When Did Olympia Snowe Become Queen of America?
Truthdig: Oct 15, 2009
I don't get it.
I know that's the simplistic refrain of every 10-year-old, but I'm 33 and I
mean it: I just don't get it.
Specifically, I don't get why Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine-or any Republican
senator, for that matter-is attracting so much attention.
In the last few months, Democratic senators eliminated the public option and
substantially weakened their health care proposals in order to buy insurance
industry acquiescence and, thus, Snowe's vote. Now, based on the deafening
media noise, all of American politics is focused on this unaccomplished
backbencher and whether or not she will endorse the final bill. It is as if
Republicans control Congress-as if Snowe, not Barack Obama, won the biggest
presidential landslide since Ronald Reagan.
This is bizarre for what should be obvious reasons.
First of all, Snowe's much-celebrated initial vote this week for an
embarrassingly flaccid health care initiative wasn't necessary to pass the
bill-Democrats had enough votes to move the legislation out of the Senate
Finance Committee without her approval. That's a mathematical fact, as is
the fact that Democrats control the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster with
or without Snowe; as is the fact that Democrats have the 51 votes to enact
health care reform through a parliamentary procedure called
reconciliation-again, with or without Snowe.
So the notion that Snowe's vote-or any GOP vote-is inherently pivotal to
health care reform is a fantasy created by the Beltway media and the
Democratic congressional leadership. The former is desperately trying to
manufacture headline-grabbing drama; the latter is looking for a Republican
excuse to water down the bill and protect corporate interests-all while
absolving Democrats of legislative responsibility.
Second, the idea that Snowe's support will result in the final legislation
being called "bipartisan"-and that such billing will politically protect
Democrats-is absurd. How do we know this? Because Democrats themselves
taught us that via the Iraq war.
Recall that with solid Democratic and Republican backing, the 2002 Iraq
resolution was far more "bipartisan" than any health care bill will ever be.
Yet, Democrats turned right around and used the Iraq war to criticize
Republicans-and because the conflict was so wildly unpopular, Americans in
2006 and 2008 were willing to overlook the contradiction and vote for the
only major party echoing any semblance of an anti-war message.
On health care, it will be the same in reverse: The GOP will invariably
attempt to turn any bill into an electoral cudgel against
Democrats-regardless of how many Republicans end up voting for it.
The lesson, then, is simple: If Democrats' hypocritical Iraq criticism
worked only because the war was such a disaster, then the GOP's inevitable
health care attacks-however hypocritical-can be thwarted only by making
health care reform the opposite of Iraq (i.e., a major success). For
Democrats, in other words, good health care policy is great politics, and
bad policy is the worst politics.
Whether passed by one congressional vote or 50, real reform that improves
the system (i.e., a bill with a public option, tough insurance regulation
and universal coverage) would transform the Democratic Party into an
election-winning force forever known as "the generous protector of
middle-class interests," as GOP strategist William Kristol admits.
Conversely, even if passed unanimously, bad legislation that makes the
system worse (i.e., a bill empowering insurance companies, preventing a
public option and leaving millions uncovered) would make GOP criticism of
Democrats extremely effective.
That's a truism, no matter if Snowe or any other Republicans add their
support to a health care bill that doesn't actually need it in the first
place.
David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and
"The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM 760 in Colorado and blogs at
OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.
© 2009 Creators.com
Lauren Ambrose, James Gandolfini
Directed by: Spike Jonze
By Peter Travers
Rolling Stone: Oct 15, 2009
Check out Maurice Sendak's sketches of the characters in Where the Wild Things Are
The boy is Max, played by Max Records, 12, in a vibrantly alive performance that is surely a high-water mark for child actors. Max is in a dark place called home, where his divorced mother (the ever-superb Catherine Keener) is distracted by work and a new lover (Mark Ruffalo). Jumping on a table in the white wolf suit he wears like a second skin, Max rears up like an animal. "I hate you, I'll eat you up," Max yells at his mother, biting her hard before bolting from home in search of an undiscovered island where wild creatures roam and play drives out pain. Or so Max thinks.
Watch Peter Travers review Where the Wild Things Are
Sendak's book consists of a mere 10 sentences. The challenge for Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers (Away We Go) is to flesh out the tale to movie length. Jonze started by breaking rules (there would be no manageable Disney version of Max). From the moment he climbs into a tiny sailboat and heads out to sea (a departure from Sendak, who had Max's bedroom morph into the island), Max declares himself king of this wild world.
How to film the noise inside Max's head? The easy way would be to go the animation route. Not for Jonze. The director and his gifted team, including hand-held-camera master Lance Acord, traveled to rugged Australia and shot the action live with puppeteers inside nine-foot creature costumes.
Get an exclusive look at the film's stunning visuals in our behind-the-scenes videoPer tradition, the voice work was done by name actors. James Gandolfini excels as Carol, the creature leader who Max discovers tearing down his home right after he builds it. Like Max, Carol has commitment issues. Lauren Ambrose voices KW, the redheaded loner. Chris Cooper takes on the beaked Douglas. Catherine O'Hara puts the sass into Judith, who henpecks the loyal Ira (Forest Whitaker). And Paul Dano moans touchingly at being the shortest creature, the goat-horned Alexander.
That's where tradition ends. Instead of recording each actor singly in a sound booth, Jonze gathered them together, encouraging howling and rabble-rousing. The spontaneity is infectious. Computers were used to create facial expressions for the creatures, with the actors themselves as models.
Click here for more news and reviews from Peter Travers on the Travers Take
For all the money spent, the film's success is best measured by its simplicity and the purity of its innovation. Jonze has filmed a fantasy as if it were absolutely real, allowing us to see the world as Max sees it, full of beauty and terror. The brilliant songs, by Karen O (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) and the Kids, enhance the film's power to pull you in as Max literally hides in the belly of a beast, builds a fort and issues a call to arms: "I know something that always cheers me up — a war."
Read the Rolling Stone review of Karen O and the Kids' soundtrack
Jonze never belabors points about violence or the Freudian nature of identity and rebellion. Whether Max's cheeks flush with euphoria or rage, our identification with him is complete. Jonze brings all the senses into play. You can practically feel the animal heat when homesick Max falls asleep in a "real pile" of snoozing wild things. But the creatures don't coddle Max, and the film follows suit. By staring without blinking into the yellow eyes of these wild things, Max begins to recognize something of himself. Jonze doesn't blink either. That's why this adaptation of Sendak's rigorously unsentimental story is a moving tribute to both their talents.
No comments:
Post a Comment