Here is the trailer:
Saturday, 1 November 2025
Truth & Treason
I wanted to write about this movie, but I happened to see it the same weekend as the No Kings protests. I don’t know if it is still in theaters, but I wanted to post about it anyway. It is based on a true story that occurred during World War II in Germany. It is about a young man, I cannot say boy because he was much more mature than that, who decided to stand up and speak the truth. It is not easy to stand against a government that has no shame or integrity. It is not easy to stand when you run the risk of being eliminated for having the audacity to speak against a selfish, narcissistic, authoritarian leader who does not care about his country’s people and treats them like his serfs.
Here is the trailer:
Here is the trailer:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
88 comments:
Roger Ebert gave it a thumbs up, but just barely.
It's getting better reviews from a public not quite so concerned with how or whether it checkboxes some critic's movie theories. 88% favorable at Rotten Tomatoes, 96% favorable at Fandango, grade of "A" (A+ to F scale) at CinemaScope.
It is still playing in theaters. (I checked local theater listings--found it in three.) With those kinds of favorability numbers it'll probably be getting screen time for awhile yet.
Wonderful. My friend had wanted to go see the new Julia Robert's movie, After the Hunt, but it wasn't playing in the theater we wanted to go to, which was by our chosen lunch spot. So I picked this one.
We were going to try to catch the Julia Robert's movie later, but it is fading fast. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a splat, 38%.
Dick Cheney has died at 84. While I was not really a Cheney fan I would have taken him over Trump any day.
#NeverTrump. Even if the alternative would have been Cheney. (Which, of course, never happened.)
Looks like the Democrats are having themselves a good night, pretty much across the board.
I don't think I'll stay up for the returns to come in from California, but I've been thinking for a couple of weeks now that the Democrats were gonna get to reapportion California to more clearly favor Democratic victories all across the state. I'm still thinkin' they're gonna get their chance at that.
Bad night for Trump. Probably means it's a good night for the nation.
Totally agree. A good night for the country.
I am looking at the lines of voters in California, where they are voting on proposition 50, which allows for the redistricting. The lines are very long, and include quite a few younger voters, who are notoriously uninterested in voting.
CNN is projecting that Prop 50 has passed.
They have been watching the down ballot elections as well and there too the Democrats are showing well.
The Senate Republicans (in the person of Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota) are going to try to break the deadlock over funding the government tomorrow with a package of full year spending bills including aid to agricultural interests and renewed funding for food stamps (a/k/a "SNAP" benefits), aid to veterans, and aid to congressional staffers (i.e. they'll start getting their paychecks again plus back pay for the month just passed). Notably, it does NOT include a resolution to the upcoming lapse of Obamacare subsidies.
We'll soon see if the recent election returns somehow makes the Democrats more eager to fold on their Obamacare demands. (Assuming Thune goes through with his plan to call a vote on this new package.)
I've been pondering how the Democrats might frame their demands for an extension of the Obamacare subsidies in a form that would appeal to the general voters (and to independents in particular). And I've finally settled on having them proposing a most unconventional solution….
They could demand a vote on extending the Obamacare subsidies just as they are for another year. Promise that either way, up or down, they'd then accept the Republicans' offer on the table (outlined just above ↑↑) and agree to reopen the government on those terms.
Won't happen, of course, but the concept appeals to me.
Maybe they should ask the American people to vote on extending the ACA and Medicaid coverage for another year.
If Senate Republicans can fund those programs they can fund the ACA and Medicaid.
There is no Constitutional provision which allows for the submission of political questions to "the American people". The Founding Fathers were rather down on the concept of democracy. (They very much favored aristocratic white male republican goverment.) Our democratic predilections have evolved over the course of the last 236 years since the adoption of the original Constitution. The concept of ballot initiatives submitted to the voters is very much confined to state laws in those states that have come to allow ballot initiatives. It's never been threatened on a federal leve.
…federal level.
"They could demand a vote on extending the Obamacare
subsidies just as they are for another year."
Be damned! Schumer did it. Politico In fact, he went it one better; he wants it attached to the CR that the Republicans have been trying to pass. They both pass or fail together. Good for Schumer.
Well now. It didn't take hardly any time at all for Thune and his Trumpkan/Republican cohorts to reject Schumer's bit to attach an extension of the Obamacare subsidies. (I think the Democrats are every bit justified in being suspicious of Trumpkan/Republican promises to address the problem later. Trump and his Senators aren't known for keeping their word.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I also notice that the Trump administration has successfully challenged a federal judge's Order that they find the funding for the full November SNAP payments. I think Trump's gonna regret that one. His dedicated Trumpkins are heavy users of federal food assistance. I think they're gonna notice that Trump went out of his way to burn their access to groceries, and I think they'll make Trump pay for that move. They're not likely to vote for the "woke" Democrats, but they may not come out to vote to support Trump either, and he's gonna need 'em come the mid-terms in about a year.
My hope has always been that their redistricting ploy will prove irrelevant because enough Republicans will realize they are the ones getting the shaft, not the Dems.
See, love them or hate them, the Dems did try to include everyone in their social programs.
In the end, the Democrats folded again.
They gave the Trumpkan/Republicans what they wanted (reopening the government) in exchange for a promise from the Trumpkans to reciprocate by allowing a vote, no later than mid-December, to extend Obamacare. There's no reason to assume Trump will go along with that, even if the the Trumpkans in the Senate keep their word. And also no reason to assume this 'deal' will ever see a vote in the House. So maybe Trump won't have to kill it; maybe Johnson, or even Thune, will be able to kill it for him.
I think the Democrats probably should have held out. I think the Trumpkans would have folded eventually. Maybe not. I guess it's a questionable call either way. But some 'centerist' Democrats decided to fold and seems Schumer just didn't have the votes any longer. Pain tolerance varies among politicians, just as it varies among people. (As I understand it, Schumer and his leadership team voted against it, save for Dick Durbin, who's already announced his retirement from the Senate at the end of this term.)
Perhaps the only way we will ever get rid of the incompetent Republicans in government is for them to run our country into the ground, which they are speedily doing. Maybe people will notice.
I mean, if even Marjorie Taylor Greene can notice, why not other people?
Lauren Boebert stood up to pressure to change her vote on the Epstein files discharge petition. Huh! Like Marjorie Taylor Greene before her doing something of merit. Guess they are not all bad. Doesn't mean they are the kind of people I would ever vote for, but I give them credit for doing something good.
Boebert and Greene are both still carrying water for the QAnon Crazies. They got their present positions by pandering to the conspiracy theories (as did Trump) and now they find that they can't switch it off (gawd knows Trump's tried). I give them no credit for being captive to the crazies they nurtured.
I will take any cracks in the MAGA cult that we can get.
I'm all in favor of them fighting amongst themselves. But I ain't givin' 'em any credit for it.
Okay, this is just dumb. This is not how ya make the Epstein questions go away.
"President Donald Trump on Friday directed Attorney General
Pam Bondi and the FBI to investigate links between Jeffrey
Epstein and notable Democrats, the president’s latest attempt
to deflect scrutiny over his connections to the disgraced
financier by focusing on his political opponents.
"In a social media post, Trump pushed Bondi to target former
President Bill Clinton, Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman
and former Harvard President Larry Summers, who served in
senior positions in both the Clinton and Obama
administrations, along with the bank JPMorgan Chase."
Politico
Current indicators suggest that Trump is going to attack Venezuala in the very near future.
He will not bother to declare war--he'll just order the attack.
And very likely they will fight back.
The American Congress however, will not.
I am thinking that Marjorie Taylor Greene has become a deeper crack. Whether it is due to her alliance with the women who were victims of Epstein, the health care crisis or her future political goals doesn't really matter. She hasn't suddenly become a Democrat or even given up on the conspiracy theories. She is now floating the idea that Israel may be pressuring Trump to cover up the Epstein files.
But it is a good thing that she is speaking out. It encourages others.
Venezuela, another mistake in Trump's ledger. The American people do not support a war with Venezuala.
Ken Burns new documentary "The American Revolution" starts tonight on PBS at 7:00 central time.
"The American Revolution"
I see that. Curiously, the local PBS affiliate is running it four times a night. Two sequentially, then a break for an hour of Christiane Amanpour, then two more runs sequentially. I guess they want everybody to be able to catch it, but it seems like overkill to me.
It seems word's gotten into Trump's White House, the discharge petition on the Epstein files is gonna pass the House with a possible veto proof majority. Suddenly Trump is in favor of it's passage. (He doesn't want to be shown up as having been flaunted by a majority of the House Trumpkins.)
There's evidence coming out of the James Comey federal case suggesting that Trump's handpicked prosecutor was engaged in some legal mischief before the grand jury that eventually returned some (but not all) of the requested indictments against James Comey. Politico This is the sort of thing that could spell dismissal of the charges with prejudice to the refiling thereof for prosecutorial misconduct, and perhaps even disbarment proceedings against the prosecutor caught making mischief.
I think Trump has finally realized that the Epstein case was causing him some serious issues with his base. He needed to pivot to get ahead of it. There is a reason he is a successful conman.
It seems Scott Jennings wrote a book. I don't think I will be buying it
I would not be surprised that the prosecutor in the Comey case did not act within the law. She is only a Trump minion. Hopefully the case against Comey will be thrown out.
Is the novelty of Trump finally wearing off?
So far I think last night's episode of "The American Revolution" was the most interesting.
I noted that last night's episode took the time to explain that the "Founding Fathers" were most certainly not interested in creating a democracy, that they almost universally disfavored democracy. Our Federalist Society dominated, "originalist" Supreme Court has that much figured correctly. The notion that the United States should be a democracy came about much later in time--more around the time of the Civil War and to some extent as a product of that war rather than a founding principal of the landed gentry's rebellion against English rule.
"Is the novelty of Trump finally wearing off?"
I'm not sure I follow the intent of the question, or the assumptions embedded therein. But, assuming I do… The answer would appear to be "yes". (And none too soon either.)
Details of the Trump administration's secret 'backchannel' negotiations with Russia to get Putin to agree to a peace deal are leaking out. First rumors seem to suggest another attempt to surrender to Putin on behalf of Ukraine. NATO and Ukraine are being quietly nervous about the rumors.
I am finally reading that book I bought so long ago, "White Trash" by Nancy Isenberg. It dovetails, at least the first part, with the documentary. No, the founding fathers were not intent on democracy. They were still mired in class structures from the old country.
But I still give them credit for putting us on a trajectory that led to something better. Well, at least it was anyway.
If they hadn't broken our subservience to England we might still be British subjects.
Apparently even Mike Johnson was a little concerned about Trump's wanting to hang the 6 Democrats who made the video telling our military that they can refuse unlawful orders. At least when he was questioned about it he bluntly said "no" he did not agree with that. He actually sounded a little disgusted with it.
Trump has taken to the air (FoxNews radio) to claim ownership of a '28 point peace plan' which consists basically of surrendering to Russia's last set of demands in return for Russia's promise to not come back and take the rest of Ukraine anyway at some later date after they'd rested and prepared their military for the final coup de grâce against Ukraine.
It's as bad as I'd feared. And Zelenskyy doesn't seem to have a lot of options. (Nor a lot of time to hunt for options.)
Marjorie Taylor Greene is resigning as of Jan 6 2026.
Could have knocked me over with a feather. I can only hope it is a case of a rat leaving a sinking ship. That ship being MAGA. But I won't get my hopes up yet.
A lot of House Trumpkan/Republicans are expecting to be in the minority come November of next year. Not near as much fun. Almost zero chance of making national headlines.
Ain't been much in the way of public reaction to Trump's newest gift to Putin.
There is a move afoot in the House of Representatives to bring up a discharge petition to force a vote on the sanctions bill that's been wandering around the Congress for several months looking for Trump to support it. Politico But that seems to be all that's making any noise.
That's another thing that has Trump sideways with some of his base, Ukraine. There are a lot of people out there who support Ukraine and think of Russia as an enemy to be fought, not appeased.
They moved the start of the final episode of the "The American Revolution" to 8 instead of 7 last night. Very strange. I ended up falling asleep towards part of the end. They had just started talking about the guerilla warfare in South Carolina. I was curious to see if they talked about Francis Marion, who was a big part of that.
I will have to try to catch it in reruns.
I came away with disgust and sadness that so many people were willing to vote away what was so hard fought for by our forebears, when they voted in Trump and his sycophant Republican supporters.
I don't think that's a sizable enough contingent to effect him. It's unlikely they'll get a hearing in the Senate even if they get the discharge petition to move the process along in the House. The Trumpkan/Republican 'base' is more into beating up on smaller targets; things like sending an aircraft carrier and three destroyers to storm around and blow up little boats and intimidate Venezuela are more their style.
The documentary did mention Francis Marion and quoted Banastre Tarleton referring to him as an "old fox". But it was a brief reference.
It appears that Ukraine's European allies are working to shore up Ukraine in the face of Trump's attack. It just took the reporters a little time to catch up with the breaking developments. Politico.EU There will, no doubt, be more of this during the next week. (Although I expect the traditional Republican remnant in the American Congress to continue to kowtow to Trump. I don't expect much outta them at all.)
"[R]epresentatives of the Trump administration met with
Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy who is under U.S. sanctions, to
draft a plan to end the war in Ukraine, according to multiple
sources familiar with the matter.
"The meeting took place in Miami at the end of October and
included special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who leads the
Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), one of Russia's largest
sovereign wealth funds."
Reuters
More news; new stories (plural):
It now seems that the "peace plan" Trump posted and was going to ram down Ukraine's throat wasn't actually Trump's plan after all. It was a Russian plan that somehow got "leaked" onto Trump's "Truth Social" account over Trump's signature. So says Marco Rubio in Europe.
Unless you believe the D.C. office for the State Department which didn't know about Rubio's comments in Europe and assured people that it was Trump's plan after all.
Looks like they're still working out what's gonna be the story--too many people spread out too far to coördinate effectively on short notice, and none of them want to get stuck with the blame for this one, so too many of them willing to talk 'bout it--blame somebody else.
They may have a single thread for the story by tomorrow morning, or maybe not tomorrow--but, Monday latest is my guess.
Rubio had to do a 180°. He's returned to the story about the 'peace plan' having been authored in Trump's White House. (Not surprising--Trump wasn't gonna take the blame for that glitch.) So, everybody's on the same page now, and pretending there was never any other story being told (so far as the media will allow it, and they're being rather accommodating it seems.)
So those 6 Dems have been catching heat from Trump and his MAGA Republican supporters. Trump has called them traitors and said they are guilty if sedition.
My question is, the Dems said the military has the right and duty to refuse illegal orders. The Dems never mentioned Donald Trump at all, yet everyone seems to assume they are speaking about orders he may give. Maybe because they know some of his orders are, or may be, illegal? Even Trump. Curious.
"Maybe because they know…"
Hell, yes it's because they know. Everybody knows; even the Trumpkins know. Trump's trying to 'normalize' his illegal orders to the American military. He's preparing them for the day he decides he's had enough of this "checks and balances" shit, and he's staying put in the White House. (The real question is whether he's gonna have the balls to go forward with it when the time comes. T.A.C.O.) He's trying to work his way up to it--to having the balls to try, and having the expectation that they'll follow his patently illegal orders. The Democrats warning him off ain't what he wants to hear right now, and that's why he's having a tantrum.
Yes, everyone seems to jump on Venezuela being the illegal orders they were meaning but I always thought it pertained to future domestic illegal orders.
The fellow who dressed up as a taco in the last protest was carrying a sign that said "I want to believe". Possibly what he may have been referring to.
Apparently not satisfied with the current state of fight in the federal courts, Trump has just announced a new "permanent pause" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) on immigration from "Third World Countries". (Presumably he'll have to list or define these countries at some later point.)
And he's going beyond his pledge to deport all "illegal" aliens to now pledging to deport any persons (presumably not American citizens) who are not a "net asset", are "incapable of loving our Country,” or are otherwise “incompatible with Western civilization.” (Presumably those terms will be adjusted and enforced according to his presidential whims.)
Personally, I think he's getting a little erratic (perhaps desperate as his public polling begins to tank).
I think I would say a lot erratic.
We are already seeing supply chain disruptions from his tariffs. One would think that people will start to get a clue eventually that he is incompetent. At least enough people to make a difference.
The question remains will we have fair elections in 2026 and again in 2028? Or will Trump try to nullify them if they go against him?
The shooting of the 2 national guardsmen in DC has just played into his hand allowing him to crack down even harder on non-citizens, and those seeking to come here. Although truthfully I can't see why anyone would want to come here anymore. We are no longer that shining city on a hill, if we ever were.
"The shooting of the 2 national guardsmen in DC has just
played into his hand…"
Curiously, for all of Trump's posturing on the subject, the shooter was actually granted asylum here in the states under Trump's watch, in April of this year. Reuters
Kristi Noem is saying the shooter was radicalized after arriving in the US. If that is the case the vetting he went through, either during the Biden or the Trump administration's, would not have weeded him out as being a danger. Noem is contradicting Trump's assertion that this was Biden's fault for letting him in. I wonder if anyone will catch a clue.
It seems that even Republicans are finding the idea that an order was given to kill any survivors of the latest bombing of a boat by the US as illegal. Will they actually grow a spine?
"Will they actually grow a spine?"
No. They think they can blame this on Hegseth, and avoid needing a spine. Hegseth is already wildly unpopular among the Trumpkan/Republicans in the Congress.
New story. The White House is gonna try to cut off accountability at the Admiral level, offering up Adm. Frank Bradley for accountability and possible prosecution in the place of Pete Hegseth. (Wonder if the Admiral has a pardon locked in already)
It's his pattern… Things ain't working for Trump he turns up the heat rather than back down. He finds some greater outrage for the liberals to distract them from whatever's happened lately that he doesn't want in the headlines.
And he's not liking the current headlines. Hegseth is part of a larger plan. He doesn't want to let Hegseth go before the mid term elections, just in case he needs Hegseth where he is. So, what's he gonna do to up the ante?
My guess is he invades Venezuela; boots on the ground; quick in and make trouble; dust, smoke, noise, and then back out.
(Possible he pulls all support to Ukraine instead, but that's not exactly active enough to suit his 'base'.)
Or he tries a little distraction by announcing a $1,000.00 cash gift to all children born between Jan 1st and the end of his term. His so called "Trump Accounts". Bribery has worked in the past.
The Supreme Trumkins have upheld the gerrymandering in Texas.
Trumpkins
I saw that. I'm not exactly a Constitutional scholar; never claimed to be. But this one was clear enough to even a rudimentary legal knowledge (informed laymen or basic lawyering level). They decided this one to support their political affiliation, not on the basis of the legal opinions they've been handing down in these redistricting cases over the last decade or so.
Quite simply, they decided on the political outcome they wanted--more Trumpkan/Republicans in the House is what they wanted, and they went for that. To Hell with stare decisis or consistency in the law.
On the other side… The DoJ tried to re-indict Letitia James, and the grand jury refused to go along with them on that. (They can try again with a new grand jury--just might do it too.) May not be able to expect the Supreme Court to follow the law, but some citizens are starting to stand up on the subject.
So much for any concern Robert's may have had with the publics view of the Supreme Court as being a apolitical body.
"So much for any concern Robert's may have had…"
Yes, he's certainly NOT going to let any public perceptions get in the way of his conversion of the high court into a blatantly political body.
But, we've overcome blatantly political courts before. The pre-Civil War "Taney Court" (which issued the infamous "Dred Scott" decision), and the early 20th Century "Lochner Era" Court (which was spookily similar to our present predicament) stand out in my mind.
If we can recover from Trump we'll probably survive this blatantly anti-democratic court as well.
The problem has always been getting the American people who voted for Trump, or enough of them anyway, to regret that decision.
It seems the only way to do that is for them to experience exactly what they voted for. So i see rough waters ahead.
Hmmm...seems the 18 - 29 crowd who gave Trump an approval rating of +10% in February now give him an approval rating of -52%. Now if we can just get them to vote...
"…the 18-29 crowd…gave Trump an approval rating of +10%…"
I never did understand that. (I have my suspicions that it was laziness and stupidity and too much time on the little screens.)
I kinda understood the old folks goin' with the angry vote. Nobody really wants to be old (nor to die for that matter), and the older they get and the closer to dead they get the more they tend to be angry 'bout it. Plus they been having to put up with queers on TV, queers getting married, queers walking around in broad daylight not being ashamed of themselves; Mexicans hangin' 'round the Home Depot; Black Folks in the White House; all kinds of crap they never had to put up with before.
But the kids gotta live with this shit. So I never did understand their embrace of Trump (probably means I gave 'em credit for having more sense than they actually got.)
News item: Trump is purging immigration judges from the immigration courts.
Politico
We can expect that'll make a bad situation worse.
Trump, spurned by the Nobel Prize Committee, has been granted the Peace Prize by the International Soccer Association (Federation Internationale de Football Association a/k/a the FIFA). They've never proclaimed a Soccer Peace Prize before, and so far as anybody can tell this is intended to be a one-off "prize", probably never to be repeated again. Made up just for Trump.
And… In the same vein…
The National Park Service is granting free admission to our National Parks on Trump's birthday this year. (While canceling the free admission previously given for the very real federal holidays of Martin Luther King day and Juneteenth.)
But the kids gotta live with this shit. So I never did understand their embrace of Trump (probably means I gave 'em credit for having more sense than they actually got.)
I don't understand it either. That, and the immigrant communities here in Minnesota, who voted for him.
That includes the Somali's who are now his target.
His creepy minion, Dr Oz, is threatening to cut off all Medicaid payments to Minnesota if we don't give a report on how we are combating fraud In the program.
"…that and the immigrant communities…"
The immigrant votes I understand. We been letting in a lot of people who did not come here because they necessarily wanted to be Americans. Democracy, personal freedom, the values enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, those ain't what brought them here. They came for the money. Or they came because their side lost back home. They didn't come here yearning for a chance to live in and contribute to a pluralist democracy. Instead they brought their home country political theories with them (i.e. winner takes all; losers get punished).
They recognized Trump as somebody who practices politics as they knew of and approved of politics back home. They thought they could make a "deal" with Trump and then count themselves in on the winning side this time. Wrong! They're "darkies", scum to Trump, and the racist theme won out. They don't get to join the winner's side after all. Too bad; so sad.
But, I've always been rather more critical of our immigrant entry criteria than you have. I'm not big on declaring the losing side of foreign political wars to be refugees just on account of they lost and are now paying the price for that, not when they would have happily oppressed and persecuted the other side had their side won. (They likewise would have happily persecuted and oppressed me if they got half a chance--or you for that matter.)
We need to be more selective. We need people who admire the American political heritage and want to join up, not people who just want to re-play their old politics here according to their home country's political rules.
Trump's new "National Security Strategy" basically cuts Europe loose to fend for themselves. Not just Ukraine, all of Europe. That may turn out to be better for Ukraine than continuing to try to appease Trump. Or, might turn out to be worse. Depends on how far he goes with trying to appease Putin.
I am starting to think you are correct about the immigrants to this country. While I sympathize with those who seek a better life, I don't much care for them bringing their political ideology with them.
Seems the Supreme Trumpkins are ready to allow Trump more powers to fire government watchdogs.
Are we taking any bets that they won't side with him when it comes time to decide on birthright citizenship?
"Are we taking any bets that they won't side with him when it
comes time to decide on birthright citizenship?"
I'm not. Not unless I get offered really good odds.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I still don't understand how the kids came around to voting for Trump; I don't get that one. (Unless, as I said before, it was a combination of laziness and stupidity and too much time with their noses glued to their little screens.)
Post a Comment