It is a human trait that we do not notice trends and movements until AFTER they have arrived. How else to explain the refusal of Jews to leave Germany before WWII or currently, the blindness in regard to the growing anti-Semitism we see everywhere around us?

Anti-Semitism has migrated from Christianity and settled in with Islam and the Left. At one time no respectable person would dare claim to be anti-semitic - it was only the uneducated, the ignorant, the fools. As noted by the author, suddenly it's in to be prejudiced and strangely intellectuals are leading the charge - from European capitals to college campuses. While some of this, the author notes, started as anti-Israeli feelings it has quickly evolved into an anti-Jewish message that is barely concerned with providing intellectual cover. And it brings nary a protest!

General Zinni was interviewed and named those responsibile for the Iraq mess. His answer was telling - he named five Jews in the administration - not the VP, not Bush, not Rice or Rumsfeld. No, five Jews. When this was pointed out he stated that he did not know the faith of the five, sopmething so hard to believe as to be dismissed out of hand. The real story is that he sought to blame Jews for our troubles (shades of the Black Plague) and nearly got away with it. Not suprisingly he is pro-Arab. This was followed by dottering Sen Hollings who woke up to blame the war on "Jewish interests" then said he was not blaming the Jews - Go figure.

The book does not answer the psychological or emotional reasons for this trend perhaps because there is no answer for irrational thinking. The answer is found in ideology. The European (and increasingly American) Left supports the Arab cause in the ongoing Middle East battle. The question of WHy an intellectual would choose religious fundamentalists, thugs and terrorists over a Western-oriented society that allows dissent is a question that must be answered in another book.

But the fact remains, as the author notes, that anti-Semitism is a function of most Arab governments and this brainwashing has spilled over to its inhabitants who regularly march in protest - not for political, economic or religious freedom. No, crowds proclaim their hatred of Jews and their fervent wish to exterminate them.

The book is well-documented but given Zinni, Hollings, NPR, the Cairo Times and the hate spewing from Damascus, Pakistan and Iran and the voice of terrorists murdering "Jews" on film, exactly, uh, how detailed must one get? This is an important book that should be updated frequently with the latest signs of this most disturbing of trends.

This is an album that grows on you with repeated listenings. It has risen from a 2 to a 2.5 all the way to a (rounded upward) 4. After listenting to Diana Krall, Jane Monheit and especially the incredible Cheryl Bentyne I can say that Claudia is of a different style...and talent. It's not only that I prefer the ballads and sultry interpretations, it is that on this CD many songs are indistinguishable - same beat, similar melody, same rhythmic expression. Her range is not as great, her tone is not as poetic, nor is her diction as clear as many other "jazz" greats but she is powerful. The incredible "I Fall In Lone Too Easily" commands a 10 while the uniquely personal interpretation of "More Than You Know" makes a nice conclusion.

Moore simply could not make Bond seem real. Perhaps it was the appearance (blond hair) or his - how to say this politiely - advancing years in which some of the babes appear as daughters rather than gal pals. Dalton was great. It was different in that Bond was not on a government-sanctioned mission but a personal vendetta. It was exciting and yes, violent, but it did reinstill some much-needed reality back into the series. With Moore, everything - from plot to dame to prize - was a joke. Here one realizes that the spy game is more than a game - it is dangerous and dirty. Great villians but the romance side was rather weak despite the lurid (for Bond) scenes.

Super performance by Wayne Newton!!

Goldeneye is one of those films that you know, from the first second, is going to please. It is an almost perfect movie from the awesome beginning to the slow unraveling of the plot to the love interest(the Russian) to the woman villianess (Xenia Onatopp - LOVE THAT NAME and what an entrance!!!!). On top of that we get Judi Dench as the new "M" and what a great bit of casting that was! Exciting, beautiful, sexy - the return of the spy himself.

The Amazon reviewer noted that JB was becoming formulaic...well, in a sense, every movie is formulaic: Mysteries, science fiction, light romances, even drama. What was good about this were the terrific special effects, the complex, modern plot (The USSR is no more) and the music. Bad things: Alas, romance. The lead could not compete with earlier Bond women and being neither a femme fatale or a blushing virgin we are caught in the middle. Brosnan was good in this role, a more serious JB that brought much-needed weight and content to the part.

I kinow this film has not received the acclaim of other Bond films but for the life of me I don't know why not. So what if the story is borrowed from a previous film...Dirty Harry, You Got Mail, etc were all variations on a theme.

No, this was the return of the TRUE James Bond, the one and only Sean Connery. Here he is older yet wiser, not as foolhardy but still daring, and though his libido must have subsided a tad, he is still the ladies man. Kim was great as the bad guy's gal pal. Equally good was the villian himself, not as totally outlandish as some of the previous ones. Several scenes stand out....

The Tango (fantastic and it was reprised with the...) Arab auction. (What a great opportunity for Bond to make a - pardon the pun - dashing entry). Then there was the game for the world and who can forget the over the top performance by Barbara Carrerra as the sexy Fatima Blush. Where DO they come up with these names? Good plot, good characterization and good ending.

I wish Amazon would change their grading system to a 10 point scaled for better gradation. HARD FALL was a great read, a good thriller with wonderful human interest stories. It was not the interplay between action and people which was almost seamless or that Daggett was so likable or that Carrie, Lynn and Monique were interesting characters who were brilliantly portrayed or that the plot was credible. All that is true but what kept harking back to me was the seemingly silly effort to give the mass murderer a "human face", justifications for doing evil because he had experienced grand tragedy. Take away 1/2 point.

There is no excuse for purposely murdering innocent people. On the other hand he shows how a political movement (ecology in this case) can become the germ for terrorism. + 1/2 point. The setting is good, the murky European background handled well, the madness and genius of the killer aptly described. The dual love stories and the father-son bond were superb tales in themselves and the way it all intertwined was a joy to behold. A little dated but still an excellent read.

Accepting the premises of this moviebook means disregarding the dire, failed prophecies from the same groups - mass starvation, half of all animal species wiped out, coastal area inundated, huge rise in cancer due to ozone thinning...don't hold your breath for a correction.

Under the direction of a Spielberg this could have emerged as poetic with real cinematic beauty. But Emmerich has all the finesse of a nuclear bomb and his inability to mix the personal and the computer have never been more apparent. Then we have a hack like Strieber (of "aliens among us" fame) to "interpret" the movie. It's bad because if reflects the film. The NYT reviewer notes that the audience guffawed throughout and that about sums up the attitude of almost every major critic from Rolling Stone to Newsday who savaged the thing.

The only thing worse than reading rubbish is having to watch a fine actor like Dennis Quaid deliver it on screen. (He tries hard but it's too much.) The sheer miscalculation of intent is incredible. The "scientific" jabber intended as a sign of authenticity instead sounds like Porky Pig discussing Quantum Mechanics. The stupidity never ends - he gets on his snowshoes to walk to NY (from Philadelphia!!) The book and the movie are disasters and I am not talking genre.

Character growth (LOL) is nil. Indeed, despite the end of the world as we know it, people stay calm, accepting the end - all that is except the evil VP (Cheney). It's reported that multiple retakes were necessary due to the hilarious reaction of the actors to their "lines". Just as in Independence Day and numerous scifi books, ONE man alone knows the answer and can save the world. Yeehaaaaw!

See the movie WITHOUT dialogue for a much better time.

This is, without a doubt, the smoothest, sultriest and most professional CD I have ever heard. The tone is absolutely incredible and that includes not only the voice but the near perfection of the orchestration. The arrangements are fresh, original, seemingly the only way they could possibly be heard. Each one highlights Cheryl's unique abilities that range from ballad to scat.

From the first selection, an absolutely perfect rendition of "You'd be so nice to come home to" (what vocals!!!!) to the old ballads ("The very Thought of you" / "Everything happens to me") to the ingenius combo "Talk of the Town / Get out of Town" we are exploring the epitome of musicality. The arrangement of "Love Me or Leave Me" recalls smokey bars and highballs. Ms. Bentyne, upon hearing the music, supplied the words to "Still Good Friends", a short, bittersweet finale which is about as apt a closing tune as exists.

Sensational sound, perfect diction, wonderful artistry!

There is a vast difference in the approach taken by the two sides concerning the authenticity of the Shroud. On one side are scientists and historians who have stated plainly why they consider it a fake. On the other side are "true believers" who insist - despite all evidence to the contrary - that it's the real McCoy. Observations of the skeptics sound dry, even dull, since they only deal in subatomic comparisons, chemical makeup, etc. Absent are references to ancient tales, myth, conjecture, wild surmises and pleas to "faith". The authors sound like UFO enthusiasts in their ability to find evidence of aliens in burn marks on trees. The various theories expounded - that it was the serving cloth of the Last Supper - contradict the Bibical story. The linking of the Oviedo cloth (the napkin of Jesus) ignores the fact that there were hundreds of such napkins and that it was stored next to a vial of Jesus's blood!

I began with an open mind but the incredibly detailed tests of McCrone, Rober Hedger of Oxford and especially, the three sites selected by the Vatican in 1988 for authoritative dating (all found a date of 1350) were more than convincing. Plus, if one took the author's viewpoint that the cloth is somehow telling us a story, one must ask the obvious questions:

In an age of relics, where was it? In the fight against the Muslims why was it not used as "evidence"? Why is there no head to head joint as would happen if folded? This book reads like one of Dale Brown's novels about Mary Magdalene, conspiracies, ancient cabals, secret cults, hidden meanings, etc. There is even rivalry over whether the impression was by natural or supernatural causes. If one accepts it as genuine one must necessarily accept that a man rose from the dead, walked through walls, was born from a virgin, was actually God (and his own father)and rose and disappeared in the sky.

What is more likely? That a fire in 1500 changed the dating by 1350 years or that a cloth from the year 30 was carted around the known world, hiding and re-emerging, or that 3 independent labs selected by the Vatican correctly found a date of 1350? You be the judge. Conclusion: All the wishing and hoping and stretching will not change the fact this is a beautiful act of faith by a medieval artist.