The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo ( Comprehensive Overview)

The previously released "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" trailer remains one of the most memorable bits of movie marketing this year, teasing the arrival of the feel-bad movie of the holiday season. But if you thought that trailer was cool, just wait — you haven't seen anything yet.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (original title in Swedish: Män som hatar kvinnor – "Men Who Hate Women") is an award-winning crime novel and locked room mystery by Swedish author and journalist Stieg Larsson. It is the first book in his "Millennium series".
At his death in November 2004, Larsson left three unpublished novels that made up the trilogy. It became a posthumous best-seller in several European countries as well as in the United States.[1] Larsson witnessed the gang rape of a young girl when he was 15. He never forgave himself for failing to help the girl, whose name was Lisbeth – like the young heroine of his books, herself a rape victim, which inspired the theme of sexual violence against women in his books.

Mikael Blomkvist, disgraced publisher of the Swedish political magazine Millennium, lost a libel case involving allegations about billionaire industrialist Hans-Erik Wennerström and is sentenced to three months in prison. Blomkvist steps down from the magazine's board of directors. At the same time, he is offered a freelance assignment by Henrik Vanger, the former CEO of Vanger Enterprises, which he accepts — unaware that Vanger commissioned an investigation into Blomkvist's personal and professional history carried out by private investigator Lisbeth Salander.
The old man draws Blomkvist in by promising not only financial reward for the assignment, but also solid evidence against Wennerström. Blomkvist agrees to spend a year writing the Vanger family history as a cover for the solving the case of the disappearance of Vanger's niece Harriet some 40 years earlier. Vanger believes that Harriet was murdered by a member of the Vanger family. Blomkvist moves to the Vanger estate and becomes acquainted with the extended family, most of whom resent his presence.
Meanwhile, Salander meets her new legal guardian, Nils Bjurman. Nils uses his position to extort sexual favors from her in return for access to the money from her own financial accounts. After two sexual assaults, Salander attacks Bjurman; she tattoos him and blackmails him with the release of a video of him raping her in return for full control of her bank accounts.
Blomkvist discovers Salander and realises that she has hacked into his computer. He persuades her to assist him with research. Together, they discover entries in Harriet's diary that list the names of missing women from across Sweden; this leads them to suspect that they are on the trail of a serial killer, who has been at large for decades. They discover that Harriet's brother Martin, now CEO of Vanger Industries, is the serial killer. Salander saves Blomkvist's life when Martin attempts to kill him, and Martin is killed in a car accident while escaping Salander's pursuit.
Blomkvist realizes that Martin did not know what had happened to Harriet and therefore, Harriet must still be alive. He tracks her down as a rich farmer and businesswoman in Australia and persuades her to return to Sweden. Blomkvist agrees with Harriet and Henrik not to publish any evidence he has found on the Vanger family and to keep the family's secrets to himself. In exchange the family makes large annual donations to charities which support victims of domestic violence.
Vanger's evidence regarding Wennerström proves to be insubstantial. However Salander breaks into Wennerström's computer and discovers that his crimes go far beyond what Blomkvist documented. Using her evidence, Blomkvist prints an exposé and book which destroys Wennerström, who is later found dead under suspicious circumstances. The exposé catapults Blomkvist and Millennium to national prominence. Meanwhile Salander - using her phenomenal skill with computer hacking and several false identities with which she approaches various Swiss banks - succeeds in stealing more than a quarter of a billion dollars from Wennerström's secret bank account and hiding it in various secret bank accounts of her own.

A brand new "Dragon Tattoo" trailer has arrived online, clocking in at an astonishing three minutes and 46 seconds. This time around, the in-your-face quick cuts are played down in favor of a much more cohesive look at the movie's plot and a clearer picture of the two leads, disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist and punk hacker Lisbeth Salander, who is different in "every way," according to her boss Dragan Armonsky.


"He's clean in my opinion," Salander assesses of Blomkvist when delivering the results of her investigation into the financial reporter. "He's honest. He's had a long standing sexual relationship with the co-editor of [Millennium] magazine. Sometimes he pleasures her. Not often enough, in my opinion."

Salander's description of her future partner gives way to the revelation of Blomkvist's quest in the movie: to solve a decades old murder mystery for a retired industrialist way past his prime.

"I need your help," begs Henrik Vangar, who's seeking to put an end to the mystery of who killed his beloved niece Harriet. "You come stay on [Hedeby] island, a way of avoiding all those people you might want to avoid right now. You'll be investigating thieves, misers, bullies. The most detestable collection of people you will ever meet… my family."

US Foreign Policy and 9/11 incident

10 years after those fateful September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America which claimed just under 3,000 lives and which traumatized and horrified Americans and outraged the civilized world. Ten years on, the US Congressional Research Service estimates that the subsequent Afghanistan and Iraq wars have cost the US$1.3 trillion.

A cost-of-war project at Brown University estimates, "conservatively", that 137,000 persons have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and that the wars there have created more than 7.8 million refugees in these states. Brown University actually feels that the actual cost-of-the-war projects, including interest payments and veterans' care, is actually closer to US$4 trillion. Defence spending has climbed from US$304 billion in 2011 to US$616 million in 2008, and the US budget went from a surplus of US$128 billion to a deficit of US$458 billion. Also, US debt held by foreign governments has moved from approximately 13 per cent of GDP at the end of the Cold War to nearly 30 per cent at the end of the Bush era.

Foreign debt

US trade deficit with China moved from US$83 billion in 2001 to US$273 billion last year, and total US indebtedness to China jumped from US$78 billion in 2011 to US$1.1 trillion in 2011. Foreign debt, as a percentage of GDP, increased from 32.4 per cent in 2001 to 53.5 per cent in 2009. Much, indeed, has changed since September 11, 2001. But scholars dispute whether 9/11 was decisive in terms of foreign-policy action, or that it was a historical turning point.

Richard Haas, president of the highly influential Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and former director of policy planning under Bush, wrote in Project Syndicate last week that, "September 11, 2001 was a terrible tragedy by any measure, but it was not a historical turning point. It did not herald a new era of international relations in which terrorists with a global agenda prevailed. On the contrary, 9/11 has not been replicated."

In an issue devoted to analysis of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, Professor of History Melvyn Leffler says, "There was and there remains a natural tendency to say that the (9/11) attacks changed everything. But a decade on, such conclusions seem unjustified. September 11 did alter the focus and foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. But the administration's new approach was less transformative than contemporaries thought. Much of it was consistent with long-term trends in US foreign policy and much has been continued by President Barack Obama."

George W. Bush, however, did squander a great deal of the goodwill and solidarity which the international community and people of goodwill lavished on America in the aftermath of those horrific and barbaric attacks on innocent civilians and defenceless people. I remember the leading French paper Le Monde declaring the day after the attacks: 'We Are All Americans'. Bush bucked that wave of support and sentiment by his vulgar unilateralism, his doctrine of pre-emption and his arrogant contempt for liberal internationalism. It was precisely what not to do.

But the doctrine of pre-emption, or preventive war, called the Bush Doctrine, was nothing new in US foreign policy. What was new was its elevation as central strategy, coupled with the Bush administration's disregard for multilateralism and soft-power strategies. But as Leffler points out in his Foreign Affairs article, when President Franklin Roosevelt justified his resort to preventive action against German ships in the Atlantic prior to America's entry into World War I, he said famously, "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."

But there were other cases in US history when preventive strike, or anticipatory self-defence, was flatly rejected. In 1953, US President Dwight Eisenhower was presented with a plan to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union in those early days of the Cold War: "All of us have heard of this term preventive war since the earliest days of Hitler," Eisenhower said. "I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time ... I don't believe there is such a thing and frankly I won't even listen to anyone that came in and talked about such a thing."

Two months after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Leslie Groves, overseer of the Manhattan Project, expressed views about controlling nuclear proliferation that were similar to the Bush Doctrine. "If we were truly realistic, instead of idealistic, as we appear to be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied and in which we do not have absolute confidence to make or possess atomic weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons, we would destroy its capacity to make them before it has progressed far enough to threaten." President Harry Truman rejected the proposal out of hand.

And in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis, some of President John F. Kennedy's key advisers discovered that the Soviet Union's nuclear forces were far weaker and more vulnerable than had been previously thought and proposed a pre-emptive strike. It was rejected.

America has always placed its security above everything else. But what George W. Bush and the neoconservatives underplayed was the importance of collaborating with other nations in the fight against terrorism and Islamic extremism. He neglected what that brilliant Harvard professor, Joseph Nye, has called "soft power", and, more recently, "smart power" (See his 2011 book, The Future of Power).

The Obama administration, happily, has rejected unilateralism and has overturned the hypernationalism and muscular foreign policy which characterised the Bush era. (Not that he is diffident about using force). Barack Obama put it well in his inauguration address: "Our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

These things are anathema to the Republicans and the Tea Party. But it is precisely their kind of fetish for hard military power and aggression which have fuelled so much hate and resentment toward America in the Middle East.

A history of American support for corrupt authoritarian regimes and disregard for human rights when those inconveniences stood in the way of American interests has alienated many from America and fanned the flames of Islamic extremism and terrorism.

But make no mistake about it: America was right to set its face against terrorism and radical Islam's anti-democratic and repressive face. It was a just mission to destroy al-Qaida, not just for America's sake, but for the sake of democracy and the international community. It is good that there has been no repeat of the 9/11 attacks in the US.

For all our criticisms of the Bush administration, we must agree with Loffler that its record included "important accomplishments", for "they kept the pressure on al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations and may well have prevented other attacks on US soil and citizens."

Time to reflect

Leffler hits the nail on the head when he concludes his Foreign Affairsessay by saying: "Ten years after 9/11, it is time for Americans to reflect more deeply about their history and their values. Americans can affirm their core values, yet recognise the hubris that inheres in them. They can identify the wanton brutality of others, yet acknowledge that they themselves are the source of rage in many parts of the Arab world. Americans can recognise that there is evil in the world ... and they can admit ... that force has a vital role to pay in the affairs of mankind. But they can also recognise that the exercise of power can grievously injure those whom they wish to help and can undercut the very goals they seek to achieve."

Al-Qaida's ideology has been rendered largely redundant in significant sections of the Arab world not because of aggressive foreign-policy action. Barack Obama might not be impressive in domestic action, but in foreign policy he has been a blessing to America. There can be no complete celebration in America today which does not acknowledge his role in changing the Ugly American image abroad. Obama's progressive foreign policy - which has not been unmindful of the important role of military force, mind you - has rebuilt respect for America's ideals, or at least has staved off strident criticism.

The fact that America did nothing to help its former dictators in Egypt and Tunisia and that, rhetorically, it has backed the Arab street's campaign for democracy, freedom and civil liberties has worked in America's favour and should - at least for now - neutralise Islamic extremism.

Enemies near and far

It would be in al-Qaida's interest if America were seen as backing its client states and their dictatorships against the people's revolt. But America is seen, even if rhetorically, as standing with those protesting for freedom and human rights. Al-Qaida has always talked about the 'far enemy' - the United States - while it has criticised the 'near enemy', those right-wing states not following Shari'a law. Now the far enemy is standing afar from its traditional clients, allowing them to fall.

In a well-argued essay in the summer 2011 issue of the journalWashington Quarterly ('The Battle for Reform With Al-Qaeda'), Juan Zarate and David Gordon note: "The Arab Spring represents a significant opportunity for US counterterrorism efforts. This is a strategic moment for the United States because for the first time Washington's values, long-term interests and counterterrorism goals against al-Qaida neatly align with events in the region.

"The Arab spring represents what US policymakers have argued and hoped for in countering al-Qaida's ideology - organic movements for democracy, individual rights and liberties in the heart of its Sunni Arab constituency." This strategic window was, of course, helped by the killing of bin Laden.

Flight 93 victims's courage lauded at dedication

The 40 passengers and crew who fought back against their hijackers aboard Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, performed one of the most courageous acts in U.S. history, former President George W. Bush said Saturday at a ceremony dedicating the first phase of a memorial at the nation's newest national park.
The two-hour ceremony also kicked off a bipartisan effort conceived backstage to raise about $10 million to finish the memorial's first phase and maintain it in the future.
The hijackers likely intended to crash the plane into the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., where the House and Senate were both in session, said Jon Jarvis, director of the National Park Service. But the plane "never made it because of the determination and valor of the passengers and crew of Flight 93, that plane crashed in this field, less than 20 minutes by air" from the target, Jarvis said.
Bush said the storming of the cockpit "ranks among the most courageous acts in American history."
Former President Bill Clinton likened the actions of those aboard Flight 93 to the defenders of the Alamo in Texas or the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae some 2,500 years ago who knew they were going to die. But Flight 93 was "something different" because those past heroes were "soldiers. They knew what they had to do."
The passengers and crew were, by contrast, "ordinary people given no time at all to decide, and they did the right thing. And 2,500 years from now, I hope and pray to God that people will still remember this," Clinton said.
"They gave the entire country an incalculable gift: They saved the Capitol from attack," Clinton said, along with an untold number of lives and denied al-Qaida the symbolic victory of "smashing the center of American government."
Clinton, a Democrat, pledged to work with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on a bipartisan effort to fund the remainder of the memorial, a promise that caused Calvin Wilson, brother-in-law of co-pilot LeRoy Homer, to burst into tears after the ceremony.
"I can't put that into words. But to ... have the people whose lives were saved recognize that, that was extremely important," Wilson said, as sobs choked off his words.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. said it's possible the bipartisan support could result in special legislation to fund the memorial, though Neil Mulholland, president and chief executive officer of the National Parks Foundation, said it's more likely the effort will result in an influx of money from corporations and other private sources to finish the memorial and then, hopefully, create an endowment to sustain it.
"Today we got a huge lift," Mulholland said of the agreement he said was struck backstage by Clinton, Bush, Boehner, Vice President Joe Biden and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
The National Park Foundation, the park service's fundraising arm, also announced a $2 million matching grant to spur donations.
The remarks by Bush and Clinton, in particular, drew standing ovations and loud cheers from the ceremony, which drew about 5,000 people: 4,000 invited guests including the crash victims' families, and about 1,000 other people who sat or stood on the surrounding grounds.
Biden, on hand to unveil the Wall of Names at the memorial - a set of 40 marble slabs, each inscribed with the name of a passenger or crew member who died - said those victims quickly realized they were involved in more than a hijacking, but rather the opening battle of a new war. Biden said the "citizen patriots" echoed the sentiments of Revolutionary War Capt. John Parker who said in April 1775 that if war is what they want, "then let it begin here."
Bush also seized on the citizen patriot theme, referring to the group's decision to hold a vote to decide to try to overpower the hijackers.
"The moment America's democracy was under attack our citizens defied their captors by holding a vote," he said. "The choice they made would cost them their lives."
The Rev. Daniel Coughlin, who was the U.S. House chaplain at the time of the attacks, gave the invocation and called the sacrifices made by the passengers and crew "willing seed for freedom's harvest."
Coughlin's invocation was followed by a long moment of silence as the U.S. flag was brought in, then a singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner." The names of the victims were also read as bells tolled, and Grammy Award-winning musician Sarah McLachlan performed the song, "I Will Remember You.

ordon Felt, president of the Families of Flight 93, whose brother Edward participated in the revolt by passengers and crew, afterward called the memorial, "a huge accomplishment. It's one that brings so much comfort to the families knowing, finally, that the sacred ground, the site where the flight came down and our loved ones rest in perpetuity, is finally protected and under the stewardship and care of the National Park Service."

History of Colonel Gaddafi

Muammar Abu Minyar al Gaddafi was born into a Bedouin family in the desert area of Sirte in Libya on 7 June 1942. He received a traditional religious primary education before attending a preparatory school in the town of Sebha where he became strongly influenced by the panArab nationalism being espoused by the Egyptian leader President Gemal AbdelNasser. During the Suez crisis of 1956 Gaddafi took part in antiIsraeli demonstrations staged in Sebha which led to his expulsion from the city. He moved to the coastal city of Misurata where he completed his secondary education whilst beginning to organise an underground revolutionary movement. His increasing radicalism led him to enrolling in the Military Academy at Benghazi in October 1963; in an indication of his future charisma as a leader he managed to persuade others from the underground movement to enroll in the Academy. In addition he also encouraged cadets already at the Academy to join him and the members of the underground in forming the central committee of the Free Unionist Officers in 1964. Around this time Gaddafi also enrolled in the University of Benghazi to complete his education by achieving a degree in history. On graduatig from the Military Academy he was appointed to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the armys Signal Corps based at Gariunis on the outskirts of Benghazi. Whilst stationed there he continued to strengthen the power base of the movement the full network power and influence of which only he was completely aware of.

On 1 September 1969 he led a small group of officers in a bloody coup detat against the reigning King Idris I who was on medical retreat on a Greek resort at the time. Gaddafis rebels abolished the monarchy and established the new Libyan Arab Republic in which a Revolutionary Command Council ruled the country with Gaddafi as chairman. Rather curiously Gaddafi did not promote himself to general of the armed forces but rather accepted a ceremonial promotion from captain to colonel a rank which he has kept down to the present day. Colonel Gaddafi began to develop the mew regime along the lines of the Arab nationalism espoused by Nasser in Egypt. He labelled it as Islamic socialism in which the government controlled larger industry whilst permitting private control over smaller companies he also imposed a system of strict Islamic morals. Taking a leaf from Maos Little Red Book he outlined his vision his sagely view of the world and his universal wisdom in the originally titled Green Book which came in three mouthwatering volumes published between 1975 and 1979. In addition to his literary offering soon after coming to power he launched what he termed a cultural revolution in which he strove to eliminate all indications of western culture mainly focussing on the eradication of the two giant ideologies of capitalism and communism. He believed that once all vestiges of foreign culture were removed Libyans could build a harmonious and successful society based upon the pillars of Islam and home grown socialism.

colonel Gaddafi stated to the Libyan population and to the wider world that he was creating a direct democracy governed by the people through local popular councils and communes but in reality the power lay solely with Colonel Gaddafi aided by a small band of trusted advisors. However Gaddafi insisted that he was implementing democracy in what he coined as Jamahiriya which could be loosely derived as power for the people by the people. But Libya is no exemplar of democracy civil liberties are basically nonexistent and opposition is simply not tolerated. Colonel Gaddafi took on the baton of panArabism from Nasser of Egypt espousing panArabism advocating a unity of all Arab states into one Arab nation. In addition ColonelGaddafi was a supporter of panIslamism and advocated a loose union of all Islamic countries and people. In 1972 he proclaimed the Federation of Arab Republics which was to unite Libya Egypt and Syria but the three countries failed to settle on a specific agreement of how the union would work. A similar proposed merger between Libya and Tunisia failed and would gradually deteriorate into mutual animosity. With the concept of panArabism floundering ColonelGaddafi compounded relations with his neighbouring states by invading Chad in 1973 resulting from a territorial dispute over the Aouzou Strip. Libya were to retain a presence n Chad until 1994. ColonelGaddafis global relations were similarly not the most congenial his continued support of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and calls for the destruction of Israel made him public enemy number one with many Western states most particularly the United States of America.

When Egypt signed peace agreements with Israel in 1979 Libya sought to ally itself closer with the Soviet Union but rather bizarrely even relations between these two remained fairly cool. Desperate for friends Gaddafi sought to spread Libyan influence in states with sizeable Islamic populations called for the creation of a Saharan Islamic state and supported antigovernment forces in subSaharan Africa. This latter policy rather bizarrely exploded to include almost anybody who requested Libyas support there appeared to be no rhyme or reason to Gaddafis foreign policy as groups with ideologies at polar opposites to Libya received help. It was almost like Libya were hellbent on complete anarchy willing to prop up anyone that was willing to cause disruption of course the result was that Libya became more and more isolated in world politics. In response to Libyas support of international terrorism the US State Department banned American citizens form travelling to Libya and placed an embargo on the importation of Libyan oil. Following suspicion of Libyan involvement in the bombing of a Berlin nightclub in 1986 which resulted in the deaths of US servicemen President Reagan ordered bombing raids on Libya. The raids included the bombing of Gaddafis residence which resulted in the death of his one year old daughter. Gaddafi however was far from bowed he was implicated in the bombing of a PanAm Flight over Scotland which resulted in the deaths of all onboard and eleven people on the ground. His refusal to allow the extradition of two Libyans who were accused of planting the bomb resulted in economic sanctions being placed on Libya for the entirety of the 1990s by the United Nations.

It took the intercession of South African President Nelson Mandela and UN Secretary Kofi Annan for Gaddafi to agree to a compromise he handed over the two suspects to the Netherlands to face trial under Scottish law. One of the men was acquitted but the other Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahis was convicted which subsequently led to Libya writing to the families of the victims and officially accepting responsibility and agreed to pay compensation of 2.7 billion to the families. As a result of this offer the United Nations lifted its economic sanctions on Libya. The apology marked the beginning of Gaddafis attempts to improve his standing in world politics following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center he firmly denounced alQaeda. Many theories have being proffered as to the reasons behind Gaddafis sudden turnaround but probably the one that is most generally accepted is that it was born out of economic necessity. Sanctions had been crippling Libya and coupled with the drop in oil prices they forced Gaddafi to start building bridges with the West. However other realities most likely influenced his change in policy such as the complete failure of his earlier policies panArabism had failed panIslamism had failed the international armed groups Libya had supported had not benefited Libya in anyway and the Soviet Union had fallen apart. Simultaneously to his rapprochement with the West Gaddafi emerged as a prominent figure in African politics he is an influential figure in the African Union and is viewed by many on the continent as a humanitarian as he donates huge amounts of aid to subSaharan states. However his desire for control has reared its controversial head once again as rather than be magnanimous about his new role he has assigned the title of King of Kings of Africa upon himself which has rankled a few brows.

Reviews of Movie Seven Days in Utopia

Today's featured adaptation is "Seven Days in Utopia," which may make you wistful for summer days on the links (or a sermon). The movie, about a struggling golfer who learns about sport -- and life -- is based on "Golf's Sacred Journey: Seven Days at the Links of Utopia" by David L. Cook, a respected teacher of pro golfers and other athletes. Here are excerpts from reviews:


-- Los Angeles Times: With Golf Channel commentators and players such as K.J. Choi participating, the film bears an official stamp of approval [and] it plays as a "Zen and the Art of the Links" with a Bible Belt persuasion.


-- New York Times: A stultifying hybrid of athletic instruction film and Christian sermon, the movie, directed by Matthew Dean Russell, is ... a kind of Southern-fried, Christian “Tuesdays With Morrie.”


-- Roger Ebert: I would rather eat a golf ball than see this movie again. It tells the dreadful parable of a pro golfer who was abused by his dad, melts down in the Texas Open and stumbles into the clutches of an insufferable geezer in the town of Utopia (pop. 375), who promises him that after seven days in Utopia, he will be playing great golf. He will also find Jesus, but for that, you don't have to play golf, although it might help.