Israeli hardliners have little to fear from Spielberg's excursion into the political thriller genre, a bloody philosophy lesson from which only the most dedicated and sophisticated viewers will be able to discern any worthwhile, deeper meaning.

Drawn from the book Vengeance by Mossad agent George Jonas, Steven Spielberg's Munich takes on terrorism and true events. At the 1972 Olympics in Germany, a Palestinian terrorist group, Black September, took eleven Israeli athletes and their coaches hostage and murdered them. It was one of the first acts of public violence broadcast around the world, a sort of horrible press release meant to call attention to the Palestinian cause, just a few years after the 1967 War, which resulted in the Occupied Territories. The film follows five Israeli agents who are assigned to hunt down those responsible for ordering and planning the Munich attack.

Spielberg borrows heavily from Hitchcock, Peckinpah, Coppola, and Scorsese in a cinematic mayhem that keeps audience adrenalin pumping. He's made a thriller that aspires to a philosophical core, and at times almost succeeds in transcending the action genre. The script by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) and Tony Kushner (Angels in America) maintains an Israeli point of view, and the shadow of the Holocaust is never far from reach as the "root cause" for the mission. The Munich murders are horrifyingly real, in both archival news footage and Spielberg's recreations, rendered in flashbacks that continue through to the film's final moments. If the viewer begins to question the seemingly endless murders the Mossad commits in retribution, one more shot of Black September on-the-rampage in Munich will shove you back (as it is meant to) into total support for the "terrible necessity" of Israeli violence.

Some Israelis (such as Ehud Danoch, the Israeli Consul-General in Los Angeles) have slammed Spielberg for making Israeli and Palestinian violence seem "equivalent" -- a totally absurd claim to anyone who's actually seen the film. In fact, Munich virtually omits "the Palestinian side" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There's just one brief exchange, between the film's lead Israeli agent and a Palestinian, where the Palestinian expresses longing for a "homeland" and makes a fierce declaration that "Israel will eventually lose to the Palestinians, even if it takes a 100 years." It's a startling moment, because it's the only time a Palestinian speaks. Otherwise, Palestinians are portrayed in the usual way: nameless thugs "speaking gibberish" (untranslated Arabic) who commit "senseless" acts of brutality against Jews.

However, what Munich does do is evoke what journalist Robert Fisk has called the endless "dance of death," as each Mossad act of revenge is countered by more (unseen) acts of Palestinian violence. Spielberg is posing thorny questions: Can violence ever end violence? And even if one's cause is "just," can one kill and not become morally, psychologically, and spiritually damaged? What does "security" really look like, and how can it be established in the midst of an ongoing conflict?

These questions are at least as meaningful for Americans in G.W. Bush's post-9/11 "war on terror" as for the Israelis and the Palestinians, maybe even more so. Americans will find it far more useful to apply the ethical and philosophical challenges of Munich to the activities at Abu Graib, the "disappearance" of "detainees" into U.S. secret prisons, and, most recently, a mission to kill a high-level Al Qaeda member in Pakistan -- which killed at least seventeen civilians while failing to get the intended target.

The five Mossad agents have varying reactions to their own violence, as bodies pile up like in one of Coppola's or Scorsese's Mafia movies. Some remain hardened to the task; others begin to question, or even crack. A French "independent," who sells information for huge amounts of money, provides an "amoral" counterpoint to the Mossad agents who enlist his services. As the mission stretches on for years, they become more careless about "collateral damage," and doubt emerges as to whether each and every "target" actually had anything to do with the Munich murders.

Avner (Eric Bana), the lead agent who serves as our primary lens, ultimately takes his wife and child out of Israel and moves them to Brooklyn. He must visit them in secret, and none of them seem "at home" away from Israel. There is the looming irony that perhaps in attempting to avenge his homeland, it is lost to him forever. But most disturbing to this viewer is that, in the film's final scene, it's still not his own violent acts that apparently haunt Avner, only the Palestinians' slaughter of the Israeli Olympic team. This should mollify Spielberg's pro-Israel critics. In a clumsy, ham-fisted display of propaganda, he saves the bloodiest flashback of all for last, with Avner "remembering" Munich, while having sex with his wife in Brooklyn. It would have made more sense, psychologically, dramatically, and morally, if he had been reminded instead of the blood-spattered, bullet-ridden female assassin they deliberately left naked, or the Palestinian couple they shot dead in bed.

In short, Munich is neither the equal of Schindler's List nor Saving Private Ryan, both of which showed more courage and complexity, with memorable characters entangled in moral ambivalence. It is more interesting than most action movies and is still worth seeing, but Munich doesn't do justice to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. That's too bad, because Steven Spielberg might be the only American filmmaker able to get both the cash and the audience to put a new perspective before the American people.

Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis-based journalist and host of KFAI radio's "Catalyst: Politics & Culture." You can email your comments to lhowell@visi.com

From there, you start buying into their re-education process. However, if you do accept venality that easily, thereÂ’s no reason to read further; this article will make little sense to you. In fact, itÂ’ll probably piss you off.

The way the media - all the media; let me say that again: ALL the media - inferred it, was that there was still a filibuster opportunity after the cloture vote. There never was. There couldn’t be. ‘Cloture’ means ‘a closing’ and it cut off any further procedural possibility of debate and, thus, filibuster. A congressperson can only filibuster while debate is open, not during the actual vote. But, um, you weren’t really told that, were you? Certainly not by the Right press and...not by the Left either. This should be disquieting.

So, the Dims made absolutely sure there would be no filibuster at the very same time they were telling you that it was a wide open possibility. But think about it: most Dims voted for cloture absolutely knowing it would guarantee Alito his spot on the court. No doubt about it. Then they began the theater work, “standing firm”, “supporting the rank and file”, “holding strong to American principals” when it all was absolutely devoid of meaning. Didja fall for it?

Ah, but there was also the fusillade of diversionary role-playing all the while. The Sunday before, Minority Whip Dick Durbin informed the press he had 37 of the 41 votes needed to clinch the filibuster. What happened? No one cared to follow up his allegation, Right or Left. If DurbinÂ’s claim was indeed a truism, yet so jaw-droppingly many Dims voted for cloture - voted against filibuster - what went on there? Might Durbin have been lying? If not, was he being lied to? Without a micron of doubt, blatant prevarications were being told, it only remains to determine exactly where. I know what I think.

Note, too, that all eight Dims on the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted against Alito before the nomination appeared on the floor. That is, the Dimocratic members of a committee totally devoted to jurisprudential candidate fitness overwhelmingly rejected him on all fronts...and yet...the committee’s comrades elsewhere were about evenly split on the question of filibuster. Isn’t that interesting? Were they paying attention at all? The most involved Dim members as much as said “Drop this idiot like a scalding anvil!!!” and they were ignored...by their own.

John Kerry once again waffled. Early on, he was against filibustering, following the futile hope that his primary silence wouldn’t be broached; then, at the last minute - hmmm, almost at the exact same time the entire PsyOps scheme would have been coming together - he flew in “valorously” to push for something it appears he may well have known hadn't a hope in Hades. Where’d he wing it from? Ah, well that was ignored too, again: by both Right and Left press. It was the Davos Conference, where the richest people on Earth gather to decide the fate of the globe. John Kerry, who married into immense wealth. John Kerry, who wouldn’t raise even the feeblest leg up on a hideously obvious Vote Fraud and who caved in, in what may have been a world’s record in concessions, amidst very public and very heated knowledge that something was criminally amiss in the electoral process...just as...hmmmm...just as Al Gore had also done during the last Vote Fraud. What a coincidence! Are we seeing a pattern here?

But also: John Kerry, who was once an icon, protesting the VietNam War and cracking open the biggest financial scandal in world history (BCCI), and now appears to be no more than an actor with lines written by divers hands, playing a Centrist role to attenuate the malefactions of what may not be a party opposite him, after all.

Oh, and remember “Hot Again, Cold Again” Dianne Feinstein, the corporatist’s dream? You may recall the Dims were quietly, and not so quietly - certainly not on Feinstein’s part - whispering that Alito was a “done deal” and that filibuster was foolish, until public pressure ratcheted up, then suddenly very grudgingly mouthing the public position, saying they’d support a filibuster, simultaneously stating such could never succeed. Say what??? Gentlemen and ladies, movies have been made about the filibuster as the most wildly successful ace-in-the-hole in American history. Does the name “Mr. Smith” ring a bell? How about “Jimmy Stewart”. The Dims were hoping you never saw the flick. Maybe you didn’t.

What, exactly, would be the only thing that could have defeated the confirmation process once it started, and at exactly what point? Filibuster, right at the cloture juncture and nowhere else. Oh, I forgot: neither the Right nor the Left press much cared to state that clearly enough. Odd, no? Well, as exculpatory nonsense currently goes, they probably “didn’t even think of it!”. Are you buying into that? They certainly hope so and, if polls (God help me, now I’m referring to the damn things!) are correct, you did. Or...did you? After all, what’s prompting the polls, who’s being poled [sic], what were the questions, and who are these faceless bastards running them? Doesn’t matter, as any unwillingness to initiate the filibuster at all was a clear signal of collusion with the Repuglican status quo. The rest is horse manure. All the Dims now have to do is obfuscate that fact as much as possible, and that’s what they’re doing.

And by the way, where was “rebel” Howard Dean during all this? Did you like his weak-kneed from-the-closet Dim performance?

Merrily joining the flip-floppers, Barack Obama was said to have criticized filibustering, then, at the very last moment, pledged to vote it in. Note what went on there: one doesnÂ’t vote for a filibuster, one votes against cloture, then a filibuster just occurs. But thatÂ’s not what Obama said. He was referring to something that doesnÂ’t exist. Makes for a good excuse later on. LetÂ’s see now, is he a lawyer? Obama didn't like the filibuster at all, instead averring, "There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court...reflect [Dimocratic] values and that's to win elections." So, voting for anything but candidates is a mistaken action, is that it, Mr. Obama, and screw anything like, oh, issues, law, Supreme Court Justices, and such trivialities? ThatÂ’s an alleged verity I find surprising in an American.

Joe Biden was equally cagey, gritting his teeth as he said, "I think a filibuster makes sense when you have a prospect of actually succeeding...I will vote one time to continue the debate." Pardon me? Condescending to follow the will of the people...one time? Because it perhaps goes against one’s own private interests? Let me check again and see what Party Biden belongs to. He, all along, was heralding that "the fact of the matter" was that Alito’s confirmation was - and one has to wonder where this came-from-nowhere sentiment originated - a done deal. Is that a “D” I see next to is name? Must be a typo.

Alito got through because the Dimocrats allowed it and for no other reason. The Repuglican vote was the only “done deal”, and there was a possible several-member dissent there almost from Day One, which means the Dims could still have handily thwarted the necessary 60 vote halt. They didn’t. Why?

You can either listen to their inane blather, delivered pontificatingly as received wisdom (and wisdom is gaining its hoariness in mere nanoseconds nowadays, it appears), amidst welters of hand-wringing, choked-back tears, looks of exhaustion, and other stage effects, or you can look at the facts, decide whatÂ’s really going on, and quit regurgitating back the cue lines Dims are feeding you. ThatÂ’s where the PsyOps can be found - anÂ’ it ainÂ’t jesÂ’ yer down-home Repugs whoÂ’re peddling it to ya, Jeeter. It used to be called propaganda...but thatÂ’s what propaganda is: PsyOps. Goebbels knew it, Mussolini knew, Rove knows it, and now the Dimocrats know it.

Do you know it?

-----------------------
Mark S. Tucker, a critic, has written for numerous magazines and presently writes for Perfect Sound Forever on-line, as well as this forum. He can be reached at progdawg@hotmail.com. This article is originally published at opednews.com. Copyright Mark S. Tucker, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

According to court papers, Robida's mother told police that he briefly stopped by the house less than an hour after the brawl and was bleeding from the head. In Robida's bedroom, officers found Nazi regalia and anti-Semitic writings on the wall.

"Obviously we have a man who's dangerous, who's not rational, and he has weapons," said prosecutor Paul Walsh Jr.

A bartender said it was around midnight when a teen wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and black pants walked into Puzzles Lounge, a gay nightspot in this historic seaport city of 94,000 people, about 50 miles from Boston.

He flashed an apparently fake ID and ordered a drink, then asked if the place was a gay bar and was told it was, said the bartender, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Phillip, because of fear for his safety.

The bartender said the teen finished his drink and walked back to where two men were playing pool. He shoved one of them to the ground, then pulled a hatchet from his sweatshirt and began swinging at the man's head, cutting him, Phillip said.

Other patrons tackled the man, sending the hatchet sliding across the floor, the bartender said. Then the attacker pulled a gun, shot a man, and then fired another bullet into the chest of a patron who was leaving the bathroom, the bartender said.

He then ran off into the night.

Police recovered the hatchet and found a knife outside. The knife was not apparently used in the attack.

According to court papers, a woman in the bar recognized Robida as a current or former student at New Bedford High School. School officials would not confirm whether he was enrolled there.

Robida graduated in 2001 from the city's Junior Police Academy, a "boot camp" that teaches discipline to 12- to 14-year-olds, many of whom are referred by juvenile courts or social services agencies, Acting Police Chief David Provencher said.

Police identified the injured men as Robert Perry, Alex Taylor and Luis Rosado. One has a gunshot wound to the chest, another a gunshot wound to the back and severe cuts to his face, and a third suffered multiple cuts, police said. They would not specify which man suffered which injuries.

All three victims remained hospitalized. Police said one was in critical condition, but would not say which man.

A family friend who answered the door at Robida's home said his mother had no comment.

The owner of the bar, Richard F. Macedo, said he planned to be open Thursday night because closing would amount to giving in to homophobia. He said the place and its customers have never been targeted before because of their sexual orientation.

"We've been here almost 15 years," Macedo said. "All it takes is one bad egg."

An Egyptian Embassy spokesman told the British Broadcasting Corp. that "dozens of bodies of victims" had been pulled from the choppy waters between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The 35-year-old ship, Al-Salaam Boccaccio 98, went down 40 miles off the Egyptian port of Hurghada, the head of the Egyptian Maritime Authority, Mahfouz Taha Marzouk, told The Associated Press. The cause was unknown, and no distress signal was received. The ship went down between midnight and 2 a.m., a maritime official said.

Britain's top naval officer said he diverted the warship HMS Bulwark to the north Red Sea site, and it will arrive within two days. But the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain said Egyptian authorities turned down an American offer to divert a U.S. P3-Orion maritime naval patrol aircraft to the area.

An official at the maritime authority control room in Suez said at least 20 bodies had been pulled from the water, and 100 people in five lifeboats were rescued. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

Ayman al-Kaffas, a spokesman for the Egyptian Embassy in London, told the BBC that "a massive search-and-rescue effort" was underway, and "dozens of bodies of victims" had been pulled from the water. The water temperature averages in the upper 60s during February.

Four Egyptian rescue ships reached the scene Friday afternoon, about 10 hours after the ship likely went down.

"We have spotted several lifeboats with live passengers that we are trying to get to," al-Kaffas said. "It's a challenging operation due to the bad weather conditions."

There were high winds and a sandstorm overnight on Saudi Arabia's west coast, where the ship departed from. The ship sailed from the Saudi port of Dubah at 7 p.m. Thursday night and was scheduled to arrive at Egypt's port of Safaga - 120 miles away - eight hours later.

The ship disappeared from radar screens shortly after sailing, maritime officials in Suez said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Nizam Siddiqui of Lloyd's of London said he did not believe the ship sank from a collision or terrorist attack because the area was well-patrolled.

"The rough weather must have been the main factor for bringing this vessel down," he told the BBC from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, adding that the ship was "very well-maintained."

The agent for the ship in Saudi Arabia, Farid al-Douadi, said the vessel was in good condition. The passengers were mostly Egyptians but included Saudis, Sudanese and other nationalities.

Marzouk said the ship - built in 1971 and renovated in 1990 in an Egyptian shipyard - was carrying 1,318 people, including a crew of 96. It also was carrying about 220 vehicles.

"The ship complied with all necessary safety measures," Egyptian Transport Minister Mohammed Lutfy Mansour told Egypt's semi-official Middle East News Agency. "The reasons remain unknown. ... The Coast Guard is doing everything in its power to try to rescue these people."

The passengers included about 1,200 Egyptians, 99 Saudis, three Syrians, two Sudanese and a Canadian, the control room official said. The passengers likely included Muslim pilgrims who had overstayed their visas after last month's hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia to work in the kingdom.

Most of the Egyptians were workers returning home. The passengers also included families of the workers returning home from visiting their loved ones in Saudi Arabia, relatives waiting at Safaga port said.

David Osler of the London shipping paper Lloyds List said the ship passed a structural survey test conducted by the International Safety Management Code in June. However, these so-called "roll-on, roll-off" ferries are not known for their stability.

"It would only take a bit of water to get on board this ship and it would be all over," Osler said. "The percentage of this type of ferry involved in this type of disaster is huge."

Dubah and Safaga lie virtually opposite each other at the northern end of the Red Sea, which is an extremely busy sea route. In addition to east-west traffic between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, there is north-south traffic through the Suez Canal and to and from the Israeli and Jordanian ports of Eilat and Aqaba.

The ship is owned by the Egyptian firm El-Salaam Maritime Transport Co. The company's owner, Mamdouh Ismail, said the ship is registered in Panama. He spoke before the sinking was confirmed and refused to comment further.

A ship owned by the same company, also carrying pilgrims, collided with a cargo ship at the southern entrance to the Suez Canal in October, causing a stampede among passengers trying to escape the sinking ship. Two people were killed and 40 injured.

This was not the first disaster involving Safaga. On Dec. 14, 1991, more than 460 passengers and crew died after a coral reef tore a hole in a ferry's side near the port.

George said he wants to consult with the state Department of Children and Family Services on how to make sure communities are notified of suspended priests.

"I thought that we had the process ... to take care of these things," he said. "Now it turns out it wasn't adequate, that I wasn't adequate."

George's announcement came at a news conference hours after the Rev. Daniel McCormack was released on $300,000 bond. McCormack, 37, was charged last month with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse and was charged Wednesday with a third count.

After Thursday's hearing, his bond totals $500,000, which was paid by family members.

The case has drawn criticism for the archdiocese because McCormack was not removed from public ministry until months after allegations against him surfaced.

"I should have found some way to take him out (sooner)," George said. "I wasn't vigilant enough in that case. I was too used to following the process."

Before his release, McCormack stood silently before a Cook County judge as his attorney proclaimed his innocence.

The nation's third-largest Catholic archdiocese has said it is investigating the allegations against McCormack, who was removed from public ministry Jan. 21, the day he was charged with molesting the first two boys.

The archdiocese has acknowledged that one of the charges stems from an allegation that was first made in August.

The latest charge against McCormack involve an 11-year-old boy who was not a parishioner at the church where McCormack served as pastor, prosecutor Kathleen Muldoon said.