I.O.U.S.A. astutely weaves together foreign policy with America’s financial woes; if the amount of our debt held by foreign countries, particularly China and Japan, continues to mount, then our leverage during diplomatic negotiations rapidly shrinks.  The film illustrates that even many “gains” are mirages, as Social Security and Medicaid are going to become very tough to sustain as the baby boomers begin to retire. And scarily, most of those who will be affected most by the declining path (our 17-35 year-olds) are mostly oblivious to the straits that we’re in.  Our youth must shoulder much of the blame for their own disinterest, but it doesn’t help when newscasters elect to showcase lost wedding rings on the evening news instead of arrival of Walker & Co. in town.  2008’s Presidential election showcased how petty distractions often overshadow the devastating issues our country faces, and I.O.U.S.A. makes it clear that this is oh-so-true on a local level as well.

Perhaps most impressively, I.O.U.S.A. does an excellent job of presenting the weight of our burden as all-encompassing for Americans—Creadon (Wordplay) avoids turning his film into a partisan slugfest, instead opting to focus on how our country as a whole must come together as soon as possible to fix this if we don’t want to see our children pay 46% taxes in 25 years.  The filmmakers certainly appear to prefer the bottom-up economic philosophy rather than trickle-down—there are several interviews with economists who express skepticism with Reagonomics despite their overwhelming popularity at the time, and there’s a shot of Bill Clinton signing the first balanced budget in 30 years—but unlike most political documentaries (as we all know, Hollywood tends to lean, er, slightly to the left), playing the blame game or bashing Republican ineptitude never seems to be the point.  There are plenty of harsh words about excess spending (a Conservative talking point, and one that’s certainly valid, if just one piece of the pie), and ultimately, our current budget imbalance affects American of every political party.  It would do us well to see Democrats and Republicans work together on this, though history has taught us that bi-partisanship is easier said than done.  Thankfully, we may finally have an administration that’s serious about having its actions match its rhetoric.  After the disconcerting numbers and sobering circumstances that I.O.U.S.A impressively breaks down for us, it’s clearer than ever that we’re going to need all the teamwork we can get.

RATING: PRO (-)

Rating: con (-)

Rating: con (+)

Rating: CON

A short week (Thursday night game agaist the Pats), so I’ll report back then on the battle for first place!

But for me, it goes deeper than this.  Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist has been described as the Facebook generation’s Before Sunrise, and that’s certainly half the reason I love it dearly. It’s also only half the story. Because Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist isn’t just a modern, American version of Before Sunrise—it’s also a portrait of a different time in life, a time when we’re not looking for a soulmate, but for the rush of lust and romantic excitement, the swings of euphoria one day, heartbreak the next.  Sometimes, a dazzling erray of emotions can come together in one 6-hour stretch, culminating in a delirious rush of happiness; as rewarding as it all feels one minute, it can come crashing down any day.  It’s a period of learning, sexual discovery,  and intellectual exploration.  This is a magical period of life, and Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist absolutely nails it.  Throughout the entire film, I felt happy, energized, invigorated…magical might be overly corny, but hell, when the shoe fits…and Sollett knows how to avoid treacle.  Nick and Norah’s alcohol-free interactions, which fluctuate by the hour, add a particularly interesting dynamic to their relationship—after all, liquor is a major part of the teenage years for so many.  The refusal by Nick and Norah to succumb to peer pressure allows a glimpse into a different sort of youth, one that directors too often ignore.

RATING: PRO

One of Stone’s biggest blunders is his casual portrayals of the administrations’ key players. Very few are fleshed out enough to resonate with the casual political follower; only Secretary of State Colin Powell’s internal dilemma over Iraq is depicted with any emotional heft. Karl Rove comes off as a sniveling nerd who tags along with his political bully buddies everywhere they go, rather than the calm-yet-sinister architect of so many of Bush’ horrific decisions. Vice President Cheney is appropriately cold, but the extent of his influence and evil is vastly understated. And Condoleezza Rice appears to be little less than a useless simp acting as Bush’s chief cheerleader, while Donald Rumsfeld’s contributions are barely noted, despite Bush constantly referring to him as “Rummy.” While it’s obviously asking too much for Stone to capture all the nuances of the dysfunctional White House, it’s not too much to expect some prioritizing and accuracy in the representations. In fact, Stone is so consumed with vilifying the entire crew (except for Powell, who gets a bit of a human side) that he tramples all over Laura Bush’ character, depicting her as a Democratic airhead who falls head-over-heels for a hot dog-chewing, spur-wearing Republican cowboy for…no good reason whatsoever. She fares no better as W. goes along, with her crown moment being an excited exclamation to the President that Cats is in town. Given that Laura Bush is widely considered an excellent First Lady (even by Democrats) and has done a lot of good, she deserves better than this.

As for Bush himself, Josh Brolin doesn’t quite look the part, but the voice and gesticulations are pitch-perfect. Stone does a good job of illustrating Bush’s embrace of his faith—which has played such an oversized role in his administration—as well as his flippant attitude and stubborn ego. And the acting all-around is pretty good (particularly James. Cromwell as Bush Sr.), despite having a weak script to work with. Had W. been a more intimate character portrait of Bush, it could have been much more powerful. But Stone doesn’t do intimate, and W. ends up a failure—a cheap, swollen cartoon about an administration that certainly deserves it, but in a heartier way than this, given all the damage that’s been caused.

RATING: con

- Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist (PRO)

- Marie Antoinette (pro)

- Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (pro)

- Appaloosa (mixed)

- 2 Days in Paris (CON)

First; it was another disappointing finish for my Mets, with an eerily similar final weekend to last season that left us out in the cold, watching the hated Phillies (who are now in the fucking World Series! @$I@$) and Brewers claim playoff spots instead.  Unlike 2007, though, I think we won about the right amount of games for our talent level, especially once Jerry Manuel took over.  The bullpen was just in tatters, injuries to Billy Wagner and John Maine really hurt our pitching depth, and Ryan Church never really found his post-concussion stroke.  Pedro Martinez also looks DONE - he’s going to have a tough time latching on anywhere as more than a 5th starter, I’d imagine (though when Carlos Silva is getting nearly 50m, one never knows)…

At any rate, the pain wore off much quicker than last time around.  The core is in place for a superb future, as Johan Santana and Mike Pelfrey look like a dynamite 1-2 punch for the next five years.  Upgrading the bullpen, seeing if Daniel Murphy can handle second base, and improving our organizational depth should be the major priorities.   I’m mixed on pursuing Francisco Rodriguez…he’s a dominant closer, but he’s going to make a killing in the FA market, and I’m very hesitant to pony up 75 million bucks for a 9th inning guy, especially one with so much wear & tear on his arm.  I’d rather go after Brian Fuentes of Colorado.

The infield looks set, as I assume we’ll pick up Carlos Delgado’s 8m option for 2009 (though a run at Mark Teixeira can’t be completely ruled out), and I’m hopeful Murphy - who was extremely impressive in the final two months of ‘08 - can be an adequate defensive second baseman; his bat would be a huge boost from that position.  Reyes and Wright are, of course, cornerstones.

If Murphy slides to second base, a LF will be needed; options include Fernando Martinez, who probably needs another year in the minors, a makeshift platoon of Nick Evans and a FA pickup, or a stopgap free agent to play every day.  I think option #3 is most likely.   Beltran and Church are locks in CF and RF respectively, assuming Church regains his form from the first two months of ‘08.

Oliver Perez is a FA, and while I’d love him back - he’s a perfect complement to Santana & Pelfrey in the 3/4 hole with Maine - I have a sneaking suspicion someone will ante up 5-80 for him.  Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone gave him six years.  Though he’s made serious strides as a Met, I’ve long since given up hope that he’ll put it all together and develop into a consistent ace…which makes me very reluctant to pay top dollar for him.  Call it 50/50 if he comes back.  Jon Niese impressed me enough with his curve to let him compete for the #5 job.  If Perez leaves, we’ll need a P to fill his spot.  Derek Lowe’s consistency would be a good fit.

Once the WS ends (hopefully with Tampa Bay victorious, though I’m not holding my breath), Omar can get to work.  I am, BTW, supportive of giving Minaya an extension - he’s mostly done great work with the squad, and I don’t consider him one of the problems.

Doubleheader today for the Mets, with Santana and Jon Niese throwing.  A split is a must, and a sweep would be lovely.  I’ll report back this evening…