Peter Malone's website on SECRET OF THE INCAS: some questions ....

I cancel my question to Byrne in the previous post. Just googled the book by Malone and it sounds really good. Here's what the review says.

"A fresh take on the Ten Commandments-through the lens of popular movies! Enliven your study of the Christian faith by discovering movies as a moral laboratory. In this volume of Lights, Camera ? Faith!, Rose Pacatte, FSP, and Peter Malone, MSC, offer an exciting approach to adult faith formation by creating a dialogue between Scripture, the Ten Commandments, and film. By exploring the drama of the moral life through movies, Lights, Camera ? Faith! The Ten Commandments grapples with the reality of temptation, choices, motivation, consequences, and the faith-filled and informed Christian response to life's situations. Three movies are offered for each commandment, providing material for different viewers: a film appropriate for a general adult audience, a film with themes calling for more in-depth discussion, and a film that treats more difficult issues. With fresh insight into God's covenant of love, this is a valuable resource for catechetical leaders, adult faith-formation programs, parish discussion groups, young adult groups, film educators and professionals-and anyone who appreciates deeper meaning in movies".

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

I read your other post with the entry about Mr. Malone, Os, and think I'll skip him.

On more Earthly matters, there is only a very remote chance Trump could actually become President. Despite his continuing lead in the race for the Republican nomination, his overall approval ratings are low. If he were to become the nominee, there is absolutely no indication he could win any of the states Obama carried in 2012, which in itself would be enough to doom him. But he would probably lose some Romney states as well. Republicans are terrified that he'll become the nominee, fearing he'd lose so badly he'd drag the party down at all levels, costing them down-ballot races for Senate and House seats, governorships, and so forth. I'm not so sure Trump would run as disastrously at the polls as some think, but he'd be an almost certain loser against Hillary.

But while Trump leads strongly nationwide among Republicans -- not among most voters -- as well as in most early-voting primary states (except Iowa) and has weathered numerous crises that might have destroyed other candidates, I'm far from convinced he'll be the nominee. It depends if he can get his supporters to the polls, and while his rallies are huge it's not clear if all these people will actually turn out to vote, particularly in caucuses. We'll see. The Republican establishment wants to derail him but their problem is, with who? The next-strongest candidate is Ted Cruz, the Texas Senator of few qualifications, highly disliked, even hated, by his fellow senators, and politically a right-wing extremist of narrow support. He'd be an even more sure-fire loser than Trump. Jeb Bush is DOA (to bring a rival movie into it); Chris Christie of New Jersey has nothing going on outside of New Hampshire and is too dirty and with too poor a record in NJ to be a successful candidate; and the rest are all going no place...except Marco Rubio, the junior Senator from Florida, who in my opinion may be the likeliest Rep nominee if he can do well enough to outlast the other non-Trump or -Cruz voters. Rubio hasn't much of a record and is not qualified for President, but then that's true of most of the candidates in the Republican field. (The best-qualified, like Bush, Governor Kasich of Ohio, or Senator Graham of South Carolina, have gone nowhere -- except Graham, who's gone out of the race.) But he's pretty adept politically and as a fresh face might have an advantage in the race, especially if he chose Kasich as his running mate for Vice President -- if they could carry their home states of Florida and Ohio they'd go a long way to winning the race.

Bottom line: in my view the Rep nominee will be either Trump, Cruz or Rubio. I'd be surprised if any other alternative arose, but you never know. But I do have a hard time imagining Trump as the nominee, despite the fact that if any other candidate had his numbers for the past six months, we'd all be anointing him as the nominee. More than with most candidates, his big test will be translating his vocal supporters into actual votes. All candidates have this task, of course, but there's a big question how really prepared, how well organized, Trump is to accomplish this.

By the way, here's a fascinating fact. You know that American campaigns raise obscene amounts of money. Far and away the leader in spending among Republicans so far is Jeb Bush, with over $41,000,000 spent (and over $100,000,000 raised). For that, he's at about 3% in the polls. Trump, a billionaire, has spent $221,000 on radio, period -- 0.02% of all the money raised on the Republican side. He's at 41%. Money is never a guarantor of success, but these numbers are quite astonishing and another indication that this is a very odd year. (By the way, as I write this I hear that another Rep candidate is dropping out -- George Pataki, former three-term Governor of New York. That would seem to be a hefty qualification, but he's been out of office nearly nine years and is too moderate for the hard-right GOP primary electorate. He's been hovering at near 0% in the polls -- hardly measurable. He never had any supporters or any chance, so you have to wonder why he and some others in the same spot [Dems too] insisted on making fools of themselves by running. It's reported he'll be calling his supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire tonight to let them know. I guess two phone calls won't hurt him financially. I nearly spilled a gin-and-tonic on him at a reception in Albany, the state capital, in 1998, and have now kept intact the campaign truism that the candidate whom I come closest to spilling my drink on always loses the presidential race.)

Not to go into details at this time, but you do know that it's not popular votes that elect a President but electoral votes. Each state has a number of e.v.'s equal to its representation in Congress -- the number of its U.S. Representatives, which vary by each state's population (with each state guaranteed at least one Representative), plus its two Senators (each state has two Senators). Thus, my state, New York, with 27 Representatives plus its two Senators, has 29 electoral votes. There's a total of 538, meaning you need 270 -- which constitutes a 1-vote majority -- to win. At this time the Democrats have an electoral advantage, that is, the states that usually vote Democratic have a much higher number of e.v.'s than do states that normally vote Republican, though this Dem total is a little shy of 270 -- around 246 or so, depending on how you count the votes. While this is close to 270 it's not quite enough: Gore won 267 and Kerry 252, just short, though Bush's very narrow margins -- the lowest for a winning candidate since 1916 -- demonstrate the heavy Democratic advantage any Republican has to overcome. (And of course, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, the first time that had happened to a winning candidate since 1888. I won't even go into the biased Supreme Court decision by five Republican justices that gave him the presidency!)

Anyway, the point is that as a practical matter it's harder these days for Republicans to hit the 270 threshold than Democrats, and it's hard to see which states Trump could switch in sufficient numbers to put him across; this apart from having to worry about holding some of the more marginal Republican states. Cruz would be just as weak. But Rubio could be another story.

Are you sorry you asked, Os?!

By the way, I've had a Walnut Whip whilst in Britannia. DT's head does indeed resemble the top of one, I admit, which may explain why I don't like that confectionery, unknown here in the States...at any rate, at least until Trump takes office. (And by "DTs", Os, I make no reference to any side effects attributable to Messrs. Brahms and Liszt!)