Five things you didn’t know about Jesus

You may hear revelations from new books that purport to tell the “real story” about Jesus, opinions from friends who have discovered a “secret” on the Web about the son of God, and airtight arguments from co-workers who can prove he never existed.

Beware of most of these revelations; many are based on pure speculation and wishful thinking. Much of what we know about Jesus has been known for the last 2,000 years.

Still, even for devout Christian there are surprises to be found hidden within the Gospels, and thanks to advances in historical research and archaeological discoveries, more is known about his life and times.

With that in mind, here are five things you probably didn’t know about Jesus.

1.) Jesus came from a nowhere little town.

Nearly all modern-day archaeologists agree the town of Nazareth had only 200 to 400 people. Jesus’ hometown is mentioned nowhere in either the Old Testament or the Talmud, which notes dozens of other towns in the area.

In fact, in the New Testament it is literally a joke.

In the Gospel of John, when a man named Nathanael hears the messiah is “Jesus of Nazareth,” he asks, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” He’s dissing Jesus’ crummy backwater town.

2.) Jesus probably didn’t know everything.

This is a thorny theological question. If Jesus is divine, wouldn’t he know all things? (Indeed, on several occasions Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.)

On the other hand, if he had a human consciousness, he needed to be taught something before he could know it. The Gospel of Luke says that when Jesus was a young man he “progressed” in wisdom. That means he learned things. (Otherwise how would he “progress”?)

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus initially refuses to heal the daughter of a non-Jewish woman, saying rather sharply, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

But when she replies that even the dogs get the crumbs from the table, Jesus softens, and he heals her daughter. He seems to be learning that his ministry extends beyond the Jewish people.

3.) Jesus was tough.

From age 12 to 30, Jesus worked in Nazareth as a carpenter. “Is not this the carpenter?” say the astonished crowds when he begins to preach.

The word used for Jesus’ profession in the original Greek is tekton. The traditional translation is “carpenter.” But most contemporary scholars say it’s more likely a general craftsman; some even translate it as “day laborer.”

A tekton would have made doors, tables, lamp stands and plows. But he probably also built stone walls and helped with house construction.

It was tough work that meant lugging tools, wood and stones all over Galilee. Jesus doesn’t simply stride onto the world stage after having dreamily examined a piece of wood when the mood suited him. For 18 years, he worked—and worked hard.

4.) Jesus needed “me time.”

The Gospels frequently speak of Jesus’ need to “withdraw” from the crowds, and even his disciples.

Today by the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus carried out much of his ministry, you can see how close the towns were, and how natural it would have been for the enthusiastic crowds to “press” in on him, as the Gospels describe.

There’s even a cave on the shoreline, not far from Capernaum, his base of operations, where he may have prayed.

It’s called the “Eremos Cave,” from the word for “desolate” or “solitary,” from which we get the word “hermit.” Even though Jesus was the son of God, he needed time alone in prayer with the father.

5.) Jesus didn’t want to die.

As he approaches his death, and prays hard in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says, “Remove this cup.” It’s a blunt prayer addressed to the father, whom he affectionately calls Abba. He doesn’t want to die.

Unlike the way some Christians portray Jesus as courting death, and even desiring it, like any human being, the idea of death is terrifying. “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” he says.

In other words, “I’m so sad that it feels like I’m going to die.” But once Jesus realizes that this is somehow the will of the father, he assents to death, even on a cross.

It’s natural to want to know as much as we can about Jesus; that’s one reason I wrote my new book. But beware of the more outlandish claims about the son of God (he fathered children, he was married to Mary Magdalene, he spent time in India and so on.)

Many of these claims tend to project our own desires on a man who will always remain somewhat elusive, hard to fully understand and impossible to pin down.

In the end, as theologians like to say, Jesus is not so much a problem to be solved as a mystery to be pondered.

Why is government searching phones?

These are some of the many American citizens re-entering the country who have been subjected to searches of their cellphones and questioning about their social media.

Such invasions of travelers’ private communications are extremely intrusive and have been conducted even when officials don’t apparently have reason to think the person has done something wrong. And the government has lately increased the practice dramatically — even though recent legal decisions raise serious questions about its constitutionality.

Because people keep ever more of their personal details on their phones and computers, it is particularly egregious that the government should claim some right to unfettered access to these devices simply because a person travels abroad.

On Monday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — whose mission is to defend free speech in the digital age — filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the government to release information on the number of travelers whose devices have been searched, the policies related to searching cellphones containing sensitive and confidential information, and the findings of internal audits about the device search program.

Border searches of electronic devices by the Department of Homeland Security have risen exponentially in recent years, from about 5,000 device searches in 2015 to about 25,000 in 2016, according to press reports that cited DHS data. During the Trump administration, the intrusions appear to have become even more frequent; in February 2017 alone, border officials searched 5,000 devices.
And why is this happening? A US Customs and Border Protection policy since 2009 authorizes officers to seize and search a traveler’s electronic devices even if the person is not suspicious. The policy was always legally dubious, but it has become indefensible in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 landmark decision in Riley v. California.

The court held that police generally can’t seize a person’s cellphone as part of an arrest without first obtaining a warrant that is backed by evidence that the cellphone contains evidence of a crime and is signed by a judge.

A cellphone contains “the sum of an individual’s private life,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. The search of a smartphone is nothing like the search of a duffle bag. What people store on their cellphones — including Internet browsing history, medical records, family photos, GPS location data, financial information, and apps related to dating, addiction and hobbies — is vastly more sensitive than what people used to carry in their pockets, backpacks, or purses, or even keep in their homes.

Searches of electronic devices when there is no basis for suspicion to search them raise serious concerns relating to the freedoms of speech and association. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in another recent Supreme Court case, “[a]wareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms.” Americans will be justifiably concerned about speaking freely if, simply because they travel internationally, the government is given unlimited authority to read through their emails, texts, social media posts and the like.

The implications may be especially significant for a free press. Suspicionless searches of cellphones threaten the ability of journalists and their sources to report on important international issues, which deprives the public of its right to know about those issues.

Numerous reports show that journalists, lawyers and activists — particularly those who cover civil wars and terrorism or travel to conflict areas — have had their cellphones and devices searched at the US border, where officers have demanded their passwords and read their communications with sources.

Those sources will likely be leery of sharing information with journalists and activists if their identities and reports may be revealed to the US government at the border.

Anecdotal evidence about how the government is using its authority to conduct suspicionless electronic device searches is disturbing but incomplete. The public has a right to see a fuller picture, as many civil liberties groups have asked the government to provide.

Our freedom of information lawsuit request seeks a range of information, but one of the items we seek may be especially revealing: We’ve asked for the database of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System that houses information about every device-search at the border, including the reason for the search, the country of origin of the traveler, and the traveler’s race and ethnicity.
The government created this database in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights office several years ago about the possibility that searches might be conducted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful way.

Disclosure of the database — perhaps with narrow redactions to protect legitimate national security and privacy interests — would help the public understand the answer to basic questions about the government’s program: How often do border officers search travelers’ cellphones and other devices, and for what reasons?

Why did the incidence of cellphone searches sharply increase in the past 15 months? Does the department follow its own rules for taking special measures to protect searches of privileged and other sensitive content stored on cellphones, and what are those rules?

The courts should require the government to disclose this information and quickly, and the practice of delving into travelers’ private lives at the border without reason to suspect them of wrongdoing should ultimately end. Everything we know about the government’s searches of devices at the border suggests the government is dramatically expanding an unconstitutional program.

Why is government searching phones?

These are some of the many American citizens re-entering the country who have been subjected to searches of their cellphones and questioning about their social media.

Such invasions of travelers’ private communications are extremely intrusive and have been conducted even when officials don’t apparently have reason to think the person has done something wrong. And the government has lately increased the practice dramatically — even though recent legal decisions raise serious questions about its constitutionality.

Because people keep ever more of their personal details on their phones and computers, it is particularly egregious that the government should claim some right to unfettered access to these devices simply because a person travels abroad.

On Monday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — whose mission is to defend free speech in the digital age — filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the government to release information on the number of travelers whose devices have been searched, the policies related to searching cellphones containing sensitive and confidential information, and the findings of internal audits about the device search program.

Border searches of electronic devices by the Department of Homeland Security have risen exponentially in recent years, from about 5,000 device searches in 2015 to about 25,000 in 2016, according to press reports that cited DHS data. During the Trump administration, the intrusions appear to have become even more frequent; in February 2017 alone, border officials searched 5,000 devices.
And why is this happening? A US Customs and Border Protection policy since 2009 authorizes officers to seize and search a traveler’s electronic devices even if the person is not suspicious. The policy was always legally dubious, but it has become indefensible in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 landmark decision in Riley v. California.

The court held that police generally can’t seize a person’s cellphone as part of an arrest without first obtaining a warrant that is backed by evidence that the cellphone contains evidence of a crime and is signed by a judge.

A cellphone contains “the sum of an individual’s private life,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. The search of a smartphone is nothing like the search of a duffle bag. What people store on their cellphones — including Internet browsing history, medical records, family photos, GPS location data, financial information, and apps related to dating, addiction and hobbies — is vastly more sensitive than what people used to carry in their pockets, backpacks, or purses, or even keep in their homes.

Searches of electronic devices when there is no basis for suspicion to search them raise serious concerns relating to the freedoms of speech and association. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in another recent Supreme Court case, “[a]wareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms.” Americans will be justifiably concerned about speaking freely if, simply because they travel internationally, the government is given unlimited authority to read through their emails, texts, social media posts and the like.

The implications may be especially significant for a free press. Suspicionless searches of cellphones threaten the ability of journalists and their sources to report on important international issues, which deprives the public of its right to know about those issues.

Numerous reports show that journalists, lawyers and activists — particularly those who cover civil wars and terrorism or travel to conflict areas — have had their cellphones and devices searched at the US border, where officers have demanded their passwords and read their communications with sources.

Those sources will likely be leery of sharing information with journalists and activists if their identities and reports may be revealed to the US government at the border.

Anecdotal evidence about how the government is using its authority to conduct suspicionless electronic device searches is disturbing but incomplete. The public has a right to see a fuller picture, as many civil liberties groups have asked the government to provide.

Our freedom of information lawsuit request seeks a range of information, but one of the items we seek may be especially revealing: We’ve asked for the database of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System that houses information about every device-search at the border, including the reason for the search, the country of origin of the traveler, and the traveler’s race and ethnicity.
The government created this database in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights office several years ago about the possibility that searches might be conducted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful way.

Disclosure of the database — perhaps with narrow redactions to protect legitimate national security and privacy interests — would help the public understand the answer to basic questions about the government’s program: How often do border officers search travelers’ cellphones and other devices, and for what reasons?

Why did the incidence of cellphone searches sharply increase in the past 15 months? Does the department follow its own rules for taking special measures to protect searches of privileged and other sensitive content stored on cellphones, and what are those rules?

The courts should require the government to disclose this information and quickly, and the practice of delving into travelers’ private lives at the border without reason to suspect them of wrongdoing should ultimately end. Everything we know about the government’s searches of devices at the border suggests the government is dramatically expanding an unconstitutional program.

Five things you didn’t know about Jesus

You may hear revelations from new books that purport to tell the “real story” about Jesus, opinions from friends who have discovered a “secret” on the Web about the son of God, and airtight arguments from co-workers who can prove he never existed.

Beware of most of these revelations; many are based on pure speculation and wishful thinking. Much of what we know about Jesus has been known for the last 2,000 years.

Still, even for devout Christian there are surprises to be found hidden within the Gospels, and thanks to advances in historical research and archaeological discoveries, more is known about his life and times.

With that in mind, here are five things you probably didn’t know about Jesus.

1.) Jesus came from a nowhere little town.

Nearly all modern-day archaeologists agree the town of Nazareth had only 200 to 400 people. Jesus’ hometown is mentioned nowhere in either the Old Testament or the Talmud, which notes dozens of other towns in the area.

In fact, in the New Testament it is literally a joke.

In the Gospel of John, when a man named Nathanael hears the messiah is “Jesus of Nazareth,” he asks, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” He’s dissing Jesus’ crummy backwater town.

2.) Jesus probably didn’t know everything.

This is a thorny theological question. If Jesus is divine, wouldn’t he know all things? (Indeed, on several occasions Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.)

On the other hand, if he had a human consciousness, he needed to be taught something before he could know it. The Gospel of Luke says that when Jesus was a young man he “progressed” in wisdom. That means he learned things. (Otherwise how would he “progress”?)

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus initially refuses to heal the daughter of a non-Jewish woman, saying rather sharply, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

But when she replies that even the dogs get the crumbs from the table, Jesus softens, and he heals her daughter. He seems to be learning that his ministry extends beyond the Jewish people.

3.) Jesus was tough.

From age 12 to 30, Jesus worked in Nazareth as a carpenter. “Is not this the carpenter?” say the astonished crowds when he begins to preach.

The word used for Jesus’ profession in the original Greek is tekton. The traditional translation is “carpenter.” But most contemporary scholars say it’s more likely a general craftsman; some even translate it as “day laborer.”

A tekton would have made doors, tables, lamp stands and plows. But he probably also built stone walls and helped with house construction.

It was tough work that meant lugging tools, wood and stones all over Galilee. Jesus doesn’t simply stride onto the world stage after having dreamily examined a piece of wood when the mood suited him. For 18 years, he worked—and worked hard.

4.) Jesus needed “me time.”

The Gospels frequently speak of Jesus’ need to “withdraw” from the crowds, and even his disciples.

Today by the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus carried out much of his ministry, you can see how close the towns were, and how natural it would have been for the enthusiastic crowds to “press” in on him, as the Gospels describe.

There’s even a cave on the shoreline, not far from Capernaum, his base of operations, where he may have prayed.

It’s called the “Eremos Cave,” from the word for “desolate” or “solitary,” from which we get the word “hermit.” Even though Jesus was the son of God, he needed time alone in prayer with the father.

5.) Jesus didn’t want to die.

As he approaches his death, and prays hard in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says, “Remove this cup.” It’s a blunt prayer addressed to the father, whom he affectionately calls Abba. He doesn’t want to die.

Unlike the way some Christians portray Jesus as courting death, and even desiring it, like any human being, the idea of death is terrifying. “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” he says.

In other words, “I’m so sad that it feels like I’m going to die.” But once Jesus realizes that this is somehow the will of the father, he assents to death, even on a cross.

It’s natural to want to know as much as we can about Jesus; that’s one reason I wrote my new book. But beware of the more outlandish claims about the son of God (he fathered children, he was married to Mary Magdalene, he spent time in India and so on.)

Many of these claims tend to project our own desires on a man who will always remain somewhat elusive, hard to fully understand and impossible to pin down.

In the end, as theologians like to say, Jesus is not so much a problem to be solved as a mystery to be pondered.

They want President to stick to leading the country

But there’s one tweet that several assembled Trump voters — who expressed varying degrees of enthusiasm for the President — could agree on.

According to many of his supporters, Trump was wrong about “Saturday Night Live” being unwatchable and Alec Baldwin’s impersonation not being good.

“He has no sense of humor,” one tweeted.

“Humor at its best,” another said.

“Alec Baldwin did a fabulous job!”

Trump has more than 27 million followers on his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump. Another 16 million people follow his official presidential account, @POTUS.

To some, including Trump himself, Twitter offers a chance to bypass media that they see as biased or dishonest — and an opportunity for the country’s leader to engage with the masses in the moment.

“I feel it’s a great way to reach out to your constituents and create a give-and-take, because people obviously respond to his tweets, retweet the tweets,” said Ilene Wood of Emmaus, Pennsylvania. “In general, I’m in favor of it.”

Emma Leach, who became a die-hard fan of then-candidate Trump after attending a campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, says Trump’s use of Twitter energizes younger people, such as herself.

A few years ago, Leach said, she could have asked a friend what Obama did in office that day, and she wouldn’t have known.

“But today she’ll know what Trump tweeted or what Trump did or what executive order happened,” Leach said. “She’s involved now.”

Of the Trump voters that CNN spoke with in eastern Pennsylvania, two months into Trump’s term, most didn’t mind that the President uses such an unorthodox method of communication.

“It’s like a modern-day constituent letter,” Leach said. “They’re tweeting at their president, they’re voicing their opinion, and they’re more politically involved.”

But the immediacy is a double-edged sword.

“In some situations, that’s an excellent thing because he’s able to get the word out very quickly and perhaps get reactions and responses back,” said Wood. “But at the same time, it creates a possibility of engaging your mouth before you’ve engaged your brain.”

Scott McCommons of Altoona, is a lifelong Democrat who crossed party lines to vote for Trump and follows Trump on Twitter.

“I think he rants and raves. He doesn’t think about it,” said McCommons, who said his opinion of Trump has changed for the worse, in large part because of his tweeting. “I think he can do a lot better things with his time.”

McCommons said he now regrets his vote, going so far as to tweet at Trump, “Your twitter rants are out of control – I voted for you to make America great again, run the country sir!”

It’s not Twitter, It’s the topic

It’s a common theme among these Trump supporters: they wish the President would stick to the theme of leading the country.

“He needs to tone it down and forget about Snoop Dogg, forget about Arnold Schwarzenegger. We don’t really care about them, do we?” said Ray Starner, who always wanted to see a businessman lead the country. Now, Starner said he would prefer to see Trump focus on jobs, health care and uniting the country.

Also taking a toll on Trump’s base? Baseless accusations.

Several supporters expressed disappointment at Trump for tweeting before he has all the facts, including his tweet, “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during this sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

Mark Hanna is a former law enforcement officer who follows the news, but not all of Trump’s tweets. When he saw media reports about the wire tapping accusations, he said: “Even if he felt that way, I don’t think he should have tweeted it.”

Trump’s tweets offer some insight into the President’s thinking and the man himself, and his use of social media can even supplement mainstream media.

Checking Twitter became a regular part of McCommon’s day, he said. “It used to be my favorite thing to do in the morning because I wanted to see what he had to say. I wanted to see if it matched up with what I heard on TV, from the news media, from his press conferences, to see if he was being honest.”

While supporters might not trust everything the President tweets, they generally have faith in Trump himself.

It was just last Thanksgiving that Hanna heard of Twitter for the first time. By the evening’s end, his son had set up a Twitter account for him.

“My first tweet was to Donald Trump, at the dinner table. I said ‘Congratulations on winning the election, and I’m looking forward to you leading our country,'” Hanna said.

It’s a sentiment he still holds.

“The good far outweighs the bad to me,” Hanna said. “I’m thinking Trump 2020.”

Why is government searching phones?

These are some of the many American citizens re-entering the country who have been subjected to searches of their cellphones and questioning about their social media.

Such invasions of travelers’ private communications are extremely intrusive and have been conducted even when officials don’t apparently have reason to think the person has done something wrong. And the government has lately increased the practice dramatically — even though recent legal decisions raise serious questions about its constitutionality.

Because people keep ever more of their personal details on their phones and computers, it is particularly egregious that the government should claim some right to unfettered access to these devices simply because a person travels abroad.

On Monday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — whose mission is to defend free speech in the digital age — filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the government to release information on the number of travelers whose devices have been searched, the policies related to searching cellphones containing sensitive and confidential information, and the findings of internal audits about the device search program.

Border searches of electronic devices by the Department of Homeland Security have risen exponentially in recent years, from about 5,000 device searches in 2015 to about 25,000 in 2016, according to press reports that cited DHS data. During the Trump administration, the intrusions appear to have become even more frequent; in February 2017 alone, border officials searched 5,000 devices.
And why is this happening? A US Customs and Border Protection policy since 2009 authorizes officers to seize and search a traveler’s electronic devices even if the person is not suspicious. The policy was always legally dubious, but it has become indefensible in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 landmark decision in Riley v. California.

The court held that police generally can’t seize a person’s cellphone as part of an arrest without first obtaining a warrant that is backed by evidence that the cellphone contains evidence of a crime and is signed by a judge.

A cellphone contains “the sum of an individual’s private life,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. The search of a smartphone is nothing like the search of a duffle bag. What people store on their cellphones — including Internet browsing history, medical records, family photos, GPS location data, financial information, and apps related to dating, addiction and hobbies — is vastly more sensitive than what people used to carry in their pockets, backpacks, or purses, or even keep in their homes.

Searches of electronic devices when there is no basis for suspicion to search them raise serious concerns relating to the freedoms of speech and association. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in another recent Supreme Court case, “[a]wareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms.” Americans will be justifiably concerned about speaking freely if, simply because they travel internationally, the government is given unlimited authority to read through their emails, texts, social media posts and the like.

The implications may be especially significant for a free press. Suspicionless searches of cellphones threaten the ability of journalists and their sources to report on important international issues, which deprives the public of its right to know about those issues.

Numerous reports show that journalists, lawyers and activists — particularly those who cover civil wars and terrorism or travel to conflict areas — have had their cellphones and devices searched at the US border, where officers have demanded their passwords and read their communications with sources.

Those sources will likely be leery of sharing information with journalists and activists if their identities and reports may be revealed to the US government at the border.

Anecdotal evidence about how the government is using its authority to conduct suspicionless electronic device searches is disturbing but incomplete. The public has a right to see a fuller picture, as many civil liberties groups have asked the government to provide.

Our freedom of information lawsuit request seeks a range of information, but one of the items we seek may be especially revealing: We’ve asked for the database of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System that houses information about every device-search at the border, including the reason for the search, the country of origin of the traveler, and the traveler’s race and ethnicity.
The government created this database in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights office several years ago about the possibility that searches might be conducted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful way.

Disclosure of the database — perhaps with narrow redactions to protect legitimate national security and privacy interests — would help the public understand the answer to basic questions about the government’s program: How often do border officers search travelers’ cellphones and other devices, and for what reasons?

Why did the incidence of cellphone searches sharply increase in the past 15 months? Does the department follow its own rules for taking special measures to protect searches of privileged and other sensitive content stored on cellphones, and what are those rules?

The courts should require the government to disclose this information and quickly, and the practice of delving into travelers’ private lives at the border without reason to suspect them of wrongdoing should ultimately end. Everything we know about the government’s searches of devices at the border suggests the government is dramatically expanding an unconstitutional program.

What’s on Netflix and Amazon in April

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

Bill Nye the Science Guy tackles various topics from a scientific perspective in his new Netflix series “Bill Nye Saves the World,” debuting in April. Here’s at look at more of what’s new in the streaming world.

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“The Get Down” Season 2: Baz Luhrmann and his team take on the emergence of hip hop in New York City in the 1970s in this musical series returning for its sophomore season. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On”: Actress Rashida Jones is one of the producers of this series based on the documentary about the porn industry. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Chelsea” Season 2: Chelsea Handler returns with a new season of her comedy and culture talk show.(Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Louis C.K. 2017”: The comic and TV star talks religion, eternal love, giving dogs drugs, email fights and more in a live performance from Washington, D.C. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“An American Tail”: Fievel Mousekewitz and his family immigrate to the United States from Russia in this beloved animated film. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Kubo and the Two Strings“: This Academy Award-nominated animated film follows a young boy searching for a magical suit his father wore. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Dear White People” Season 1: Based on the movie of the same name, this series revolves around a diverse group of students trying to navigate life at a predominately white university. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Tropic Thunder”: A group of actors filming a war movie end up having to become soldiers in this comedy. (Netflix)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Bosch” season 3: Titus Welliver plays LAPD homicide detective Harry Bosch in this drama. (Amazon Prime)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Almost Famous”: Kate Hudson and Patrick Fugit star in this film about a teenage journalist writing for Rolling Stone magazine in the early 1970s. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Chaplin”: Robert Downey Jr. won critical acclaim playing silent movie star Charlie Chaplin in this 1992 movie. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Eddie Murphy Raw”: Eddie Murphy’s epic stand up special is still a fan favorite years later. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Tommy Boy”: David Spade and Chris Farley star in this 1995 comedy about a slow-witted auto parts company heir trying to save his company. (Amazon Prime,Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Election”: Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon star in this 1999 dark comedy about a high school election. (Amazon Prime)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Mulholland Falls”: John Malkovich, Nick Nolte, Chazz Palminteri, and Treat Williams star in this thriller about a special crime squad of the LAPD investigating the murder of a young woman in the 1950s. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Saturday Night Fever”: Donna Pescow and John Travolta both want a better life for themselves beyond their New York City neighborhood in this classic film that gave the world a killer soundtrack. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Kiss the Girls”: Ashley Judd stars as a woman abducted by a serial killed in this 1997 thriller. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo”: Rob Schneider and Marlo Thomas star in this comedy about an aquarium cleaner who becomes a gigolo. (Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Days of Thunder”: Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were still a real life couple when they starred in this race car driving film. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” : Matthew Broderick found stardom in this now iconic comedy about a high school student who plays hooky. (Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“RoboCop” : Peter Weller stars in this 1987 thriller about a wounded police officer who returns to the force as a cyborg. (Amazon Prime, Hulu)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” : Rose Byrne and Oprah Winfrey star in this drama based on the best-selling nonfiction book about a woman whose cells are still being used in medical research. (HBO Now)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie” : Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders reprise their roles as Patsy and Edwina in this comedy based on Saunders hit TV show. (HBO Now)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Kicks” : Christopher Jordan Wallace, Christopher Meyer, and Jahking Guillory star in this drama about a teen on a mission to get his beloved sneakers back. (HBO Now)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“War Dogs”: Miles Teller and Jonah Hill star as unlikely arms dealers in this crime drama which was based on a true story. (HBO Now)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“Suicide Squad” : Will Smith and Margot Robbie are part of an ensemble cast in this comic book adaptation. (HBO Now)

What streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu in April

“French Fields”: This lighthearted empty nester Brit-com stars beloved actors Julia McKenzie and Anton Rodgers about a couple who decide to move to France. (Acorn TV)

COPYRIGHT 2014 FUEL THEMES. All RIGHTS RESERVED.