” DAVID GREGORY: At the same time, what's happening today, we want to take you live here in Washington, D.C., to the scene of AIPAC. This is the pro-Israel lobby, very powerful in the United States. The President will be speaking here, Andrea Mitchell, and this is on the heels of a rupture with Israel. The President said this week that any peace plan, a Palestinian state would have to go back to the borders of prior to the 1967 war. This was significant. ANDREA MITCHELL: He did have language that said there would be land swaps to protect Israel's security, but it was taken as a red flag by Netanyahu. And what happened then was that even if this was implicit in things that previous presidents had said, Netanyahu seized on it. Even before he got on the plane, he criticized the President, and in such a fashion! He lectured him in the Oval Office. And if you look at that picture that you have up there right now, it was a stone-faced Barack Obama and Netanyahu basically treating him like a school boy. People even who work for Netanyahu, some Israeli officials, told him later that he went too far. That it was, it was really rude and that there would be blowback to this. Also on Sunday, on ABC's This Week, Amanpour joined Jake Tapper in being flabbergasted by what they saw as Netanyahu exacerbating an already “frosty relationship” with Obama. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So you talked about no relationship. I mean, they have a frosty relationship at best, right, Jake? JAKE TAPPER: There's no love lost, I think it's fair to say. And I also think it's fair to say that when Bibi in the Oval Office did something I've never seen happen… AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you… TAPPER: …which is, which is this little history lesson on the Jewish people and suffering, that did not endear him further to the White House. AMANPOUR: Were you, were you stunned by that? I mean, it did look like a public lecture. AARON MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, I mean, it was – it was pretty unprecedented. I mean, [Menachem] Begin used to lecture Carter, but it was done privately. Begin was too polite to do it publicly. Netanyahu saw an opportunity. He was clearly upset. I mean, he feels that he was set up. So this was payback. And it was payback at a time when the prime minister feels pretty self-confident that the peace process is going nowhere. And he has a number of cards to play. I'm not sure, however, for an American audience, you want to be in position of lecturing your only reliable ally. AMANPOUR: Even Jeffrey Goldberg, who is one of the most reliable friends of Israel in print and in all sorts of way, said that he was offended to see — to see the Israeli prime minister basically lecturing the President of the United States and that Netanyahu had, quote, “gone out of his way” to alienate this president. Over on CBS's Face the Nation Bob Schieffer took exception to Newt Gingrich calling Obama's demand for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders “dangerous.” BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're back with the Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Mister Gingrich, the President made a big speech on the Middle East last week. What did you think of it? NEWT GINGRICH: I think it is a disaster. I think it is extraordinarily dangerous. I think that it–defining the 1967 border would be an act of suicide for Israel. They are totally non-defensible. Ithink for the United States, you know– we don't have moral equivalence here. You have Hamaswhich is a terrorist organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. You have a democracy. Now the idea that somehow we're supposed to be neutral between Hamas and Israel is fundamentally flawed. And I do not believe that we should have any pressure on Israelas long as Hamas's policy is the destruction of Israel. And as long as missiles are being fired into Israel and terrorists are preparing to try to kill Israelis. And I think it is– a President who can't control his own border probably shouldn't lecture Israel about their border. SCHIEFFER: I have to ask you though you're using words like dangerous. I mean, the President was calling for peace. How- why – why can you characterize that as dangerous? GINGRICH: Because how do you have peace with a Hamas organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel and driving every Israeli out of the country? I mean, read what Hamas says. This idea, that somehow– these people are firing missiles virtually every day intoIsrael. These people are constantly preparing for terrorism. They're recruiting children to be suicide bombers. How – how can you – the President talks about peace when he ought to be insisting that we cut off all aid to Hamas and isolate Hamas as long as it is a terrorist organization trying to destroy an entire people. I mean, I
Continue reading …
British aircraft join heaviest bombardment of Tripoli so far and commanders prepare to deploy Apache helicopters Ministers have agreed to step up the scale and intensity of military action against Libya while privately admitting there is now a danger the conflict could drag on for months, well-placed Whitehall officials have told the Guardian. As British aircraft joined the heaviest bombardment so far of the Libyan capital Tripoli and HMS Ocean prepared to head for the country’s coastal waters with Apache attack helicopters on board, officials said the coalition was attempting to apply psychological pressure on the Gaddafi regime as well as depriving it of equipment. Government sources made clear the Apaches were being sent to Libya, and the intention was to use them, despite Nick Harvey, the armed forces minister, insisting in the Commons that no final decision had yet been taken. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, told a London news conference on Monday night that the opposition had organised a legitimate and credible interim council that was committed to democracy. The US has invited the council to set up an office in Washington. “Their military forces are improving and when Gaddafi inevitably leaves, a new Libya stands ready to move forward,” she said. However, British officials made plain that while they hoped the Gaddafi regime would collapse soon, they did not hold out much expectation it would do so. RAF Tornados, armed with 230kg (500lb) guided bombs, on Tuesday attacked a military vehicle depot within Gaddafi’s large Bab al-Aziziyah complex in the centre of Tripoli, the Ministry of Defence said. As the result of the shockwaves, plaster was reported to have fallen from the ceilings in a hotel where foreign reporters were staying, about 1.2 miles (2km) away. A Nato official said the facility had been used to attack civilians. “It is definitely, in terms of one target, the largest and most concentrated attack we have done to date,” a Nato official in Brussels told Reuters. “This complex is where members of the Gaddafi regime, not only military but hit squads, were based in the early days of the violent suppression of the popular uprising, and it has been active ever since.” A Libyan government spokesman said three people had been killed and 150 wounded, and that the casualties were local residents. In London, Harvey told MPs that while “no decision” had yet been taken to use Apaches, the advantage of using the helicopters was that they could “strike moving targets with greater precision”. He dismissed the widely-held view that the use of Apaches in close-quarter attacks would be a significant escalation in military operations. “The targets would remain the same” and it was “simply a tactical shift”, Harvey told MPs. Asked about the estimated £1bn cost of the conflict to the UK if it continued into the autumn, he said the chancellor had made clear the cost would be met by the Treasury. The minister was summoned to the Commons to answer an urgent question tabled by the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, following reports that military commanders had decided to deploy the Apaches following a green light from the National Security Council chaired by David Cameron. HMS Ocean, with four Apaches on board, is expected off the Libyan coast within a week. The helicopters, armed with Hellfire missiles and 30mm cannon, will be used to mount a 16-mile buffer zone around the port city of Misrata, defence officials said. After the Commons exchanges, Murphy said: “Parliament has not written the government a blank cheque on Libya and ministers should never keep the British public in the dark over major military decisions. The deployment of attack helicopters would represent a significant moment and an escalation of the conflict.” Libya Military Middle East Africa Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
He’s known as the ‘Iceman’, able to endure total submersion in frozen lakes, or to stay in a tank of ice for two hours. Now Wim Hof’s techniques, which he says help him endure such extremes, are being sought out by athletes across the globe. (May 24)
Continue reading …
The new series of “Torchwood” teased us last week, with a little twenty second number that gave us little more than Gwen with a rocket launcher and a glimpse of the only Captain Jack needed outside of the Baroque Cycle. Now Starz has seen fit to release a full trailer since the series is hitting American television in five weeks and if Yanks aren’t warmed up a little in advance, we get cranky and just… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Pajiba Discovery Date : 24/05/2011 16:30 Number of articles : 5
Continue reading …
Mahmoud Abbas must be prepared to accept Jewish state alongside Palestinian state, Israeli PM says in hardline speech Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has spurned American pressure to make a significant gesture towards peace to stave off international support for a declaration of Palestinian independence by telling the US Congress that the Palestinians want a country in order to continue the conflict, not end it. Netanyahu had been under pressure from the White House to outline immediate and practical steps towards peace after Barack Obama warned him that the US was increasingly unable to shield it from growing frustration over what is seen as Israel’s intransigence. But while Israeli officials had billed the speech as intended to “garner major international attention” and shift the ground from under the Palestinians attempts to win UN recognition for a state at a vote in September, Netanyahu remained largely uncompromising. The Israeli PM told an overwhelmingly sympathetic Congress that it is the Palestinians themselves, led by Mahmoud Abbas, who are the main obstacle to peace. “Why has peace not been achieved? Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it,” he said. “President Abbas must do what I have done. I have stood before my people and I have said I will accept a Palestinian state. It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say: I will accept a Jewish state. “Those six words will change history … With those words, I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise.” Palestinian officials accused Netanyahu of grandstanding for Congress, and said his demands for an immediate recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, rather than as part of an overall peace deal, was yet another obstacle to an agreement. “What came in Netanyahu’s speech will not lead to peace,” said Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rdainah. Netanyahu said he recognised that a peace agreement would require Israel to give up some of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria. But he rejected the contention that Israelis had no legitimate claim to the West Bank. “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers,” he said, to a standing ovation. “We’re not the British in India. We’re not the Belgians in [the] Congo. This is the land of our forefathers. “But there is another truth. The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens.” Netanyahu repeated previous assertions that he was prepared to make what he called “painful sacrifices” that would involve a partial pullout from the West Bank while retaining control of larger Jewish settlements that he described as suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. He said that Israel recognised that a Palestinian state had to be large enough to be politically and economically viable, but added that Israel “will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967″. “Israel will be generous on the size of the Palestinian state, but will be very firm on where we put the border with it,” he said. Netanyahu’s at times belligerent tone is not likely to persuade countries considering how to vote at the UN on Palestinian statehood, particularly European governments. He said that support for any such move would undermine not further the cause of peace. “The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end,” said Netanyahu. “Peace cannot be imposed; it must be negotiated.” Netanyahu addressed the dramatic changes in his region by saying that “an epic battle is now underway in Middle East between tyranny and freedom” that “holds out the promise of a new dawn of freedom”. But he said that the world should remember how quickly the hope of freedom was snuffed out after the Iranian revolution in 1979. “The Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads and I pray that the people of the region choose the path less travelled, the path of liberty,” he said. Netanyahu’s speech, and particularly his emphasis on no return to the 1967 borders, was not only a snub to Obama, but a recognition that he has largely outmanoeuvred the White House over recent months. At Obama’s first meeting as president with Netanyahu two years ago, the US president demanded an immediate halt to settlement construction as a first step to a swift and comprehensive peace settlement. The Israeli prime minister openly defied the pressure to the alarm of some in his own country who feared that he could not afford to alienate Washington. But the stand paid off for Netanyahu. Obama has since backed away from the demand on settlements. The resignation of Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, this month marks the reemergence of a traditional and more cautious White House approach to the conflict. Mitchell had pressed the administration to outline its own plan for a peace settlement if there was no progress between the two sides, a strategy that initially won favour among senior officials keen to break the deadlock that permitted Israel to continue expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and tightening its grip on Jerusalem. In Mitchell’s place has reemerged his deputy, Dennis Ross, who has served three US presidents as Middle East envoy. Ross has been criticised as being too close to Israel. His deputy at earlier negotiations, Aaron David Miller, once described him as acting as “Israel’s lawyer”. Bassam Abu Shareef, a political adviser to the last Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, has said that Mitchell quit because of the “extreme bias” and obstructiveness of Ross. Israel Palestinian territories Binyamin Netanyahu US Congress Middle East US foreign policy United States US politics Obama administration Barack Obama Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The US president and wife Michelle’s first day in the UK included meeting the Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at Buckingham Palace
Continue reading …
It’s no secret Oprah Winfrey has a lot of famous friends. And it’s no surprise that they all wish her well as she wraps up 25 years on daytime TV. (May 24)
Continue reading …
Search and rescue teams fanned out across the devastated city of Joplin, Missouri on Tuesday. The AP’s Robert Ray was with one team. (May 24)
Continue reading …HEARTLESS: As Cantor’s tornado comments show, that’s the word for today’s Republicans
May 24, 2011 No Commentenlarge In recent days we have talked a lot about Rep. Paul Ryan and his band of House Republicans championing a draconian and disastrous budget plan that will end Medicare as we know it . It is not very difficult to discern how cruel this plan is. Ryan’s plan will force seniors to pay more than twice as much out-of-pocket , and slash half a trillion in benefits and services through Medicaid , putting insurance companies back in charge of health care and nursing home benefits for tens millions of seniors and families. The word that comes into mind when you read about this plan is an old-fashioned one: HEARTLESS. It’s the word that comes to mind when you hear the latest from Republican Leader Eric Cantor , who is out there saying Congress will not pay for the heart-breaking and unprecedented tornado disaster relief in Missouri unless spending is “cut from somewhere else”: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else. “ If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental ,” Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending. This kind of heartlessness axes initiatives that strengthen the middle-class and protect senior citizens, students and the poor. And now they are publicly flaunting their collective state of minds — even when it comes to areas where Americans have always come together to do the right thing and help one another, like natural disasters, or catastrophic health events. This is just the logical outcome of the politics embodied in the Ryan budget proposal and embraced eagerly by our insane, Tea Partying Republican Party. One such Republican, as Karoli just pointed out , is Rep. Rob Woodall: “Hear yourself, ma’am. Hear yourself,” Woodall told the woman. “You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, ‘When do I decide I’m going to take care of me?’” Steve Benen notes why Woodall’s callous comments are significant : This is important rhetoric. Woodall is obviously something of an extremist, but at least he’s presenting the Republican agenda in stark, cold terms. His remarks come at the intersection of candor, callousness, and conservatism — seniors who worked for companies that don’t offer benefits to retirees are out of luck. If they didn’t save enough to cover their own medical bills, they’ll just have to suffer or go to some other country. The last thing Woodall wants to do is “save” Medicare. He prefers a system in which Medicare doesn’t exist and seniors fend for themselves. What’s that word again? HEARTLESS.
Continue reading …