zotquix

http://www.cbsnews.c...rlier-reported/

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation." But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda." The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

So just to recap what has been occupying headlines (and to remind us that corporate journalism weights things in skewed ways):

Sequestration
North Korea
Boston Bombing
Cleveland Kidnapper

I mean...has North Korea stopped saber rattling? Why was the Texas plant explosion so under reported? All of the topics above occupied the top headlines for more than a week...should we be glad for a slow news year?

So there is definitely something to be said for having an idea of where you are going when you write a story. It makes it much more amazing when a bunch of intricate machinations all come together in a tightly worked conclusion that was foreshadowed yet never predicted. On the other hand, when writers just make it up as they go along, the viewer can feel let down by an ending that is not worthy of the show that brought you to it. Especially if they writers assure you, over and over that they know exactly where this is going (yes Lost we're looking at you).

Still, even a planned ending can be controversial. The original ending for The Prisoner is a fine example of this. And people still highly regard the series (enough that there AMC did a remake which I enjoyed and most people found boring -- and again people hated the ending).

Who does endings well? Well Joss Whedon for one. He seems to gear his shows toward the overarching plot specifically so that most finales are satisfying. Also some anime seem to have really outstanding endings. Then again some of those endings seem to be strong at the expense of the show itself. Madoka Magicka and Trigun seem to be instances of this (alright that's sort of subjective but you know what I mean). And then you have the original ending of Eva where do to lack of funding and time, much of the final two episodes of the original series were long non-moving shots. The "next week" preview was just sketches, IIRC.

So I thought maybe there should be a thread which discusses endings, as it came up in the Lost thread. Do all shows needs a strong conclusion to justify their existence? And if not which one's are worth watching despite not being great from beginning to end?

I know we're not to 2014 yet, but I do see a lot of people blaming Obamacare for health insurance cost hikes. My understanding was healthcare costs were going up anyways due to baby boomers becoming octagenarians and that the timing of Obamacare wasn't just arbitrary, but some people don't see it that way.

Also I recall that there was movement from Republicans towards Healthcare reform during the Bush Presidency and that we might've gotten a similar piece of legislation should McCain have gotten elected. I don't really have any sources for that though, can anyone point me in the right direction?

http://whistleblower...blogspot.co.uk/


No idea if it is all true or really that big of a deal, but it seems plausible. I could imagine Moffat being a diva, though that is totally earned.