The union for state police didn't sue because the law exempts pol

But at least "G.I.J. (Jonathan Pryce plays both roles; he's far too qualified for even one of them.I. Joe Retaliation," a Paramount Pictures release, is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial led string light bulb Manufacturers外部リンク arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality. The survivors -- Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson, reliable as ever), Flint (D. Cotrona, who's given no personality) and Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki, in full makeup for covert ops) -- must find out who's running the country and get to the bottom of this villain's dastardly plan.Nothing matters really.___Motion Picture Association of America rating definition for PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned. Joe" is good, aside from a couple of dazzling action set pieces, but at least it's efficient in its muscular mindlessness.)"Retaliation" initially was scheduled to come out last summer, but the studio pulled it and delayed its release to convert the movie to 3-D.
That's not to say that this "G. This is an astonishingly violent PG-13 movie.Turns out it's master of disguise Zartan, part of the enemy group Cobra, who's posing as the president while the real commander in chief is locked up in a bomb shelter.. With a director like Jon M.I. This is a movie based on a Hasbro toy, after all -- it's all spectacle and bombast. Running time: 110 minutes. But they find themselves double-crossed by their own government, led by an imposter president, and lose many among their ranks in a massive ambush.) The three Joes realize they need help to bring him down, so they round up the far-flung Snake Eyes (Ray Park), the petite warrior Jinx (Elodie Yung, whose character trains with the Blind Master, RZA) and the reluctant Storm Shadow (Korean superstar Byung-hun Lee, an athletic and elegant specimen).The elite military team of Joes, now led by Duke (Channing Tatum, returning from the first film), is sent to Pakistan to recover some nuclear weapons."G. Joe" is aware of its vapidity compared to, say, last week's "Olympus Has Fallen," in which North Korean terrorists took over the White House in self-serious fashion but our secret-service-agent hero found time to make wedged-in, smart-alecky quips on the way to saving the day.If a big, dumb action movie knows it's a big, dumb action movie and revels in that fact, is that preferable to a big, dumb action movie making the mistake of thinking it's significant, relevant art?That's the question to ponder -- if you can think straight and your ears aren't ringing too badly -- during "G.There is one absolutely astounding extended sequence about halfway through, in which two teams of ninjas face off in a battle on the sheer cliff faces of the Himalayas.
Two stars out of four.I. The flip side is, none of the casualties from all this sophisticated weaponry results in any blood. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra" seems to have some cheeky fun with itself, from Bruce Willis cheerily revealing the arsenal he's hiding in his quiet suburban home to RZA from the Wu-Tang Clan essentially showing up and playing himself. Chu, who's shown a flair for integrating 3-D with the dance extravaganza "Step Up 3D" and the concert film "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never," why not just shoot it that way in the first place? As it stands now, the extra dimension doesn't add much, and often is used in that simplistic, tried-and-true way of flinging things at us from the screen: bullets, throwing stars, etc.I. Joe: Retaliation. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Colton, who provides his own personal gun show. A major city is obliterated with the touch of a button and several others are in peril as the world hinges on nuclear destruction in what amounts to a hammy game of chicken." This sequel of sorts to the 2009 blockbuster "G. (You'd never know there's a gun control debate in this country from watching this movie; it's all very macho and rah-rah.They also need some firepower, so they track down Willis' Original Joe, Gen. Using cables and zip lines, it's as if they're running, leaping and practically dancing on walls in the sky -- a breathtaking piece of choreography in its own right, regardless of the dimension through which it's viewed


They were actually very similar

"They had similar backgrounds and in some ways could understand edison light bulb Suppliers外部リンク what the other was experiencing," said Heather Conley, director of Europe programs for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Both favored privatizing many government functions. Both tackled inflation.The British prime minister and the American president had the kind of personal bond that is extremely rare at such high levels of power.And both had a lasting -- and controversial -- impact on their own and opposing political parties in their respective nations.com/tomraum."Apparently her warmth with Reagan didn't fully convey to Bush, Reagan's successor.Reagan's supply-side theories that lower taxes can stimulate growth -- like a rising tide that lifts all ships -- was derided as "Reaganomics" by critics and even once called "voodoo economics" by the Republican who went on to serve as his vice president and later as president himself, George H. But in some ways, their focus was their strength," Conley said. Both stood up to organized labor.Still, "she was a great partner with the United States," said former top State Department official Nicholas Burns, including being the one who persuaded Reagan that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was "someone we can do business with.Thatcher's efforts in advancing conservative causes and programs in Britain may have strengthened Reagan's hand in selling his conservative agenda at home, and vice versa. Bush. For instance, Thatcher didn't get the level of support she wanted from Reagan during the Falklands War crisis. Indeed, her policies led the way and inspired other nations -- including those in newly free Eastern Europe -- to adopt similar reforms to boost their economies," Ed Feulner, former president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote Monday in a tribute.
While she fully supported Bush on confronting Saddam Hussein after Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, she was a little concerned about his resolve.WASHINGTON (AP) -- Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, two self-assured and firm-speaking conservatives, joined forces in the early 1980s and drastically changed the economic and political landscapes in both of their countries. Thatcher raised her nation's value-added tax.Even today, it is hard for American Republicans to support any increase in taxes -- a Reagan legacy that still makes it difficult for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on tax legislation.While Thatcher and Reagan were both economic conservatives at heart, "they were also much more pragmatic about what could be done" than many of today's conservatives, Bartlett said. They just tried to make it work better and reduce its cost.The elder Bush issued a statement Monday declaring: "America has lost one of the staunchest allies we have ever known.Today's widely held warm and fuzzy image of the Reagan-Thatcher alliance of three decades ago may have been fortified and blurred somewhat by the passage of time. And their side-by-side standing up to Soviet communism is credited by those of all political stripes as hastening the end of the Cold War. W. Some have argued that that lack of complexity was their shortcoming."And they had unique solidarity."I loved it that she and Ronnie were as close as they were," she told Fox News. "So this was the reason I said, 'Look, George, this is no time to go wobbly," she later recalled.Both cut income taxes deeply and reined in national government spending. And Thatcher was miffed and annoyed by Reagan's 1983 invasion of the tiny Caribbean island nation of Grenada.Thatcher led Britain's Conservative Party to three election victories, governing from 1979 to 1990. Thatcher, who came to be known as the "Iron Lady," exhibited relentless determination."___Follow Tom Raum on Twitter: http://www.And they sometimes disagreed.Conservatives at the time viewed the political victories of the two allies as part of a worldwide trend moving in their direction -- a trend that has since run into a lot of bumps in the road.She was the first and last White House State Dinner guest during Reagan's eight-year presidency."They were actually very similar, but very different from what many people today think they did," said Bruce Bartlett, an economic adviser to Reagan and Bush.""Using deregulation and privatization, she restored Great Britain, once dismissed as the 'sick man of Europe,' to its position as a world power. Both were strong advocates of free markets and increased open international trade.Thatcher died Monday in London of a stroke at 87. Reagan projected radiant optimism and cheerful agreeability.Their calls for more-austere government and lower taxes still resonate with conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic.twitter."
While both are known for slashing taxes and cutting spending, Reagan also supported many later tax increases and backed raising the government's borrowing authority many times.Reagan and Thatcher forged a special friendship "from the very beginning, the first time they met," former first lady Nancy Reagan said Monday. Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. They were tough, they were single-minded in many ways. And when he died in 2004, at 93 after suffering for years with Alzheimer's disease, a frail Thatcher attended his state funeral.In Britain, Thatcher's policies were dubbed "Economic Thatcherism.The two had vastly different governing styles. "And they both accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state."An intrepid warrior for freedom and human dignity, Prime Minister Thatcher stood with her 'noble friend,' President Ronald Reagan, to confront the Soviet empire when it was at its peak," Feulner added


United Nations inspectors would obtain the evidence

chemical weapons inspections.N. The assessment said 1,429 people were killed, including at least 426 children.Ten years ago, Bush urged the American public, the Congress and the international community to believe intelligence assessments that Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction — a claim later proved wrong. officials assembled and double-checked the data, Iraq was not far from their thoughts.As a senator, Obama opposed the Iraq war, and as president, he brought it to a close.It cited both human and technological intelligence to conclude that the Syrian government was undertaking activities to deploy chemical weapons three days before the attack. Bush built a case for the U. It's going to be small scale or medium scale and it's going to be over as soon as it's begun practically."You see this rush to compare," Rhodes said, "and what's interesting is that there is no outcome in which things look anything like Iraq. We're going to hear about the beginning, middle ceriling rose外部リンク and end of it all in one Pentagon briefing, more or less."White House deputy national security adviser Benjamin Rhodes said that for all the focus on comparing judgments in Iraq and Syria over weapons of mass destruction, "the scale of what has been contemplated has been lost as against Iraq."Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack," Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday. The question is whether the United States can pin the blame beyond doubt on Assad's government.N."The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode and we need to understand the public skepticism," British Prime Minister David Cameron said during Parliament's debate that led to a stunning and unexpected refusal to endorse military action against Syria."I'm surprised this administration doesn't make that analogy," O'Hanlon said."I recognize that all of us — here in the United States, in Great Britain, in many parts of the world — there is a certain weariness given Afghanistan, there's a certain suspicion of any military action post-Iraq,"
Obama said Friday. The report cited intercepted communications in which an senior Syrian official, who was not identified, confirmed the use of chemical weapons that day and voiced concern that United Nations inspectors would obtain the evidence."The report gave the information a rating of "high confidence," the strongest short of actual confirmation. We will not repeat that moment."But even without the intelligence failures preceding the Iraq war, there is an Iraq and Afghanistan war fatigue that has settled over the country that also poses challenges for Obama.Now Obama is holding Syrian President Bashar Assad responsible for a reported chemical weapons attack and saying that justifies military action against his the Damascus government.S."All this is reminiscent of events from a decade ago, when the United States bypassed the U.Cameron and Obama argue that Iraq and Syria are vastly different in both the evidence in hand and the consequences. "And I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience.Michael O'Hanlon, a national security analyst at The Brookings Institution, said that for all the contrasts with the 2003 Iraq invasion, the more apt comparison in Syria is with missile strikes ordered against Iraq by President Bill Clinton, including strikes in 1998 to punish Saddam for not complying with U.In a declassified intelligence assessment released Friday, the Obama administration held Assad's government responsible for a chemical weapons attack Aug. and used fallacious information on the presence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction to launch an adventure, the consequences of which are known to all," said Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich.. That said, the public is move favorably disposed to a limited cruise missile launch than some other type of intervention, with 50 percent favoring that kind of action and 44 opposing it.-led bombing campaign and ground invasion.
Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction.Supporters of Assad's rule, including Russia, have been quick to point to that history in objecting to any retaliatory strikes against Syria. "This operation is going to be limited.An NBC poll found that nearly 8 in 10 Americans want Obama to obtain congressional approval before using force in Syria.S. But that war's end did not erase memories of the false premise on which President George W. But there are doubts about whether the evidence is convincing. 21 on the Damascus suburbs.As U.WASHINGTON — The painful legacy of the Iraq war has complicated President Barack Obama's efforts to muster support for military action against Syria. In Syria, there is little doubt that civilians were killed by chemical weapons


The Saudis are now looking to Pakistan for help

imperialism" and feign outrage at our “arrogance of power” and overwhelming military might, the fact remains that it wants and expects us to take a strong, active strategic leadership role., and where China and Japan are now engaged in a dangerous game of retaliatory overflights in the East China Sea. as a feckless ally.They get to continue enriching uranium even as the regime of sanctions against their country slowly unravels.Things haven't looked much better in Asia, where North Korea has continued to increase its ballistic missile capabilities, including weapons that could reach the continental U.S.First came revelations about the serial security failures in Libya, which led directly to the tragic deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans on Sept.S.
There was also Egypt, where the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood tried to grab control of that nation's constitution, leading to a bloody countercoup by the Egyptian military.S.Then there was President Obama's notorious “red line” on Syria, which turned out to be no line at all, and his grasp at a dubious deal on chemical weapons offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin.This is because Obama has yet to learn one of the important secrets about the world since 1945: However much the international community likes to condemn "U.S. to take the lead in hemming in China's bid for hegemony. to give up its military base on Okinawa.Putin's deal will ultimately leave Syria's murderous dictator Bashar Assad in power with all the nerve gas he needs.They understand that without us, the European Union would just be another collection of Russian satellite states, or alternately, as the Muslim birth rate explodes in Western Europe, part of a new Islamic caliphate. pullout and reduction of our military presence there always has politicians from Madrid to Berlin reaching for the smelling salts, even after the fall of the Berlin Wall."For decades, Japanese politicians have called for the U." (Random House, 2013)</em>.It's certainly our key problem in the Middle East, where Obama's “leading from behind” has done nothing but offend our long-standing allies and encourage chaos and bloodshed, including four dead Americans in Benghazi. The Saudis are now looking to Pakistan for help in getting a bomb of their own.And, of course, in Europe, the threat of a U.S. Now, at the end of 2013, they’re begging us to stay because they sense a genuine U. Obama's action also led Saudi Arabia to publicly blast the U. needs to answer every 911 call across the world, or continue to carry a global military burden when our allies are more than capable of contributing more? Of course not.Does that mean the U.S. We give them only vague promises about a “Pacific pivot.It will make for a safer and more stable world in 2014, and in the future.But it does mean learning, even in the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan, that the world still expects us to speak forthrightly and carry that big stick on issues vital to our interests, and those of our allies. 11, 2012 -- and which no amount of New York Times whitewashing this past week will completely cover up. reluctantly backing Japan even as we tell all the concerned parties, in plaintive Rodney King tones, 'Gee, can’t we all just get along?'Finally, we have the farcical deal in Geneva concerning Iran's nuclear program, which every serious observer knows is a stunning victory for the mullahs in Tehran.S.S. looked so weak and forlorn, and not since the 1970s has the world looked so dangerous and uncertain.The world gets very nervous when the U.<em>Arthur Herman is a former visiting scholar led floodlight外部リンク at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Cave and The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization.Not since the 1970s has the U.
But it's also true in Asia, where a loose coalition of powers including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and even Vietnam are yearning for the U. pullout will only leave them and the rest of Asia under the Chinese boot heel. stops acting like Marshal Dillon and starts playing the Dalai Lama instead. Now Obama is the one person all Egyptians can agree to despise.S.S.Both the Chinese and Japanese claim the mineral-rich Senkaku Islands, with the U.It was a dismal year in 2013 for the power and prestige of the United States abroad.Obama, as usual, dithered, scolding one side and then the other. That’s not a coincidence, and everyone except Obama and his top appointees know it. That’s no mean achievement in a country teetering on the brink of civil war.S


You might want to take this as a vote of no confidence

You might want to take this as a vote of no confidence in the Democratic party in the Democratic president's home state. Can he count on that again?Bottom line: The Democratic president’s home state may very well elect a Republican governor, and the state with some of the most intransigent public employee unions may end up with a governor who at least says he wants to break their death grip on state finances. The incumbent Democratic Gov. Bill Brady, who finished in third place with 15 percent in Tuesday's Republican primary. Downstate Republicans seem significantly less determined for a showdown with the public employee unions than metro Chicago Republicans.Rauner campaigned as a stern critic of Illinois's public employee unions, which have connived with the legislature to give the state huge pension obligations, which in turn have given it the worst or second worst overhanging fiscal obligations of any state; Dillard campaigned as someone who was not blaming the public employee unions and was -- surprise -- the intended beneficiary of some late spending by the public employee unions..
But I think it is less significant than that. Rauner will certainly have money to spend and a metro Chicago focus (contrary to the Downstate focus of the 2010 nominee Brady). Democrats had no serious primary fights, with Quinn, Sen. First, turnout was much larger in the Republican than the Democratic primary, by 813,000 votes to 437,000 votes (rounded off to the nearest thousand) in the returns as I write. Republican turnout was just a little higher than the 767,000 in 2010, while Democratic turnout in that year was 916,000 -- but Democrats then had serious primary contests for senator and governor. Quinn got lower than average percentages in Downstate counties containing Rockford, Rock Island and Moline, Alton, Peoria and Springfield, counties where a successful Democrat needs to pile up some votes in order to win statewide.The top-line race in the Illinois primary yesterday was the Republican contest for governor. In metro Chicago, Brauner led Dillard 49 percent to 35 percent. James Thompson and Jim Edger -- not exactly Tea Party credentials. Rauner’s weak showing Downstate suggests he may have trouble maximizing the potential Republican vote. His job approval has been low and he is regarded as an unreliable maverick by many Democrats. He served previously on the staffs of Republican Govs. Pat Quinn has tried to scale back on the state's obligations, with very limited success in the state's Democratic-majority legislator; he was elected by just a 47-percent to 46-percent margin in 2010 over state Sen. Dick Durbin and most Democratic House incumbents unopposed, while Republicans had a rip-roaring primary contest for governor.Third, what does this mean for Rauner’s chances in the general election?
Quinn, despite having no primary opposition, is not in a strong position for re-election. But the fact that a no-name candidate received 28 percent of the pendant light Manufacturers外部リンク vote in the Democratic primary for governor suggests that Quinn may have even more trouble maximizing the potential Democratic vote — and getting core Democrats out to vote in a state with no serious Senate and few serious House contests. He didn’t carry these counties in 2010, but won because of heavy black and Hispanic turnout in metro Chicago. In the other 95 counties — Downstate Illinois — which cast 49 percent of the statewide votes, Dillard led 40 percent to 30 percent, with significant votes for Downstate candidate Brady.A couple of observations.Second, Rauner’s victory owed very much to his self-financed edge in television advertising, which paid off in the seven-county (Cook, DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kane, Kendall, Will) metro Chicago area, which cast 51 percent of Republican primary votes. The latest returns, as I write, have 99 percent of precincts reporting, with a clear but narrow winner in the Republican primary, businessman and self-financer Bruce Rauner over state legislator Kirk Dillard 40 percent to 37 percent (all these numbers are subject to slight revision when the final figures come in)