Showing posts with label U.S. Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Economy. Show all posts

Sunday, December 28, 2014

'Danny Casolaro Died for You'

 Chris Jones review

On Aug. 10, 1991, a 44-year-old freelance journalist named Danny Casolaro was found dead in a West Virginia hotel room. His wrists were slashed. His death was officially a suicide.
For conspiracy theorists — or, depending on your political point of view, for realists about the lengths of malfeasance to which the government will stoop to avoid discovery of its special favors for special interests — that was all-too-convenient a demise for a reporter who was deep into any number of Reagan-era shady official dealings.
At the time of his death at that Sheraton Hotel, the evidence suggests, Casolaro was investigating thorny matters that eventually made it out into the open in some form or another, including the Inslaw case (the allegation that the Justice Department had stolen software), the so-called October Surprise theory (the allegation that the release of American hostages in Iran had been intentionally delayed to ensure President Jimmy Carter lost the 1980 presidential election) and, of course, the Iran-Contra business, involving the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran.
All of those scandals of that not-too-distant era made it into "Danny Casolaro Died For You," the new play at the TimeLine Theatre, under the direction of Nick Bowling and with Kyle Hatley in the title role. This is only the second production of the piece: the first was at the Wellfleet Harbor Actors Theater in Massachusetts. The author of that play, Dominic Orlando, certainly has some skin in the game. He was Casolaro's cousin.
It is fair to say from the evidence presented at the TimeLine Theatre that Orlando does not think it probable that his cousin committed suicide. And Orlando is certainly no fan of mainstream media, building the case that his cousin was brushed off, condescend to, and, in the final analysis, had his work stolen by staffers from the big dailies and news magazines to which Casolaro had tried to sell his story.
Orlando, a playwright who developed this all-male piece with the help of the well-regarded Playwrights' Center in Minneapolis, certainly builds an excellent case for his skepticism, detailed in a play that's like a tour of an era when expedient choices were rampant — although you could certainly argue such eras are omnipresent in Washington.
Either way, "Danny Casolaro" involves a succession of clandestine meetings with shadowy, bizarre figures like Robert Nichols (Philip Earl Johnson), Michael Riconosciuto (an especially lively Mark Richard), Brian Ehrlich (Dennis William Grimes) and, of course, Dr. John (Jamie Vann). There are other sources not to be entirely trusted; most of these actors play several parts, which is very apropos, given the many identities of many of those they are playing.
"Danny Casolaro" certainly is a refreshingly political piece. There are all too few political dramas on Chicago stages, especially plays dealing with a not-so-distant era that remains under-explored, at least from an artistic point of view. Script-wise, though, the main problem that presents itself is that it feels far more like Orlando has written a screenplay than a dramatic work for the theater. If that was intentional, you can understand why. A Hollywood movie, aside from the obvious rewards, is more likely to bring renewed attention to the suspicious circumstances of the demise of his late cousin.
That's manifest in the abundance of short scenes — requiring, at one point, the needless staging of a full-blown dinner in a posh New York eatery. You can sense it in the dialogue, which emphasizes plotting over more contemplative themes. And you can feel it in the overall ambience of a piece that needs so many interiors and exteriors, rushing by; it must have been far from easy for Bowling to figure out how to stage the work in TimeLine's intimate setting (the design, typically imaginative and immersive for this theater, is by Collette Pollard). But there's a price to pay in that the work plays a bit too much like faux-Aaron Sorkin, building tension and attitude very effectively, but never fully embracing its own potential theatricality. Or taking a breath.
So all that needs work. In terms of the production, which is quite solid and features a number of carefully observed, if briefly exhibited, characters, the big issue is that you don't sufficiently invest in Casolaro's quest. I think that's partly to do with the script and partly because Hatley, although an interesting presence with a physical resemblance to Casolaro, feels neither sufficiently capable of suffering nor of really impressing upon us the morality of his quest. As with a lot that goes on here, the actor spends so much time interacting with the plotting, he doesn't get to show us enough of his guy, unplugged. .
Orlando is himself in the story — or, at least, a fictionalized version of himself is there, through a character named Thomas Vacarro who is played, with some moral authority, by Demetrios Troy. That works to a point, but you never quite sure of your narrative guide, just as you wish that this passionate piece of theater would pause for some additional contemplation of what all these shadowy figures mean, a quarter of a century later.
There's a case to be made that Watergate would have changed little in the White House, were that scandal to have happened in today's more fractured, and far less trusted, media landscape. It would have been easier now for the instigators and lawyers to wave off the criticism as flawed and partisan. Maybe Oliver North would have been able to continue his deals unimpeded. Maybe similar deals are being made this very day, maybe from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Those are the kinds of things we go to the theater to discuss.
 cjones5@tribune.com
Twitter@ChrisJonesTrib

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

GOP’s disgraceful elitism


Romney is one of myriad conservatives who believe that our country's poor are lazy -- and should be punished


    GOP's disgraceful elitism Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder) It’s not just Mitt Romney.  When anyone argues that the very rich should pay their fair share in taxes, conservatives frequently respond by shifting blame to the supposed 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay taxes.  The message is simple:  How come you liberals want to blame the wealthy but let poor people off the hook?  And so, with apologies to Republicans who seem congenitally allergic to facts as of late, let’s look at who actually doesn’t pay taxes in America, and why, and what this means for our economy and the election.
    It is true that roughly 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax.  This is because they are too poor to fall within even the lowest tax bracket in America.  However, more than half of these folks still pay other forms of taxes — including payroll taxes, not to mention the sales tax and gas tax and others to which all consumers are subject.  And yes, many of these 47 percent do benefit from tax credits — because they are students or they are elderly or they are poor.

    The actual percentage of Americans who have no federal tax liability and are not elderly?  6.9 percent.  These Americans make less than $20,000 per year in wages.  These are the working poor, who were always struggling to get by even in good times but are hit extra hard by high unemployment and the fact that, in the slow recovery, more and more solid middle class are being replaced by low-wage work.  These, supposedly, are the very people Mitt Romney should be seeking to help with his candidacy — not attack.
    Now, what’s interesting is that, while complaining that poor people don’t pay enough in taxes, conservatives also complain that the wealthy pay too much.  They do this by focusing on the absolute dollar amount paid, as opposed to percentage.  So, for instance, when Warren Buffett states that he pays lower taxes than his secretary, conservatives protest.  Buffet pays far more in actual dollars, they argue.

    Which is, of course, true — 1 percent of $1 billion is $10 million whereas 40 percent of $100,000 is only $40,000.   In absolute dollars, sure, the billionaire is paying far, far more than the middle-class family, let alone a poor family.  Yes, conservatives are right, the top 10 percent of Americans pay more than half of the nation’s total tax revenues — but that’s because the top 10 percent enjoy more than half of the nation’s income.  And that gulf of inequality is only growing.
    But does anyone really think the richest of the rich should pay an effective 1 percent income tax rate while the middle class pays 40 percent?

    Oh wait, right — Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan think that’s a grand idea!  Under Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which Mitt Romney endorsed, taxes for the middle class would go up while tax rates for millionaires and billionaires would be slashed to unprecedented lows.  And under this tax plan Mitt Romney, who currently pays a less-than-fair share of 15 percent would pay just 0.82% percent in taxes.
    In other words, it appears Mitt Romney isn’t angry that desperately poor people don’t pay taxes — he’s jealous!

    Increasingly, I’ve come to think this debate is not really about conservative faith in trickle-down economics, which all real-world evidence gleaned over decades now proves just doesn’t work.  Instead, I think Mitt Romney and many conservatives simply believe that the wealthy are more deserving and the poor are lazy.  Therefore, we should reward the rich with whatever they want — lower tax rates, unlimited campaign spending, you name it — and punish the poor.  This eerily echoes the conservative response to the violence swelling in the Middle East, their unwillingness to acknowledge the context of violence and instead insist that those doing bad are just bad people.  Romney conveyed this broadly dismissive attitude about all Palestinians in other secret footage from the same donor event.

    Conservatives seem to believe that 47 percent of our own country is filled with bad people who don’t work hard and feel lazy and entitled — and these 47 percent should be condemned, contained and controlled.  And who better to do so than our moral and economic superiors.  The facts of tax policy and how hard poor people are trying to get ahead are irrelevant.  Conservatives are pushing a flagrantly elitist and immoral hierarchy to reward the rich and demonize the poor.  It is a sick vision for a nation founded on liberty and justice for all — that is, 100 percent.