Facebook Earning NEw DOllars At Home

http://facebookearning.somee.com

Open This & Wait 5 Second Then Skip This AD 
Facebook Earning 
Unlimited Earning Daily minimum 10$ Earning 
20% reffral Earning 
Simple Work
instant withdraw
Payment Option: Paypal,Payza,Perfectmoney,Payeer,Solidtrustpay,OkPay,Bitcoin, Westernunion & Online Account Bank Transfer 

Facebook Earning

Open This & Wait 5 Second Then Skip This AD 
Facebook Earning 
Unlimited Earning Daily minimum 10$ Earning 
20% reffral Earning 
Simple Work
instant withdraw
Payment Option: Paypal,Payza,Perfectmoney,Payeer,Solidtrustpay,OkPay,Bitcoin, Westernunion & Online Account Bank Transfer 

http://sh.st/fBrnS

The Internet Just Realized The Girl From 'The Ring' Is All Grown Up

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/this-is-what-the-scary-girl-from-the-ring-looks-like-now#.afJgbP4mme

Selling your iPhone 6 right now can still make you a ton of money

und 80% of the original value of the devices late last year and holding steady ever since.

“By the end of 2014 prices had fallen to about 83% of the initial value of the phone and have remained fairly steady since then. […] The 6 Plus followed a similar pattern, although was initially selling for notably high amounts on the secondhand market (almost 115 percent!) due to supply issues with the larger-screened device at launch.”

These are only the statistics of a single reseller, but it’s a good sign for anyone looking to trade up for one of the new Android devices launching in the next month.

“How this will affect the secondhand market for iPhones in the long run remains to be seen, but if you were to buy a phone today, everybody wins,” says Orchard. “Current sellers can retain a good value for what they paid, possibly getting even more than they would have if prices hadn’t increased. If you’re a buyer you’ll likely get an even better deal than before, versus buying new.”

George W. Bush will be fundraising for his brother in Dallas this week

Former President George W. Bush is fundraising for his younger brother, Jeb Bush.Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is getting a helping hand from his older brother, former President George W. Bush.
The elder Bush Brother and his wife, Laura, will join the rumored presidential candidate on Wednesday to headline a Dallas fundraiser benefiting Jeb Bush's Right to Rise super PAC.

"President and Mrs. Bush are looking forward to seeing Governor Bush and supporting Right to Rise in Dallas this week," a spokesman for the 43rd president told Business Insider.

Independence Day 2 Is Bringing Back Vivica A. Fox

Independence Day 2 continues to solidify its cast, as the film approaches its June 24, 2016 release date. Actors new and old are coming to join the alien-invasion fray, and now director Rolland Emmerich has announced the latest to join the cast will be none other than Vivica A. Fox. And just when we were starting to wonder whatever happened to her.

Emmerich announced the news on Twitter, accompanied by a photo of him and his original Independence Day star. In the original film, Fox played a stripper named Jasmine Dubrow, who was also Will Smith’s on-screen love interest in the 1996 installment. She worked the pole in order to make ends meet to support her son as a single mother, but that’s when the alien invasion hit, so she didn’t have to worry about it for much longer. Her and Smith’s Steve eventually got together at the end and got married. However, Smith has said that he won’t be returning forIndependence Day 2. Are they divorced by the sequel? Is he deceased? 

Additional casting sheds some light on Jasmine’s situation, though details are virtually under wraps. Jessie Usher, most known for the Level Up TV series on Cartoon Network and When the Game Stands Tall, is playing Jasmine’s son, Dylan Miller, now all grown up. As Emmerich told Entertainment Weekly back in 2013, it’s "like the sons take over." At the time he also mentioned wormholes in describing how the aliens travel, and that this new post-invasion world in Independence Day 2would see a "parallel history," where people have learned to harness the alien technology but not duplicate it, as it’s "organically grown." While tweaks could've been made to the script since this interview, a new report states that the sequel will be called ID Forever and will see a new wave of invaders coming 20 years after the first film.

Fox is joining her fellow former cast mate Jeff Goldblum, who played the MIT grad/environmentalist David Levinson. Bill Pullman is also expected to return as President (or likely now former President) Thomas J. Whitmore. Also cast as part of the "new blood" are Hunger Games heartthrob Liam Hemsworth, who’s reportedly playing Whitmore’s son-in-law, and Nymphomaniac star Charlotte Gainsbourg. Emmerich, an out gay man and longtime advocate for LGBT rights, also said that he’s going to include a gay couple in Independence Day 2, but he told The Hollywood Reporter that he doesn’t make a big deal about it. As you can see in the photo of the two, Fox is happy to be reuniting with her apocalyptic director for another go. 

Why India and Pakistan Hate Each Other

Stephen Cohen, Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum. (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2013).

Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy, The Siege: 68 Hours Inside the Taj Hotel(New York: Penguin, 2013).

In many aspects, India and Pakistan are not exceptional. Like so many other former European colonies, they struggle to reconcile modern borders with ancient identities. Elites govern at the expense of ordinary citizens. Foreign countries feature prominently in their economic and political activities, especially as India and Pakistan seek to compete at a global level. In this light, India and Pakistan seem no different than the many postcolonial states scattered throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

What makes India and Pakistan special, however, is how much they hate each other. Despite numerous fits and starts at rapprochement, the countries have reconciled little in the nearly seven decades since independence from the British. Instead, they have moved in the opposite direction, strategically crafting national identities and policies along a singular concept: rivalry.

In Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum, Stephen Cohen, the Brookings Institution’s South Asia scholar, partially blames this rivalry on the British. The British crown assumed direct control in 1858 over the subcontinent, and did more damage in "1947, when it partitioned India and decamped." The most glaring example of colonial error is what happened to the princely state of Kashmir, where a Hindu prince ruled the largely Muslim state. At partition, "Indian princes were advised by the British to choose either India or Pakistan…and the rush to force them to join one or the other ignited several significant conflicts." Kashmir remained part of India, despite its Muslim majority, and the rest is history, or rather, rivalry.

Since independence, however, India and Pakistan have sustained and deepened the rivalry to be just as culpable as the British. Today the two countries have three wars between them, a game of proxies inside Afghanistan, and a nuclear arms race, as well as a smattering of disputes over territory, water, and trade. Cohen thoroughly explains these problems and ironies, offering several explanations: a clash of civilizations, a competition between secular and Islamic states, territorial disputes, power politics, "psychological abnormalities," and the influence of outside powers."

Instead of favoring one explanation for the rivalry, Shooting for a Centuryopts for all of them, accurately conveying just how complicated India-Pakistan relations are. But the real strength of Shooting for a Century is its ability to detail the often-enigmatic psychology of the conflict in both Indian and Pakistani minds. For example, Cohen bluntly states that one of Pakistan’s "India problems" is its belief that India wants to wipe the Pakistani state out of existence. Among India’s "Pakistan problems" is lingering resentment towards partition; one Indian scholar calls it "one of the ten modern catastrophes." It is no wonder that the Pakistanis see India as an existential threat.

Cohen’s juxtaposition of Pakistani and Indian perspectives suggests both sides are actually two faces of a single entity, both divided and unified, albeit unhappily. By taking this approach, he invokes a historical sense of togetherness that is often neglected in the discussions of the conflict.

For example, Cohen writes that "the Islamic Sufi tradition was especially attractive to South Asian Hindus, and many Hindus and Muslims traditionally prayed in each other’s mosques and temples." He reminds us that most British Indian army generals believed "the division of India into two states was not really necessary."

This Janus-like existence is proof that the legacies of colonialism and the trauma of partition still linger, not just in the form of anger, but also as sadness, fear, and regret. Indian political psychologist Ashis Nandy has eloquently described this paradox: "Pakistan is what India does not want to be… both a double and the final rejected self… the ultimate symbol of irrationality and fanaticism."

Shooting for a Century offers a thorough and balanced analysis of a discussion that is chaotic, confusing and overly biased. Yet the book offers no new ideas. Ironically, Cohen spends most of the book detailing the intractability of the conflict, claiming chances are high it will never be resolved, only to include a chapter on "Prospects." But rather than detailing actual options, the chapter offers more fodder for why normalization will fail. It is at this point that Shooting for a Century becomes repetitive, and the continued onslaught of reasons why India and Pakistan hate each other begin to fatigue the reader.

Cohen does acknowledge that a "qualified optimism is emerging on both sides (and enthusiasm among Pakistanis), especially after the decision in 2012 to accept Indian trade terms." But while this is a small opening, it is notthe opening needed to unlock the other conflicts between India and Pakistan. Trade normalization alone will not fix everything because, as Cohen points out, any prospect of major breakthroughs can easily "be blown apart" by serious miscalculations, faulty foreign interventions, or terrorism. There are too many spoilers between India and Pakistan for one facet of their relationship to become an all-encompassing solution for peace.

In the end, Cohen’s chapter on prospects offers none at all. Cohen mentions dialogues between former policymakers and civil society organizations, backchannel discussions between government officials, and foreign efforts to normalize, but concludes that none of them will work. Instead, he makes a prediction: trade openings will reduce tension, but a "hurting stalemate will continue." "Cautious movements towards dialogue" will persist, "punctuated by attempts on both sides to press unilaterally their advantage in Kashmir and in international forums."

He offers a few other scenarios worse than this one, and in the end, none lend themselves to optimism. He dismisses as insignificant the ongoing efforts to collaborate on energy, the environment, and accepting the status quo in Kashmir. The plethora of negative results leaves the reader unclear as to Cohen’s real view of the future, though the range of outcomes is clear: bad, worse, or cataclysmic.

While Cohen could have written a more succinct book with a sharper argument, his reasoning is right on the mark. In addition to his telling portrayal of the conflict’s psychology, he gives an accurate picture of how other countries have played a prominent role in the India-Pakistan rivalry, a dynamic that has complicated and often prevented attempts at peace.

During the Cold War, Pakistan accepted millions of dollars in U.S. aid to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, while India became a mouthpiece for nonalignment and other socialist principles. The Americans and Soviets were able to use India and Pakistan in their cold war fight, while the Indians and Pakistanis used their external allies to strengthen conventional military capabilities against the other.

This game of "high strategy," as Cohen calls it, persists today in Pakistan’s relations with China and the United States, which serve as a hedge against India, and India’s growing economic links with Afghanistan and Iran, which have the added side effect of worrying the Pakistanis.

Blaming the Americans

Cohen begins the book by blaming the British and ends it with blaming the Americans. In the final chapter on "American Interests and Policies," he writes, "the Obama administration failed to develop a South Asia policy that would have encompassed both India-Pakistan relations (including Kashmir) and the grinding war in Afghanistan." It did not help that the American special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP), Richard C. Holbrooke, was persona non grata in India, where "Indian officials were so irritated with his mandate that they made it inconvenient for Holbrooke to visit New Delhi."

India didn’t want Holbrooke to insert himself into its issues with Pakistan, which it viewed as strictly bilateral. But Holbrooke was keen on taking a regional approach – something that the Pakistanis themselves welcomed. Pakistan has always wanted the United States to serve as mediator in its conflict with India.

The India policy apparatus within the U.S. government was also keen to keep Holbrooke out of their space – any combination of "Af-Pak" with India meant India policy would play second fiddle to Afghanistan and Pakistan, which were more vital and urgent to American national security interests.

Cohen’s statements are factual, but they lack significant background details. I was privy to many of these details when I worked with Holbrooke from 2009 up until his death, first on Secretary Clinton’s policy planning staff and then on the White House national security staff as director for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Holbrooke finally made it to India in July 2010. By that time, he understood that getting it right in Afghanistan meant that India and Pakistan had to start talking — and President Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed. Holbrooke wanted to host a "quadrilateral" dialogue between the United States, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan that would be similar to the trilateral dialogue he had initiated between the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was the only way, Holbrooke thought, to fix Afghanistan, where India-Pakistan tensions bolstered local conflicts.

Despite minor fits and starts until the day Holbrooke died in December that year, the talks never happened. Part of the problem went back to what Cohen calls American "organizational pathologies," such as the creation of the SRAP office, which was debilitating for South Asia policy as a whole. It led to "segmented and uncoordinated policymaking," in which offices covering India and Pakistan in the State Department and White House were unable to reconcile opposing viewpoints, became overly turf-conscious, and took on client-like relationships with the countries they worked on. But the quadrilateral dialogue also failed because India did not want to be part of a dialogue with South Asia’s "problem children." Instead, it wanted a dialogue with the United States about them.

There was another reason the Indian government couldn’t be too forward leaning on any dialogue with Pakistan: the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Cohen describes the attacks as "designed to disrupt the dialogue," and that’s exactly what they did. The memory of the attacks lingered, and lethargic legal systems in both countries meant justice was slow. In 2013, India eventually sentenced to death and hung Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving attacker.

But the case against Pakistani facilitators involved in the attacks still lingers in the Lahore High Court. Pakistan’s "deep state" — the security establishment that comprises the military and intelligence agencies — bears some of the responsibility. For decades, Pakistan’s security establishment has nurtured, patronized and utilized Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups to compete with India and gain influence in Afghanistan. As for so many other terrorism cases, Pakistani civilians and law enforcement shy away from investigating the LeT for fear of their safety. The Pakistani prosecutor investigating the attacks showed up dead in 2013.

With God on Their Side

In contrast to Cohen’s thorough and academic portrait of India-Pakistan relations, The Seige: 68 Hours Inside the Taj Hotel gives readers a more visceral picture of how violent the rivalry truly is. Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy, veteran journalists familiar with South Asia, document the repercussions of Pakistan’s deep state in a play-by-play account of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, painstakingly piecing together security camera footage from the Taj Hotel, the testimony of the lone surviving attacker, Ajmal Kasab, and survivor accounts. Levy and Scott-Clark succeed in introducing us personally to the people who died and were injured, and the police officers and government officials who failed in their rapid response. Readers will finish the book knowing what it felt like to be there, smelling the smoke and hearing the gunfire.

The Seige forces all of us to understand the visceral and violent nature of the never-ending India-Pakistan rivalry. When attackers Ajmal, Ismail, Shoaib, and Umer hijacked an Indian fishing trawler while traveling from Karachi across the Arabian Sea, their Pakistani handlers told them to kill Solanki, the Indian captain they held hostage. "Ajmal looked at Ismail: ‘Kill him?’ he whispered, shaking." They cut Solanki’s throat, closing their eyes to conceal their horror: "They had stepped over a threshold. All of them were blooded." Levy and Scott-Clark present a group of attackers who are themselves scared of the true face of terrorism.

Just as shocking as the raid itself are the chapters tracking the footsteps of David Headley, the troubled Pakistani American who performed the reconnaissance, and the lives of the LeT militants who conducted the attacks. Headley’s religious fundamentalism and his mixed ancestry, half-American and half-Pakistani, demonstrate the worrying potential for radicalization in the United States. The poverty and disenfranchisement that Kasab and his fellow attackers came from in Pakistan is even more worrisome for India. Given its troubled economic trajectory, Pakistan will always have plenty of Kasabs wanting to fight India – no matter how scared of blood they really are.

Finally, groups like LeT will always find a way to get God on their side. What they offer the Kasabs of the world is hope their own families and country have denied them, best exemplified by the parting blessing Kasab’s Pakistani handler gives him: "May Allah make true everything you wish for in your heart."

When it comes to the involvement of the Pakistani security establishment in the Mumbai plot and more broadly in terrorism, The Seige calls LeT a "tangled ball of wool" that created "cover for the machinations of the deep state." This is where the narrative disappoints, leaving the reader wanting more analysis, nuance and background on the Pakistani deep state behind the Mumbai attacks.

Levy and Scott-Clark raise controversial and important issues, such as Pakistani army membership in LeT and Headley’s relationships with Pakistani intelligence, but they do not offer deeper insights into the nature of these relationships. For example, which parts of the Pakistani military deal with LeT? How high up the chain of command do the relationships go? Does LeT ever resist Pakistani directives? The reader becomes more aware of these problems but not much smarter as to their answers.

In all fairness, answering these questions may be beyond even Levy and Scott-Clark, who prove themselves to be worthy investigative journalists. While the Pakistani military’s involvement in creating and nurturing LeT and others similar groups is an open secret, Levy and Scott-Clark would be hard pressed to get anyone to admit this on the record.  

Just as Levy and Scott-Clark paint a vivid picture of the life of the Pakistani militant, a parallel narrative on developments within the Pakistani security establishment would have filled in the gaps. Such an account would show that changing patterns in terrorism are redefining some perspectives within the Pakistani security establishment towards LeT and similar organizations. The nontraditional targeting of Americans and Jews in the Mumbai attack is only one example of LeT’s broader mandate being more closely aligned with al Qaeda – something Pakistan’s deep state fears immensely. In this case,Shooting for a Century does a better job of analyzing the conundrum Pakistan is in; Cohen believes that the threat of Islamic terrorism in both countries could potentially bring India and Pakistan closer together.

The Seige is a fast-paced read, and while it sometimes lingers far too long on the minutiae of the raid, that description is also the book’s strength. The reader experiences the attacks with the same sense of terror and confusion that the people of Mumbai did.

Mumbai residents were the eventual casualties of a bilateral relationship gone awry. Shooting for a Century offers the intellectual arguments behind those dynamics, while The Seige stands out powerfully as a narrative about the tragic impact of terrorism on people – states, perpetrators, and victims alike. Like the India-Pakistan relationship itself, the books represent two separate and psychologically traumatized parts of the same complicated and violent story.

Surprise! Another Christian Terrorist

Did you hear about the man who entered New Orleans’ airport with explosives and a machete? No? Well, you would have if he’d been Muslim.

A Muslim American man carrying a duffel bag that holds six homemade explosives, a machete, and poison spray travels to a major U.S. airport. The man enters the airport, approaches the TSA security checkpoint, and then sprays two TSA officers with the poison. He then grabs his machete and chases another TSA officer with it.

This Muslim man is then shot and killed by the police. After the incident, a search of the attacker’s car by the police reveals it contained acetylene and oxygen tanks, two substances that, when mixed together, will yield a powerful explosive.

If this scenario occurred, there’s zero doubt that this would be called a terrorist attack. Zero. It would make headlines across the country and world, and we would see wall-to-wall cable news coverage for days. And, of course, certain right-wing media outlets, many conservative politicians, and Bill Maher would use this event as another excuse to stoke the flames of hate toward Muslims.

Well, last Friday night, this exact event took place at the New Orleans airport—that is, except for one factual difference: The attacker was not Muslim. Consequently, you might be reading about this brazen assault for the first time here, although this incident did receive a smattering of media coverage over the weekend.

The man who commited this attack was Richard White, a 63-year-old formerArmy serviceman who has long been retired and living on Social Security and disability checks. He was reportedly a devout Jehovah’s Witness.

Given the facts that a man armed with explosives and weapons traveled to an airport and only attacked federal officers, you would think that the word “terrorism” would at least come up as a possibility, right?  But it’s not even mentioned.

Instead, law enforcement was quick to chalk this incident up to the attacker’s alleged “mental health issues.” That was pretty amazing police work considering this conclusion came within hours of the attack. There was no mention by police that they had even explored whether White had issues with the federal government stemming from his military service, if there was any evidence he held anti-government views, etc.

Perhaps Mr. White truly was mentally ill. Interviews with his neighbors, however, don’t even give us a hint that he had mental problems. Rather theydescribed White as a “meek” and “kind” man who a few had spoken to just days before the incident and everything seemed fine. You would think these neighbors would at least note that White had a history of mental illness if it was so apparent.

Now I’m not saying definitively that I believe Mr. White was a terrorist. My point is twofold. One is that if White had been a Muslim, the investigation into his motivation by the media and maybe even the police would have essentially been over once his faith had been ascertained. If a Muslim does anything wrong, it’s assumed to be terrorism. (Apparently we Muslims can’t be mentally ill.)

In contrast, when a non-Muslim engages in a violent attack, even on federal government employees, law enforcement and the media immediately look to the person’s mental history, not possible terrorist motivations.

No wonder so many parrot the line, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” When the press uses the word terrorism only in connection with the actions of Muslims, the average person would assume that’s the case. However, as I have written about before, in recent years overwhelmingly the terrorist attacks in United States and Europe have been committed by non-Muslims.

If White had been a Muslim, the investigation into his motivation would have essentially been over once his faith had been ascertained.

My second point is that this could have in fact been act of terrorism. White clearly targeted only the TSA officers. He didn’t assault others in the airport, such as the passengers waiting on line at the security checkpoint. And for those unfamiliar, there has been a great deal of animus directed at the TSA by some conservatives and libertarians. Simply Google the words “stop the TSA” and you will see pages of articles denouncing the TSA as an organization hell bent on depriving Americans of our liberty.

For example, Alex Jones’ Infowars website is filled with anti-TSA articles claiming that the TSA’s goal is not to prevent terrorism but to “harass” travelers and get into “our pants.” Glen Beck warned in the past that the TSA was potentially becomingPresident Obama’s“private army” with the goal being to take away our liberties.

And in 2012, Senator Rand Paul lashed out against the TSA for what he viewed as the agency’s improper treatment of him. In fact after the incident, Paul penned an op-ed denouncing the TSA, writing that “it is infuriating that this agency feels entitled to revoke our civil liberties while doing little to keep us safe.”

Even more alarmingly, the attacks on the TSA have not been limited to words. In October 2012, Paul Ciancia traveled to LAX, where he took out a rifle from his bag and shot two TSA officers, killing one. Ciancia had written anti-government tracts in the past and was—to little media fanfare—actually charged months later with an act of terrorism.

Given this climate, how can the police not even mention that they investigated the possibility of terrorism and ruled it out? I spoke with Colonel John Fortunato, the spokesperson for Jefferson County Sherriff’s Office, which is the agency in charge of the investigation. Fortunato explained that due to state law, they couldn’t release any additional information regarding White’s mental illness or reveal information regarding any treatment he may or may not have undergone.

When I asked Fortunato if they had investigated White’s digital footprint to ascertain whether he had visited any anti-government websites or had searched his residence to see if he possessed an anti-government literature or made or written anti-government statements, he gave me what sounded like a boiler plate response that the investigation has revealed no affiliation to any outside groups. Fortunato expressed his confidence that White had acted alone and that no ties to any terror groups. But he added that we will never truly know what motivated White given he died before being questioned. 

But part of me actually believes that there are some in the media and law enforcement who prefer to use the term terrorism only when it applies to a Muslim.

Why? Because it’s easy to do. Muslims are viewed by many as the “other,” not as fellow Americans. But discussing domestic terrorism carried out by fellow Americans is at best, uncomfortable, and at worst, undermines the narrative that some in our country have a vested interest in advancing.

I’m not sure what will change this mindset, but if we want to truly keep Americans safe, law enforcement and the media need to understand that terrorism is not just a Muslim thing.

The 2015 Movies That Need to Be on Your Radar

Blackhat - Michael Mann (Heat, Miami Vice, The Insider). A thriller about an unrealistically handsome hacker (Chris Hemsworth) that the U.S. government has to trust in order to save the free world may not sound like a Michael Mann plot, but hey, we'll watch anything he makes.

Selfless - Tarsem Singh (The Cell, The Fall). About an incredibly wealthy old guy who cheats death by having his consciousness transferred into the body of a young man, only to discover there are unexpected strings attached to the operation.

Untitled Cameron Crowe Project - Cameron Crowe (Say Anything, Vanilla Sky, Almost Famous). Let's just rattle off this cast list: Bill Murray, Rachel McAdams, Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Jay Baruchel, John Krasinski and Danny McBride.

Ricki and the Flash - Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia, Rachel Getting Married). Meryl Streep stars as an old rock star who tries to reconnect with her estranged family. 

Regression - Alejandro Amenábar (Thesis, Open Your Eyes, The Others, The Sea Inside). Ethan Hawke and Emma Watson star in this thriller about a father who is about to go to jail for committing a crime he has no memory of.

The Visit - M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Signs, Unbreakable). Two young kids visit their grandparents. Presumably M. Night Shyamalan-y things happen after that. He may have earned himself a bad reputation with his last few films, but this is his attempt to make a small, under-the-radar thriller again, and we hope it pays off.

Triple Nine - John Hillcoat (The Proposition, The Road, Lawless). Kate Winslet, Aaron Paul and Norman Reedus star in this crime drama about corrupt cops who plan the murder of a rookie on one side of town in order to pull off a heist on the other side of town.

The Sea of Trees - Gus Van Sant (Elephant, Good Will Hunting, Milk). Matthew McConaughey stars in this drama about an American who plans to commit suicide in Japan's infamous forest at the base of Mount Fuji. There he meets a local man (Ken Watanabe), and together the two contemplate life.

Anthony Riley Abruptly Leaves Competition For Unknown Reason

Season 8 of NBC’s “The Voice” made show history last night when it pit three of Team Pharrell’s contestants against each other instead of the usual two. The reason, according to the judge, was the abrupt and mysterious departure of Battle Rounds winner Anthony Riley.

Monday’s episode saw Paul Pfau, Mia Z and Sawyer Fredericks sing one song each with only two of them allowed to advance onward from the Knockout Rounds. Typically the Knockouts are a two-way battle. The trio’s coach laid out the stakes of their history-making Knockout and blamed the change on Riley leaving for “personal reasons.” The excuse was vague and almost felt like the show was brushing away one of its Season 8 frontrunners.

This has led many Riley fans to speculate as to why he’s no longer singing in the competition. Somehow, a rumor got started that Riley was kicked off the show for refusing to compete in the Knockout Rounds against Mia Z. None of these rumors seem to be based on anything but speculation and therefore do not offer a clear reason as to why the former street performer wouldn’t want to go head-to-head with Mia. However, given her stellar performance during last night’s show, which propelled her to the Live Playoff Rounds, it would be easy to see any player in the competition afraid to go up against her.

Another rumor indicates that Riley was forced to leave the show after the controversial move to dedicate his Battle Rounds victory to convicted murderer Mumia Abu Jamal and “political prisoners everywhere.” Jamal, a former political activist, is in prison for the murder of a police officer in 1981. However, circumstances surrounding his trial have caused many to call for his immediate release. While the move was a bit more polarizing than fans of “The Voice” are typically used to, it hardly seems like a reason to either walk from the show or be asked to leave.

A source spoke to Yahoo News about Riley’s exit saying that both of the rumors surrounding his exit were completely untrue. However, he or she was not able to elaborate more on “The Voice” singer’s abrupt departure any more than saying the vague “personal reasons” line.

In any case, the show continued on without Riley, sending Mia Z and Sawyer Fredericks on to the next round. Meanwhile, Paul Pfau simply didn’t have what he needed to move forward and was sent home for good as a result of the very first three-way Knockout Round in “The Voice” history. Tune in tonight at 8 p.m. EDT for more Knockouts on “The Voice” on NBC. 

The story behind the world's most famous photograph

Here is a French postage stamp from 1922 showing beheading of Muslims in Morocco. And they call us terrorists

Tom Cruise explains what could've killed him during his insane 'Mission' plane stunt

Says Tom:

“While we are going down the runway, we’re worried about bird strikes, any kind of particle that the propellers could pick up, any kind of stone. I remember I got hit by a stone that was so tiny, you cannot believe. I thought it broke my rib. Lucky it went to my vest and not my hands or my face, it would have penetrated and gone right through.”

There’s also the camera which they had to mount painstakingly for the various shots.

“You’re concerned about any piece of the camera breaking off. The speed of it, it would have run through my head.”

Barcelona 2-1 Real Madrid: Suarez strike hands Barca title advantage

Barcelona beat Real Madrid 2-1 at the Nou Camp on Sunday night to move four points clear of their rivals at the top of La Liga.

The Catalans took a 20th-minute lead thanks to Jeremy Mathieu’s header, only for Cristiano Ronaldo to equalise just past the half-hour mark with his 42nd goal of the season in all competitions.

However, Luis Enrique’s side claimed what could turn out to be a vital victory thanks to Luis Suarez’s 57th-minute strike, the Uruguayan’s first-ever El Clasico goal.

Watch Luis Suarez's winner for Barcelona as they beat Real Madrid 2-1

It was Barcelona, as befits the home side, who made the faster start as they went in search of the win that would give them clear daylight in the title race.

However, despite bossing the early exchanges - as one would expect from a team with 17 victories to their name in the previous 18 matches since surprisingly losing at Real Sociedad back in January - it was Real who created the first real opening of the evening.

And it came when Ronaldo escaped the attentions of the Barcelona defence at the back post after being picked out by a delicious ball from Karim Benzema, only for the Portuguese forward’s effort to beat Claudio Bravo, but not the crossbar.

Barcelona then responded to that near miss by taking the lead, and through the most unlikely of scorers in the shape of centre-back Mathieu, who got the better of Sergio Ramos to power Lionel Messi’s inch-perfect free kick from the left past Iker Casillas.

Gael Clichy and Guillem Balague look back on the passage of playing leading to Real's equaliser

But the visitors took just 11 minutes to draw level, although only after Barca forward Neymar had somehow missed an open goal from only six yards out, a glaring miss that was even more important when Madrid equalised seconds later.

It was a beautifully worked goal too from Real involving Gareth Bale and Luka Modric, with the Croatian playing Karim Benzema through on goal, before his cute back-heel found Ronaldo, with the World Player of the Year making no mistake with his ninth goal in only 11 matches at the Nou Camp.

And Madrid would have gone in at the break 2-1 ahead had Bale not been flagged offside after putting the ball in the net after a Ronaldo flick on.

There was some confusion around who the linesman deemed to be ahead of play as Bale was clearly two yards onside while Ronaldo was borderline level with the defender when he knocked the ball on. 

Minutes later Bale somehow missed from close range before Claudio Bravo reacted smartly to tip over a rasping drive from Ronaldo.

After the interval it was Barcelona who moved up a gear, although not before Bravo was first called upon to keep out Benzema’s close-range effort after a fantastic move between Ronaldo and Modric four minutes into the second period.

Javier Mascherano gets booked while Sergio Ramos takes a tumble

Then came the decisive moment of the match as Dani Alves found Suarez with a high ball over the Real back four, although the forward still had much work to do to bring the ball out of the sky, before coolly finishing low past Casillas for his 14th goal of the campaign.

And thereafter it was all Barca as the Catalans missed a whole host of chances with Messi, twice, Neymar and Jordi Alba all wasting presentable openings to double their side’s advantage.

But Barcelona were not made to pay for their profligacy in front of goal though, with the closest Madrid coming to grabbing an undeserved equaliser coming when Benzema’s deflected shot from the edge of the area forced Bravo into a smart reaction save 12 minutes from time..

Taylor Swift Just Bought Some Porn Sites with Her Name on Them

TaylorSwift.porn and TaylorSwift.adult. She bought them so that neither you, nor anyone on her long list of ex-lovers could buy them first. The purchase is part of a larger controversial practice called “domain squatting” and it just became a much bigger issue for celebrities and corporations.

CNN reports that, “In 2011, the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers decided to expand the number of generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, such as .com and .net. There were 22 at that time and now there are over 547 new gTLDs on the Web, with new suffixes released every month.” Among those new gTLDs are some salacious options like .porn, .sucks, and .adult so ICANN is allowing celebrities and corporations (basically anyone with a brand or trademark to protect), to get first dibs on the more controversial gTLDs before they become available to any and everyone on June 1st.

Though the gesture of allowing the Taylor Swifts of the world first crack at domains like TaylorSwift.porn seemscharitable, it’s part of a problematic “domain squatting” practice that predates the expansion of gTLDs. Domain or cybersquatting is the practice of registering a domain with the intent of profiting off someone with a brand to protect. The gist is celebrities don’t really have an option not to buy. If Taylor Swift doesn’t buy TaylorSwift.sucks, who will? Haters who are gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate that’s who.

Steve Miholovich, SVP of marketing at Safenames, a domain registrar and advisory firm for websites, told CNN that most brands are compelled to purchase controversial domain names as their only option to protect their name. If left unpurchased, Miholovich says, “People who have bad intentions are going to do what they’re going to do and there’s nothing to prevent that.”

As far as we know, Taylor Swift’s team has no plans to actually do anything with TaylorSwift.porn. But if I were a super-famous cat lady like Swift, I would fill the page with kitten porn. No weapon stronger on the internet than a good old fashioned cat gif.