It's Easter Sunday and I could think of
no better day to do a movie review of “Risen”. I saw it a number
of weeks ago and debated whether or not to post about it, as religion
tends to be a controversial topic. But whether you are religious or
a non-believer I felt the movie had something to say. We are
inundated with violence in real life and at the movies. And this
movie is no exception, as it starts with the crucifixion of Jesus,
and the search for his followers after his death, in connection with
the disappearance of his body. The reaction of the Roman government
to the possibility of a Messiah that could encourage an uprising of
the people was believable. Anything that could threaten their rule
was to be snuffed out.
In the story line what struck me was
not the belief in the power of Jesus to heal, nor even that he could
rise from the dead, but the belief in non-violence as the answer to
life everlasting. As I watch the terror attacks on the news, or the
bigotry and hatred seemingly espoused by some of our presidential
candidates, it's nice to think that once upon a time there might have
been a movement that really believed that there was an alternative to
the violent lives of humans on this earth, and that everyone had
value and were deserving of respect.
This clip actually leads up to one of
the best lines in the movie. But for some reason whoever uploaded it
cut it off at the critical moment. I guess you'll just have to see
the movie to find out what I mean. :)
Happy Easter Everyone!
79 comments:
Ya gotta kinda wonder if Petes shouldn't have posted his religion comments under this one.
Here's a thought worth the thinkin’ behind it, and worth writin’ down…
"It is never a good idea to do what the terrorists want you to do, yet so
many people are doing exactly that. The goal of terrorist groups is not
simply to kill people but to influence their target group. Groups such as
ISIS and al Qaeda have set out to convince the global Muslim
community that it is under attack by infidels and that the only solution is
global jihad. Their own attacks are not enough to drive their message
home.
"They need a hateful response to those attacks to make their point.
Anti-Muslim violence and rhetoric and calls for banning and registering
Muslims all play beautifully into their plans."
Ex-CIA analyst Susan Hasler on CNN
Interesting correlation here. Trump is particularly popular among American Catholics.
NBC News is reporting that the government has cracked Syed Farook's Apple iPhone and so they're gonna drop their suit against Apple. The phone did contain encrypted data, which they haven't cracked yet, but that's just a matter of time now. One supposes they are not going to tell Apple how they did it.
Trump is particularly popular among American Catholics.
And I find that to be a rather sad statement. I was raised Catholic and while I am not really practicing my religion I still believe it to be one of peace and equality. That so many so called religious people would support a man who seems to encourage hatred for those of another faith seems a betrayal of their own faith. Hence the rather snarky comment embedded in my post.
Groups such as
ISIS and al Qaeda have set out to convince the global Muslim
community that it is under attack by infidels and that the only solution is global jihad.
So, activate cells within Europe, and/or send back fighters from Syria. and instruct them to raise as much mayhem and terror as possible to encourage the local nationalists to over react and strike out at Muslims in Europe in the hopes that there will be that civil war that Marcus has warned of. And given that Daesh may be caught between a rock and a hard place, and is losing territory in their self-declared Caliphate, then why not strike out and drag Europe down into the mire with them? After all the US wouldn't come play with them by their rules, so why not try to hit at our NATO allies, as they are within easy reach?
One supposes they are not going to tell Apple how they did it.
I wouldn't blame them if they didn't. Although I think they usually warn the companies whose devices are flawed so they can be fixed.
"I think they usually warn the companies whose devices are flawed so…"
Yeah, well, I think they were making this a test case. They thought they had the right scenario to intimidate Apple into coöperating. However, Apple didn't back down and the PR didn't come down overwhelmingly in favor of the DOJ, much to their dismay. So, they found a way to back off this one. They'll look for another chance and try again later.
Lynnette: "So, activate cells within Europe, and/or send back fighters from Syria. and instruct them to raise as much mayhem and terror as possible to encourage the local nationalists to over react and strike out at Muslims in Europe in the hopes that there will be that civil war that Marcus has warned of. And given that Daesh may be caught between a rock and a hard place, and is losing territory in their self-declared Caliphate, then why not strike out and drag Europe down into the mire with them?"
They are. They have this new strategy and have trained cells, independent or overlapping, for this very purpose. Some say 400 terrorists have been trained, some say 200, some say they're all in Europe, some say about half have come back. No one knows for sure.
The strategy calls for striking at soft targets and rather than planning for single really massive events plan for mass death strikes reoccurring frequently.
Here are a few sources:
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/national/112755421-story
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/25/isis-plans-export-chaos-europe-paris-brussels
"The strategy calls for striking at soft targets…"
You're confusing tactics with strategy. The strategy calls for inviting anti-Muslim politics and policies among native Europeans, thus convincing Europe's Muslim population that the jihadis are their only hope.
The tactics are aimed at inciting those who're eager to give in to, or even exploit for political purposes, those anti-Muslim prejudices. You might keep that in mind while you figure out your politics.
The first consequence of the failure to replace Supreme Court Justice Antoin Scalia has fallen on the Republicans. The Court tied at four-four on whether or not public employee unions (teachers unions in this case) can demand non-union members pay a service fee in lieu of union dues on account of they get paid union negotiated wages even though they decline to join the union.
Scalia was expected to be the fifth vote throwing out that 40 year old rule, and the Republicans were giddily anticipating another blow against the employees unions, but…
"Think like the enemy. Let’s suppose I am an Islamic State terrorist. I
don’t do bombs or bullets. I leave the dirty work to the crazies in the
basement. My job is what happens next. It is to turn carnage into
consequences, body parts into politics. I am a consultant terrorist. I
wear a suit, not explosives. A blood-stained concourse is a means to
an end. The end is power.
"This week I had another success. I converted a squalid psycho-
pathological act into a warrior-evoking, population-terrifying,
policy-changing event. I sent a continent into shock. Famous politicians
dropped everything to shower me with cliches. Crowned heads
deluged me with glorious odium.
"I measure my success in column inches and television hours, in
ballooning security budgets, butchered liberties, amended laws and –
my ultimate goal – Muslims persecuted and recruited to our cause. I
deal not in actions but in reactions. I am a manipulator of politics. I
work through the idiocies of my supposed enemies."
Simon Jenkins in TheGuardian
Re: DoJ vs Apple iPhones. I'm hearing on the PBS Newshour this evening that the Department of Justice didn't really want to drop the suit against Apple. They thought this was their best test case, and they intended to prosecute it to the limit; they thought they had a point to make ’bout who was the big dog here and who wasn't. But it seems the law under which the DoJ was proceeding actually explicitly provided that the government could not sue Apple if they had another way to get at the data. (One suspects they'd have kept the information of another mean of entry hidden if they thought they could have gotten away with that, and prosecuted their lawsuit to make their point.)
But it seems the law under which the DoJ was proceeding actually explicitly provided that the government could not sue Apple if they had another way to get at the data.
Saving court expenses and time. Makes sense.
In his admirable manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, the Belfast academic Richard English defines the threat to democracy as not the “limited danger” of death and destruction. It is the danger “of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses”.
The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror.
This also makes sense.
Lee: "The tactics are aimed at inciting those who're eager to give in to, or even exploit for political purposes, those anti-Muslim prejudices. You might keep that in mind while you figure out your politics."
First of all I do notice that countries such as the Chech Republic, Poland or Hungary are not on any recent threat lists, despite being more "repressive" against muslims than most western European nations. Not saying they're completely safe from it but they're not mentioned in the leaked Daesh plans. And for sure they have fewer potential jihadi recruits.
So the main fault must be that we let 'em in to begin with. No man - no threat, like Stalin used to say. Therefor the very first priority any sane person who is not blinkered by ideology or hidered by a bleeding heart must come to is we need to shut the borders ASAP and not let more potential enemies in.
Then we must deal in a sensible fashion with the ones already here. In that I would prefer a carrot-stick approach where assimilation is rewarded and dysfunctional behaviour is met with a stern reaction.
The sad thing is much of this was avoidable if saner people had been in charge. Just as I have been saying for years now this is a development that was predictable. And the terror is just the tip of the iceberg. The main insecurity comes when people can't move around on their own streets for fear of being raped, robbed or knifed. I'm actually less worried about Daesh as far as Sweden is concerned than general mayhem caused by migrants for no other reasons than opportunity or frustration. You don't get those stories in the international media though.
Like this crap (yesterday):
http://www.unt.se/uppland/uppsala/bussar-till-gottsunda-stalls-in-efter-stenkastning-4174364.aspx
Or this (saturday):
http://nyheteridag.se/nya-bilbrander-skakar-sodra-stockholm/
What is it with these middle easterners and their insane fascination with burning cars?
Intentionally burned cars in Sweden 1996-2013:
https://affes.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bilbrander_sverige_96_13.jpg?w=720
Don't you just love multiculturalism?
"The sad thing is much of this was avoidable if saner people had
been in charge."
Coulda, woulda, shoulda… The fact that mistakes were made in the past is not a good rationale for making more.
On an unrelated matter, from the last thread…
"First, hasn't [Trump] already promised not to run as a third party
candidate? ***
"Second, would he really make outright war on the republican party as
iss suggested?"
Marcus @ Thu Mar 24, 12:48:00 PM
Answered today…
"Donald Trump has rescinded his pledge to support the Republican nominee for president."
Politico.com
Lee: "Coulda, woulda, shoulda… The fact that mistakes were made in the past is not a good rationale for making more."
I agree. And I also gave you my suggestions on how to move in the right direction on this. First of all adding to the problem is an obvious insanity so the outer borders need to be shut and locked completely and immediately. That will lessen, or at least not add to, all the other burdens I have mention and have the added benefit that terrorists from Daesh can no longer be infiltrated in a sea of so called refugees (who are mostly economic migrants no matter any delusions Pete might have 'bout that).
"And I also gave you my suggestions on how to move in the right
direction on this."
You did. But, given your history on this, I thought you might have also included a rejection of loose talk ‘bout ‘civil war’.
"Saving court expenses and time. Makes sense."
But, the DoJ wasn't in this to save court expenses and time, nor to ‘make sense’. They were lookin’ to make a point, and to make a precedent.
Lee: "You did. But, given your history on this, I thought you might have also included a rejection of loose talk ‘bout ‘civil war’."
You must have read me wrong. I certainly don't hope for any strife to escalate, I live here. I don't advocate violent responses against muslims/immigrants as a "solution". But I am fearful we are heading in a direction which will likely lead to that. Already now the tensions are high and local ignitions could be sparked by further Daesh strikes or a renewed (or increased) economic crisis or several other things. Throwing the borders open again would be IMO insanity right now. Instead they should be made more secure.
Lee: "Answered today…
"Donald Trump has rescinded his pledge to support the Republican nominee for president.""
I have to say that backing down from a pledge is in my book something I would consider very much a negative for any politician I contemplated voting for, especially for such a high office. If you can't stand by it, don't pledge it.
Lee, I just read this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trumps-popularity-nosedives-in-critical-stretch-221320
I seem to remember you saying something about "wait until the Clinton campaign unleashes on him". Two questions. 1. Do you think the Clinton campaign wants Trump as an adversary in the general election? 2. How would a Clinton assault on Trump differ from the attacks of his Republican contestors?
"You must have read me wrong."
Don't think so. Almost certain I read it correct. You were, after all, calling that neo-fascist, Viktor Orbán, one of the most enlightened politicians in Europe.
Oh, and I forgot my third question: do you think there's a chance for Trump to smear Hillary? I mean he took down/out Jeb and Rubio pretty effectively, what's to say he can't make (some) voters turn on Hillary?
"1. Do you think the Clinton campaign wants Trump as an adversary
in the general election?"
I don't know it there's any reason for her to have a preference ’tween Cruz and Trump. She'll stomp either of them.
"2. How would a Clinton assault on Trump differ from the attacks of
his Republican contestors?"
She does not have to pretend that his racist remarks aren't really racist. She doesn't have to pretend that not losing all of his father's fortune is akin to some sort of business genius (Trump would have done much better to have just invested his inheritance in any of dozens of plain, vanilla indexed stock funds; he'd be much richer by now). She doesn't have to pretend that his tax-cuts for the rich proposal is going to result in general economic gains for the middle class. Etc. Etc.
Never said enlightened, I said he was the best. I said that because in a rapidly deteriorating situation I saw (IMO) leaders like Merkel making fatal choices that I do not agree with, and I saw Orban standing up for the people who elected him and doing the right thing despite immense pressure not to do so. He was basically the one major politician in Europe who seemed in tune with the very real concerns I have and the worry I feel.
I have to say though that a clip Pete posted (here) about what some of his supporters voiced gave me second thoughts about that. I had not seen that before. I can't be sure about the origins of that clip or to what degree it's actually policy or desired policy in Fidez (Orbans party), but it was troubling and I might have been too quick to speak on behalf of their political course. I'll say that much.
I'll have to get to your third question later. Got real world stuff gotta do.
They were lookin’ to make a point, and to make a precedent.
They still have other cases out there. What I was speaking of was the clause in that law referring to what happens if another solution is found. It seemed reasonable to me in an effort to save time and expense.
"Never said enlightened, I said he was the best."
I stand corrected. Not that the correction makes any significant difference.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"What I was speaking of was the clause in that law…"
Ah, I see. That makes a bit more sense.
"…do you think there's a chance for Trump to smear Hillary?"
So many ways to answer this; I'll go for the short version…
Hell, Yes! Of course he's gonna smear Hillary. His problem is he's comin’ late to the game.
The Republicans have been smearing Hillary for ten (10) years now. They spent two years prior to 2008 smearing Hillary on the assumption that she'd be their opponent that year. Then comes Obama, and Hillary was not their opponent after all. But she was Secretary of State and they could see her setting herself up for a run in 2012 if Obama faltered (which he did not), so they never let up on her. Then Obama returned to office in 2012, and Hillary quit as his Secretary of State, for the universally recognized purpose of running in 2016; so, they never let up on her.
Hillary is widely regarded among the young voters over here as untrustworthy and corrupt. The word that comes first to their minds is ‘liar’ and second is ‘untrustworthy’.
But, ask a little deeper, ask why they believe that, and the answers get garbled, vague things about ‘Benghaze, some sorta corruption in Benghaze; not real clear on exactly what that was’. Well, what that was is we're on our seventh Repubublican Congression investigation of Hillary's involvement in Benghazi, and nobody knows what the hell they're investigating for the seventh time, just like nobody knows what the hell they were investigating the first time. But, they come on TV periodically anr pronounce somber, if somewhat circular and garbled, paragraphs about soon to be released revelations, about Hillary and Benghazi, and then they wait awhile and do it all over again.
And then there's the e-mail server--gotta be some fire behind all that smoke, right?
Ten years they been doin’ this shit.
And people still trust her more than they trust Trump (across the board, if not in the small sub-set that make up the Republican primary voters).
And she ain't even started on him.
Wait ‘til that happens.
Btw, from that little snippet of Jeb Bush in one of the Presidential debates I can see why he was taken down. Somehow I don't think Hillary will be quite so easy.
The one big problem for Trump will be the expansion of the voting poll beyond the Republican ‘base’. Lindsey Graham said it the other day, ‘My party has gone batshit crazy.’ Mother Jones Rest of America ain't gone with ‘em. Hillary's gonna wipe the floor with him.
That would be ‘voting pool’…
I asked before, regarding the captured terrorist Abdelslam who was involved in the attacks in Paris:
"I wonder what the french iterrogators will throw at him."
Turns out they might not have to get down and dirty with this guy, he might be willingly talkative:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-suspect-salah-abdeslam-agrees-to-turn-supergrass-for-french-police-a6961021.html
Lee: "The one big problem for Trump will be the expansion of the voting poll beyond the Republican ‘base’. Lindsey Graham said it the other day, ‘My party has gone batshit crazy.’ Mother Jones Rest of America ain't gone with ‘em. Hillary's gonna wipe the floor with him."
Actually I tend to agree with you. I'm not as sure as you seem to be but I lean the same way. I'm still not convinced Hillary will face Trump. But if she does I'd give her a 80-20 advantage, at this point. If not Trump she's almost 100% certain to win, as many Trump supporters will be so pissed off (can I write that Pete, or is that too bad language?) with the "GOP establishment" to even bother to vote against Hillary no matter who their party brings forth.
It'll probably be Hillary that wins it in the end.
Drat! I accidentally deleted that comment I left earlier with the comparison between Trump and President Camacho in "Idiocracy"(which I spelled wrong). lol!
Donald Trump/President Camacho in "Idiocracy".
I forget what the rest of it said.
The one big problem for Trump will be the expansion of the voting poll beyond the Republican ‘base’.
Oh, yeah, that was what I was talking about. It was in response to a portion of Marcus' earlier comment. It is easier to siphon voters off of other Republican candidates, but not so easy to do for Hillary's supporters.
Many people cringe when they think of a Trump Presidency, which is what led me to post the "Idiocracy" clip. Which I then proceeded to spell wrong. lol!
Trump would be least liked nominee in modern times
A hint of how the American electorate, including Democratic and Independent voters, not just Republicans, feel about Trump.
67% overall find him unfavorable
75% of women
66% of independents
80% of young adults
85% of Hispanics
50% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
Unaoil's Bribery Scandal
On Wednesday, The Huffington Post and our Australian partner Fairfax Media published the results of a months-long investigation into Unaoil, a mysterious Monaco-based firm registered in the British Virgin Islands.
Unaoil and its subcontractors bribed foreign officials to help major multinational corporations win contracts, tens of thousands of the company’s internal documents show. The investigation illustrates just how complicit big Western companies are in corruption overseas. It also shows that by enabling corruption, these companies fuel the kind of political instability that allows insurgencies like the self-described Islamic State to grow.
^
h/t Zeyad
I was fully expecting to find and article which blamed the existence of Unaoil on The West.
lol!
Nope, it was the Iranians.
Actually Zeyad just tweeted the article which talked mainly about the Iraqis allegedly involved. This one seemed more generally informative so I picked it to link to.
Palmyra after being retaken from Daesh
Looks like the ‘establishment’ Republicans are gettin’ set to do The Donald. Lineups of the delegates who're already known to be eagerly waiting to flee The Donald on the second round are circulating. Wiser men than I, (notably Nate Silver, he of 538 fame, are already publishing the conclusion that The Donald will never get as many nominating votes again as he does on the first round).
Krauthammer about the foreign policy of the 4 major candidates left:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/01/donald-trumps-foreign-policy-is-for-america-to-steal-everything/
Krauthammer is a partisan hack, a very intelligent and deliberate hack, but a hack nonetheless.
His relationship with the truth is transactional at best.
Does anyone read Daniel Silva? He writes fiction and I am reading an older book by him written in 2007. Why I mention it is because there are a couple of things in it that remind me of what has come to pass with regard to Daesh. It makes me wonder about some of the other reasoning within his story line.
I don't recognize the name off the top of my head.
Ahh, well, maybe I'll have to post about it sometime then. I'll have to finish the book first. :)
I notice that both Cruz and Trump seem to think that Kasich should remove himself from the race. Now if it were me that would just make me want to stay in, especially if neither one have the delegates for a clear win before the convention.
"Now if it were me that would just make me want to stay in…"
Appears to work the same on Kasich.
Lee: "Krauthammer is a partisan hack, a very intelligent and deliberate hack, but a hack nonetheless."
I kinda knew that already. And I find it funny when he names as the "closest historical analog" for Cruz to be Ronald Reagan. Partially because of what you have said before about how "St Ronald of the Ray Guns" (I seem to remember you using that moniker) is a hero to the Republican establishment. That made it quite clear who he roots for, while not even going into the other historical analogs who I pressume he thinks of as damning (at least to Republicans).
Lynnette: "Does anyone read Daniel Silva?"
I remember reading one of his books while on holiday in Thailand. Probably a paper back I picked up in either a hotel where you can get a book and leave another; or in one of the second hand bookstores. Regardless, the boook I read didn't leave a lasting impression.
Then there are authors that come up with "must read" books and follow up with utter garbage. I could name Forsythe in that cathegory. He wrote "The Day Of The Jakal", an absolutely excellent thriller which spawned at least two movies (the book being vastly superior to either). Then he later wrote "The Afghan" which was so crappy and lousy I actually felt I could have written a better book myself - and I don't think I could write a very good book.
So it could be that this Silva has something worth reading, I don't know.
On the matter of good authors who dissapoint I have to say the last two Grishams have been shitty.
I wouldn't go so far as calling Grisham a "great" author but he's been consistently churning out a quite good read once a year for many years. And his best stuff is really good. "Partners", "The Jury", "The Pelican Brief" and especially "A Painted House" and many more. Good books.
But the last two. Meh. Not bad enough not to finish, but not far from that either.
Tom Clancy was OK and wrote some seriously thrilling stuff way back when. "Red Tide" is the best.
But read a few and the "rythm" becomes clear. The villain strikes, the hero responds but in a bad way, the villain strikes again, the hero gets his act together and wins. And in the end it turns out the villain bends to the wisdom of the hero and wasn't really the villain at all but an entity misled by a few bad individuals. So the villain and the hero become friends, due to the grandios humanity of the hero.
The hero in every book is the USA (or rather conservative individuals in the USA - there's always a domestic liberal villain/traitor too). The Villain ranges from Russia to Japan to India to Colombian drug cartels and everything in between. Quite teedy once you've discovered the "rythm". But he did write well.
That reminds me, the foolish war on Iraq in 2003 and especially the aftermath reads like a Clancy novel gone wrong. "We took out the bad guy, using extreme force, why don't they all love us?" In a Clancy novel there would have been Iraqis on every street showering the US "liberators" with flowers, not with IED:s and RPG:s.
Appears to work the same on Kasich.
That's good, it might make things more interesting.
Regardless, the boook I read didn't leave a lasting impression.
I usually enjoy him, but it is true that some are better than others, depending on the plot. The one I am reading now, in my opinion, is very good. But perhaps that is because the plot line seems so current as to what is transpiring today, yet it was written a number of years before. That kind of makes it more interesting for me. So, maybe I will post about it one day.
I have not read anything by Forsythe, yet. I believe the one book I have by him in my pile is, "The Afghan", which from your review might be unfortunate. Perhaps not a good showcase of his writing skill.
I have read a lot of Grisham's earlier books, including "The Firm", "The Pelican Brief", and "A Painted House", and have many waiting to be read. I liked his earlier books the best as his later ones tended to get a little preachy.
Hands down Clancy's best book was "The Hunt for Red October". He too seemed to peak early and then go downhill, ending with books that seemed almost cartoonish in their plot lines and dialog. There was a rumor going around that his ex-wife was actually the author of his earlier books. lol!
Vince Flynn was good for action, but he too could get too white hat/black hat with his characters, kind of like the old time westerns. Same with Brad Thor.
Of that genre Daniel Silva seems a little more realistic. As does Alex Berensen.
If you want good murder mysteries with a Minnesota connection, and location, there are none better than John Sandford, William Kent Krueger and Brian Freeman (although he's a little dark at times).
In a Clancy novel there would have been Iraqis on every street showering the US "liberators" with flowers, not with IED:s and RPG:s.
Possibly. He did write fiction.
(But at least in the aftermath of that war there weren't millions of migrants decamping the country as we are finding now with the advent of Daesh and its supporters. In fact, the internally displaced Iraqis today are heading for an area of their country that has always been an active ally of the US.)
The Cruz win in Wisconsin (especially the magnitude of it) alters the trajectory for Cruz and Trump. It's now more likely than not that they meet in Cleveland for a contested convention, which contest Cruz will most likely win.
(Bernie racked up another win over Hillary; still don't matter.)
Lynnette:
"I have not read anything by Forsythe, yet. I believe the one book I have by him in my pile is, "The Afghan", which from your review might be unfortunate. Perhaps not a good showcase of his writing skill."
No not at all. A book doesn't necessarily have to be completely realistic but it shouldn't be, as that book is, completely unrealistic. Come to think of it the title of the book I called "The Jackal" in english is "The Day Of The Jackal", and it is superb.
Lynnette: "I have read a lot of Grisham's earlier books, including "The Firm", "The Pelican Brief", and "A Painted House", and have many waiting to be read. I liked his earlier books the best as his later ones tended to get a little preachy."
I feel the same way. And the two latest are also dull.
Lynnette: "Hands down Clancy's best book was "The Hunt for Red October"."
I never read that one. Might have to pick it up. I see also that the one I called "Red Tide" in english is called "Red Storm Rising". Very good book. I hate it when they botch the translation of the title and nowadays I most often go for the enlish language book instead of the swedish translation. At least if the book was originally written in English.
Lynnette: "There was a rumor going around that his ex-wife was actually the author of his earlier books. lol!"
Funny rumor. Probably just slander though.
Lynnette: "If you want good murder mysteries with a Minnesota connection, and location, there are none better than John Sandford, William Kent Krueger and Brian Freeman (although he's a little dark at times)."
Never heard of any of them but thanks for the tip. My favourite for kinda-dark murder mysteries is probably Dennis Lehane. "Mystic River" springs to mind as a good book.
Lee: "The Cruz win in Wisconsin (especially the magnitude of it) alters the trajectory for Cruz and Trump. It's now more likely than not that they meet in Cleveland for a contested convention, which contest Cruz will most likely win."
It does seem Trump has lost some wind in his sails. What about the possibility of a contested convention where an altogether new candidate gets in on it? I read Cruz isn't that well liked either by the party establishment.
Lee: "Bernie racked up another win over Hillary; still don't matter."
I'd guess the same way. But I have read some speculation suggesting otherwise. And Bernie himself was of the opinion that he's on a roll and will continue to win. Then again, what else can he say...
It's now more likely than not that they meet in Cleveland for a contested convention, which contest Cruz will most likely win.
Ahhh...so far so good...but we'll wait until the convention to see...:)
Cruz? Maybe, but there's a lot of time between now and then...
My long shot prediction? Trump fizzles at the convention and Cruz shoots himself in the foot with a sex scandal that turns out to be more fire than smoke and the only one left standing that Republicans can in all conscience vote for is....Kasich! Bwahahahahaha!
"What about the possibility of a contested convention where an
altogether new candidate gets in on it? I read Cruz isn't that well liked
either by the party establishment."
‘Isn't well liked either…’ is a bit of an understatement. However, I believe the price they'll pay for stopping Trump is that they won't also be able to stop Cruz. Cruz was second choice for a majority of Trump supporters.
. Come to think of it the title of the book I called "The Jackal" in english is "The Day Of The Jackal", and it is superb.
I've heard of it, but never read it. I'll have to look for it at the used bookstore.
"Red Storm Rising". Very good book.
Yes, I've read that as well. It was good, but I still liked "The Hunt for Red October" the best. It was his first book and was nice and tightly written. Some of his later books tended to run on with filler when it wasn't necessary.
I think the wife rumor was someone's lame explanation as to why his books just weren't as good as they were before. But it is hard to stay on top of your game.
Mystic River"
I've never read the book, but I've seen the movie. It was good. I should look him up for others.
Harlan Coban is good for twisty endings. I loved "Tell No One'. One of the few books I would give an A rating to. That one and "Lonesome Dove". Although that's an entirely different genre. It's long but I was disappointed when it ended. I would have loved it to have been twice as long. Now that's the sign of a good book. :)
It's long but I was disappointed when it ended.
That was in reference to "Lonesome Dove', not "Tell No One". :)
Cruz was second choice for a majority of Trump supporters.
But if he angers his base enough....
"But if he angers [Trump's] base enough...."
There is that. Cruz was careful to not antagonize them early on, maybe not quite so careful here lately, but I think he's not done himself a lot of damage with Trump's people as of yet.
Ross Douthat, a very conservative Republican, as I've introduced him before, writing in the New York Times, on why it's gonna be Cruz coming out of the Republican convention with the nomination (assuming Trump doesn't go in with the majority he needs for a first ballot win).
And if he can keep Trump from the magic number, it’s hard to see the delegates giving it to anyone but him.
Hmmm...I remember someone once telling me that he was going to vote for whoever had the greatest chance of beating Trump, which in many cases meant Cruz. That doesn't sound like Cruz has strong support for his wonderful leadership skills. If the convention goes through multiple rounds contested the delegates will be free to vote for whomever they choose. If they are smart little Republican party diehards they will vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Hillary...*whispers softly* Yeah, you know who. ;)
Of course I can see where that might be a difficult challenge, given past behavior.
The siege of Fallujah
Lynnette:
"The siege of Fallujah"
A tragic read. But IMO the thing to do is quite clear. I read:
"Residents of the besieged city of Fallujah are starving. Iraqi government forces should urgently allow aid to enter the city, and the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, which captured the city in early 2014, should allow civilians to leave."
Well, so Iraqi GOVERNMENT forces are denying basic aid to the whole city because it's controlled by a terrorist group. That's IMO akin to accepting those civilians are hostages and expendable. Because surely no one would expect Daesh to quit such a chicken race first, right? And to expect them to let their hostages leave is just not sane. Of course the demand should be raised but it should not be expected to be adhered.
The Iraqi government should obviously let civilian aid like foodstuffs and medicines into Fallujah, even if Daesh rules there. Then the government should take to military action to try and dislodge Daesh from that city. Which I confess might not be that easy and which might also endanger civilians.
Of course you Mericans might not agree with me. After all the Iraqi Government's siege of Fallujah where they knowingly starve civilians because Daesh is ruling is just the same but on a much, much smaller scale to what ya'll did to the whole country of Iraq because Saddam was ruling it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
I was under the impression that the E.U. participated in the sanctions against Saddam. Sweden is still in the E.U., are they not?
The Iraqi government should obviously let civilian aid like foodstuffs and medicines into Fallujah, even if Daesh rules there. Then the government should take to military action to try and dislodge Daesh from that city.
I agree. It must be made clear that there is a difference between the Iraqi government and Daesh.
Which I confess might not be that easy and which might also endanger civilians.
There is no easy solution to this and civilians will always be endangered no matter what is done in this situation.
US military kills 2 Swedish Islamic State fighters in Iraq
Post a Comment