To live with Kurosawa's Ikiru

By Frank Moraes

Ed. note: Frank writes about film quite a bit at his blog, Frankly Curious, but we don't usually feature his film writing here, preferring to stick with his more political posts. But I couldn't resist this one, an excellent examination of Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru (which is actually quite political, as is Frank's post).

Ahead even of Ozu and Kieslowski, Kurosawa is my favorite director. He made what I think is the greatest movie ever made, Seven Samurai, and the list of his masterpieces is a long one: Ran, High and Low, Yojimbo, Rashomon, and Throne of Blood lead the pack after Seven Samurai, for me, but The Hidden Fortress (the basis for Star Wars), Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Stray Dog, to name but four others, are also excellent. And then there are the many great "minor" films that deserve greater attention, including his early and post-war work.

Anyway, suffice it to say I absolutely love Kurosawa, and while I wouldn't put Ikiru among his very best, it's certainly a wonderful film, and the iconic scene of Watanabe (the great Takashi Shimura) on the swing ranks among the most powerful of Kurosawa's entire oeuvre. -- MJWS

**********

After many years, I watched Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru. It is the story of a man who learns that he is dying of stomach cancer and so decides to use his life to do something meaningful. You can well imagine what kind of sentimental claptrap this would be in the hands of Hollywood. Ikiru -- which means "to live" -- is not at all sentimental. In fact, the main character dies halfway through the film. But that doesn't mean it isn't inspiring. It shows how one man decided to change his life for the better without any of the cheap movie tricks that I so despise. (Think: Beaches.)

The film is a product of the post-war period in Japan and focuses on a bureaucrat, Kanji Watanabe, who follows the tradition of doing as little as possible. This is highlighted at the beginning of the film when Watanebe uses pages from a document titled, "A Proposal for Increasing Departmental Efficiency." This is followed by the narrator telling us, "The best way to protect your place in the world is to do nothing at all." This goes along with a quote provided in Stephen Prince's excellent commentary from Masao Miyamoto, "The three great principles of Japanese bureaucracy are: don't be late; don't take time off; and do no work." Watanabe wasn't always like this, but he certainly is at this mature point in his career.

At the same time, we are introduced to a group of local women who want the government to fix a problem. Where they live is an open sewer that is making their children sick. They want it to be remediated and turned into a park. So they go to the government and end up being sent from one agency to another. They stand as the opportunity that Watanabe needs to find redemption and his pathway "to live" -- even if it is for a short time.


(As a political matter, I have a problem with too much focus on governmental bureaucracy. Bureaucratic obstruction in the government was a big problem and still is in many places. But at least in this country, it has gotten much better. Now, the "run around" is much more common in dealing with corporations. A couple of years ago, Paul Krugman noted, "I've recently had fairly extensive dealings with both our health care system and with the New Jersey DMV. In one case, I encountered vast amounts of paperwork, mind-numbing bureaucracy, and extremely frustrating delays. In the other, my needs were met quickly and politely. So far, then, it's DMV 1, private health system (and I have very good insurance) 0." That's my experience.)

Read more »

Sea of Japan in The Garden State: New Jersey legislators try to meddle with international geography

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I get it. Japanese militarism and colonialism were a rather nasty business. While Japan hasn't exactly been much of an imperial power since its defeat in WWII, the Koreans, as well as the Chinese and others, have every right to be angry, even now, not least because the Japanese haven't exactly been terribly apologetic regardings its myriad historical abuses.

But this is just plain stupid:

On Monday, five New Jersey Democrats introduced a bill that would rename the sea between Japan and the Korean peninsula.

Currently, the sea is known as the Sea of Japan. But, according to the Star-Ledger newspaper, the bill would require "the state and all its political subdivisions, 'to the extent practicable'" to refer to the body of water as both the "East Sea" and the "Sea of Japan." Textbooks in New Jersey schools would have to adopt the new names starting in 2016.

The five backers of the bill represent what the Star-Ledger described as a "large and politically active Korean-American community." South Koreans have argued the name "Sea of Japan" is "colonialist" while the Japanese government has said the name is more familiar to the international community.

Again, I get it. I understand why this is, to some, a very sensitive and contentious matter. And as a matter of course I'm not against renaming things. Like, for example, the nickname of the Washington NFL team. But that nickname is a racist slur, whereas the Sea of Japan isn't, and, simply put, "Sea of Japan" is the name that has been adopted internationally for that body of water. What's the point of changing it now? Surely there are other ways to express one's hostility to Japanese colonialism.

But if there is a desire to change the name, then advocates in the U.S. should work through the proper channels to try to make it happen. Just changing the name locally, at the state level, and requiring that children learn the new name in school, is, as I said, stupid. I mean, what if, say, legislators in Texas, where rewriting textbooks according to right-wing ideological propaganda is hardly uncommon, decide they don't like the name "China" and decide that country will henceforth be known -- only in Texas, of course -- as "Commieland"?

I'm not saying the Korean New Jerseyans behind the "Sea of Japan" bill are nearly that stupid, but it's a dangerous thing, I think, to impose one's parochial views on accepted geographic reality, just as it is to impose one's parochial views on history, particularly when, as in this case, a name change wouldn't really change anything at all.

Kansas doubles down on its anti-gay bigotry instead of joining the civilized world

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What's the matter with Kansas? What the fuck is the matter with Kansas? Well, in large part because of its Republican majority, it's a shithole of bigotry, and while much of the rest of the country moves to eliminate discrimination, this fucked-up state prefers to entrench it:

Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas. 

House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.

It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.

Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

The bill's proponents and others who share their anti-gay views can try to spin this as being about religious freedom, about the "right" to oppose homosexuality, but when you strip away that veneer of bullshit what this really is is bigotry, plain and simple, and the state's authorization of discrimination. And it's just as bad that the target is same-sex couples as it would be if it were, say, Jewish couples or mixed-race couples.

Kansas, grow the fuck up.

A.M. Headlines

(Slate): "Kansas’ anti-gay segregation bill is an abomination"

(Times Dispatch): "Federal judge strikes down Virginia's gay marriage ban"

(Roll Call): "6 Republican senators switched their debt limit votes"

(Bloomberg): "Obamacare damage-control teams seek to calm complaints"

(CNN): "Snow dump burying parts of Northeast in massive winter storm"

The (ugly, dirty, sordid) truth about Chris Christie

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I highly recommend Alec MacGillis's excellent piece on Chris Christie at The New Republic. It's a comprehensive look at the long and sordid political career of the scandal-ridden governor -- who he is, how he rose to power, and how he abused his power once in office. And it's not just Bridgegate. The George Washington Bridge scandal has just been the most high-profile example of his political malfeasance, opening a door onto so much else, so much that was always there but that was hidden behind his carefully manufactured image of "straight-talking, corruption-busting everyman." Now he's seen as "a liar, a bully, a buffoon," but in truth he's always been that.

What is remarkable about this meltdown is that it isn't the result of some deep secret that has been exposed to the world, revealing a previously unimagined side to the candidate. Many of the scandals and mini-scandals and scandals-within-scandals that the national media is salivating over have been in full view for years. Even the now-infamous Bridgegate was percolating for months before it exploded into the first major story of the next presidential race.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

On the Hustings

(Jonathan Chait): "How House Republicans screwed their next presidential nominee"

(Politico): "Poll: Warner leads Gillespie by 6 in Virginia"

(Dallas News): "Wendy Davis backs 20-week abortion ban that defers to women"

(National Journal): "Republicans look good in the Senate—except McConnell"

(Politico): "A fight in Florida for national bragging rights"

Scenes from the other Nazi Games, the 1936 Winter Olympics in Garmish-Partenkirchen

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin maintain significant historical importance, what with Jesse Owens and Leni Riefenstahl and the sheer horrendous spectacle of it all, but did you know that the 1936 Winter Olympics, this being back when both Games were held in the same year, were also in Germany, down in the Bavarian town of Garmish-Partenkirchen?

Some interesting facts:

-- Both 1936 Olympics followed 1932 Olympics in the U.S. (Los Angeles for summer, Lake Placid for winter).

-- Berlin beat out Barcelona to hold the 1936 Summer Games. It would have been interesting, to say the least, had Barcelona won, given that the Spanish Civil War started in 1936. (The IOC vote was held years before, in 1931. That was also two years before the Nazis came to power. Hitler made the Berlin Games a Nazi spectacle, but that was not, and could not have been, the IOC's intention.)

-- Norway won the most medals in Garmish-Partenkirchen, 15, including the most gold (7) and the most silver (5), while being tied for the most bronze (3). Germany had the second most golds with 3, but Sweden was second in total medals with 7, followed by Germany and Finland with 6. The U.S. was tied for fifth with Austria (4), followed by Great Britain (3). Canada, France, and Hungary each won 1, a silver for Canada and a bronze for the other two.

(As I write this, Norway is currently leading the medal total in Sochi with 12, but Germany has the most golds with 6.)

-- Canada's silver was in men's ice hockey. Canada won every gold in that event from the first Winter Games in 1920 through 1952 except for 1936, when it lost to Great Britain (made up of Canadian players, it must be noted) in the round-robin final round and finished second. Things changed in 1956 when the Soviets got involved, sending essentially professional players while Canada and the rest of the West sent amateurs. The Soviet Union dominated the competition through 1988, with the Soviet-dominated "Unified Team" also winning in 1992. Of course the Olympics are now a pro competition, with each country sending its very best (mostly from the NHL), but at least it's fair now.

But enough with the interesting facts. I was prompted to write this post by a fascinating post at New York's Daily Intelligencer blog featuring stunning images of the 1936 Winter Olympics, the mostly forgotten Nazi Games of that year. It's all quite eerie, and creepy, and terrifying. The poster above is one of them, but there are also photos of the town decked out in Nazi banners, athletes surrounded by Nazi symbols, the ominous-looking opening ceremony, and, yes, Hitler himself showing up to take in an international athletic competition that was essentially presented as a celebration of Nazism.

Wait, gay marriage in Kentucky?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Really? Yes. Well, maybe:

In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge has struck down the state's ban on recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where it is legal.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law by treating gays and lesbians "differently in a way that demeans them."

*****

Heyburn's decision strikes down part of Kentucky's marriage amendment, enacted in 2004 by 74 percent of the voters, which says "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky."

In the 23-page opinion, Heyburn said the state and groups defending the amendment offered no evidence that recognizing same-sex unions would harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively.

That's because there is no evidence. It's bigotry rooted in religious ignorance, combined with sexual delusion and personal psychosis. (Something like that.)

Anyway, this is certainly a giant step forward, even if we're probably still a long way off from seeing marriage equality in Kentucky, a state with great whiskey, excellent college basketball, a famous horse race, and a Corvette museum with a large sinkhole in it, but one not exactly known for its progressivism and commitment to civil rights.

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Dramatic debt vote stirs Senate"

(New York Times): "‘Vote no, hope yes’ defines dysfunction in Congress"

(CNBC): "Comcast set to buy Time Warner Cable in all-stock deal"

(Real Clear Politics): "Obamacare sign-ups -- 3.3 million -- skew older, female"

(ABC News): "New Orleans ex-Mayor: From reformer to convict"

How the Republican capitulation over the debt ceiling is good for Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republican capitulation over the debt ceiling, finally agreeing to a clean increase instead of demanding a ransom and thereby threatening national and possibly global economic apocalypse, is indeed a very big deal. There was a great deal of Republican opposition in the House, where the increase required Democrats to join forces with John Boehner and the Republican leadership, as well as in the Senate, where enough Republicans joined Democrats to overcome a Ted Cruz-led filibuster, but at the end of the day the hostage-taking extremists who generally run the Republican Party were put in their place for the good of the country, and, yes, let's be clear about this, for the good of the Republican Party, whose corporate backers demand debt ceiling increases, which of course are good for business, and which would not have fared well in the eyes of the public, nor likely at the polls come November, in the event of yet another crisis.

Indeed, while I applaud this increase, as anyone who cares about good governance and the health of the economy must, there's no denying that it was a smart move for the Republican leadership to do what it did. Because while there will be some initial backlash from the Tea Party base, as well as from Tea Party Republicans in Congress like Cruz, and while those facing primary challenges like Mitch McConnell may have given the party's far right some ammunition, the party now avoids a protracted fight over the debt ceiling that would only have ended badly for Republicans, that would have deepened the already deep division within the party, and that would have been a significant distraction from the current Republican agenda.

And just what is that agenda? Basically, with the midterms in sight, to throw every possible lie and distortion at President Obama, to highlight the make-believe scandals (Benghazi, IRS) and to try to turn voters against Obamacare by scaring the shit out of them with sensationalistic falsehoods. That is, to assault the president with everything last smear at their disposal and thereby to try to turn the midterms into a referendum on the president and his record, as they define it and according to their own right-wing narrative, hoping with low voter turnout dominated by low-information voters they might just turn the tables on their nemesis.

That's really all this is: politics. It isn't a sign that Congress is in any way more sensible now than it was before, and it certainly isn't a sign that the Republican Party is in any way saner. As Frank Rich writes, Republicans remain "a hard-right party that will be happy to once again hold the government hostage to its demands if it gains a Senate majority to go with its House majority in November's midterms," while "yesterday's vote on the debt-limit will be remembered, if at all, as a fleeting pause in the Republican right's Obama-era surge." That sounds about right.

Republican class warfare on Obamacare

By Frank Moraes 

Brian Beutler wrote an interesting article over at Salon recently, "Why They Hate Working America: GOP Equates Benefits With Personal Failure." It is about the Republican reaction to the CBO report that said that, because of Obamacare, some people would cut back the hours they work and others would stop working altogether. The information in the report is mostly good news. In particular, it gets rid of the problem of job-lock where people are stuck in jobs just because they need the health insurance it provides.

Back in 2009, Paul Ryan himself asked, "[A]re we going to continue job-lock or are we going to allow individuals more choice and portability to fit the 21st century workforce?" But as usual with them, Republicans approach any problem with a long list of solutions that are not acceptable. So they may all be in favor of affordable healthcare, but they aren't willing to do anything about it that would actually work. So it isn't surprising that Republicans would twist themselves in knots to attack Obamacare with information indicting it is fixing a problem they've claim to care about.

Beutler notes that the main argument that is appearing from Republicans about the CBO report is pretty much the same as Romney's 47% narrative. "They're not condemning 47 percent of people in the country, but they are being much more specific about the class of people they're condemning." The best example I have of this is a two-income family where the one person only wants to work part time but has to work full time in order to have health insurance. So Obamacare allows the family to go from two incomes to one and a half incomes, allowing more time for managing the home and children. That ought to be something that conservatives would applaud -- especially social conservatives!

Read more »

On the Hustings

(New York Times): "In Governors’ races this year, lessons for 2016"

(Public Policy Polling): "Louisiana Senate race tightens"

(Chicago Tribune): "Poll: Bruce Rauner gains early lead"

(National Journal): "The Democrats' Colorado conundrum"

(U-T San Diego): "Faulconer wins mayor's race"

Good scout

By Mustang Bobby

Via TPM, Pascal Tessier is the first openly gay Boy Scout to reach Eagle Scout status.

For Tessier, it represents six years of work, 27 merit badges and projects in service, leadership and outdoor skills. He put all that at risk, though, to advocate publicly against the Scouts ban on gays.

[...]

For more than a year, Tessier, who lives in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Kensington, has been one of the most prominent openly gay scouts speaking out to change the Scouts’ longstanding ban. After a vote last year, the organization of 2.5 million youth members officially opened its doors to include all boys, regardless of sexual orientation. A ban on gay adult leaders remains in place.

That’s leadership.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Bloomberg Businessweek): "Obama to sign $10.10 minimum wage order on U.S. contract workers"

(Greg Sargent): "GOP debt limit extortion is dead"

(Joe Klein): "The Hillary Clinton papers: Not much there"

(Reuters): "Yellen stays the course, says Fed to keep trimming stimulus"

(Real Clear Politics): "What's a little spying between friends?"

On the Hustings

(The Hill): "Team Clinton started talks on 2016 run night of Obama's victory"

(CBS News): "Hillary Clinton: Monica Lewinsky a 'narcissistic loony toon'"

(NBC News): "Latinos don't affect vast majority of House Republicans' races"

(The Hill): "Obama raising funds for six Senate Dems"

(National Journal): "Charlie Crist hugs Barack Obama all over again"

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-sized employers until 2016"

(New York Times): "House Republicans seek to trade debt deal for repeal on military pensions"

(Roll Call): "Cruz does Boehner no favors"

(The Atlantic): "Why Democrats will win on unemployment insurance"

(BBC News China): "China and Taiwan in first government talks"

It doesn't really matter if the NFL is "ready" for a gay player: Thoughts on Michael Sam

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With the Olympics on, I've been spending more time than usual on Twitter, but over the past 24 hours what I've tweeted about most isn't Sochi but Michael Sam, the Missouri college football player who, ahead of this spring's NFL draft, announced publicly on Sunday that's he's gay.

My quick thoughts are as follows:

Michael Sam is a courageous young man. He may only be projected to be a third- or fourth-round pick, and there may be questions about his ability to succeed at the pro level, but he's obviously a leader of superior character. He was a great college player, but he was also the respected captain of a successful team. And it says a lot that his team was fully behind him all season after he came out to them last year.

It is disappointing that some of the reaction from the NFL has been negative, mainly from anonymous team officials but also from idiots like Herm Edwards, but in general I've been impressed with the support Sam has received -- from the league, from players, from commentators in the media. I suspect that there are many who are keeping quiet because they fear what would be said about them, and to them, were they to be open about their views, but that, too, is a sign of just how much things have changed.

Will Sam have an easy go of it in the NFL? No, of course not. First, it'll be tough for him to make an opening day roster, though, as I said, his leadership and character should not be discounted. Second, if he does make it, I'm sure there will be those in the locker room, among the fans, and throughout the NFL and society generally, who reject him given their bigotry towards his sexual orientation. But let's not think that NFL teams are dominated by bigots. I suspect that, despite some initial questions from some who don't know what to make of him, he'll quickly be welcomed by his team, just as he was at Missouri. Support for gay rights, and for acceptance, is very much a generational matter, after all, and most of the players in the league are really young. Being gay just isn't the "problem" it is for some of the league's older personnel, like GMs and scouts. And ultimately I suspect it will all be a non-issue, even if the media try to make a great deal of it.

Read more »

Afgoneistan

By Carl 

To understand Afghanistan, it helps to understand a little economics:

Consider these facts from a highly intelligent forthcoming book, War Front to Store Front, by Paul Brinkley: In 2009, Afghanistan had a nominal GDP of $10 billion. Of that number, 60% was foreign aid. The cultivation of poppy and the production and export of raw heroin--all of which is informal and underground--accounted for 30%. That leaves 10%, or $1 billion, of self-sustaining, legitimate economic activity. During the same year, the U.S. military spent $4 billion per month to protect a country with a real annual economic output of $1 billion.

"Kabul is a metaphor for the country," Brinkley said to me. "It is a city sized for 500,000 people. It has grown to 8 million, who have been drawn to the city by the massive influx of foreign money, military and nonmilitary. But that money is going to slow down very significantly soon. What happens then?"

Now let's translate that to American terms: Imagine the entire population of the city of New York crammed into Harlem, because jobs are plentiful there and someone is paying $48 for every $1 you produce, and you get to keep the dollar.

Hell, who wouldn't jump at that?

But what happens when the tap turns off? Now, you're producing $1 for a population 16 times what your neighborhood can accommodate.

Most people will leave at that point, to be sure, but enough people will remain behind because, well, they can't easily leave. Maybe they have a sick family member. Maybe that 12.5 cents is more than they'd make back in Bay Ridge. One thing is certain, people are going to get angry and people are going to get sick, and people are going to become desperate.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(The Hill): "Book: Hillary rejected Bill's edits to speech"

(NBC News): "Hillary or bust: How Clinton buzz hurts other Dem contenders"

(Wall Street Journal): "For 2016, Hillary Clinton’s timing is everything"

(Roll Call): "Newest Senator will test (historically limited) potency of appointed incumbency"

(Washington Post): "Scott Brown: Will he or won’t he run for Senate in New Hampshire?"

A.M. Headlines

(Newark Star Ledger): "Chris Christie endorsement is regrettable"

(The Hill): "Reid again eyes Senate rulebook"

(NBC News): "Feds to extend new benefits to same-sex couples: Eric Holder"

(Washington Post): "The GOP’s immigration conundrum"

(Boston Herald): "Missouri All-American Michael Sam says he is gay"

New Jersey's top newspaper backs away from Chris Christie

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Star-Ledger is now regretting its endorsement of the scandal-ridden bullying blowhard of a governor:

During the fall campaign, the liberal TV hero Rachel Maddow ran a stinging segment ridiculing The Star-Ledger’s endorsement of Gov. Chris Christie. How could we endorse him, she asked, when we criticized him so harshly in the same piece? Had we lost our minds?

Not quite. An endorsement is not a love embrace. It is a choice between two flawed human beings. And the winner is often the less bad option.

But yes, we blew this one...

Yes, we knew Christie was a bully. But we didn’t know his crew was crazy enough to put people’s lives at risk in Fort Lee as a means to pressure the mayor. We didn’t know he would use Hurricane Sandy aid as a political slush fund. And we certainly didn’t know that Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer was sitting on a credible charge of extortion by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno.

Even before this scandal train got rolling, this endorsement was a close call and a split vote among the editorial board. We regard Christie as the most overrated politician in the country, at least until now, a man who is better at talking than governing. We criticized him for trashing the working poor, for his tea party approach to the environment, for his opposition to gay marriage and a livable minimum wage. And so on.

Yes, and so on. Basically, despite "hesitations" and "deep reservations," the Star-Ledger endorsed Christie because he'd done some good things (and obviously wasn't/isn't a right-wing Republican fanatic) and because his opponent, Democrat Barbara Buono, was a weak alternative. So much for all that.

But, as editor Tom Moran writes, despite everything that's happened, all the new revelations and all that we now know about the governor, Christie is still preferable to the rest of his party, and in 2016 would be better than, say, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz.

Yes, as terrible as Christie is, he's just not as terrible as the rest of the Republican Party.

That tells you a lot about the current state of the GOP.