Why the ‘Religious Left’ Won’t Work

Earlier this afternoon, Scott Malone, wrote an interesting article for Reuters on the emergence of the ‘Religious Left’ since the election of Donald Trump. In the article, Malone notes that, “Since President Donald Trump’s election, monthly lectures on social justice at the 600-seat Gothic chapel of New York’s Union Theological Seminary have been filled to capacity with crowds three times what they usually draw.” According to Malone, there has been an increase in social activism among liberal religious institutions to promote progressive policies, allowing the ‘religious left’ to slowly gain traction as a force in U.S. politics. Malone writes that many of the new ‘religious left’ draw inspiration from Pope Francis who has been outspoken in his criticism of strict immigration policies and unfettered capitalism. He notes that there has been a surge in congregations offering to provide sanctuary for “immigrants seeking asylum” (I’m assuming that’s PC for illegal immigrants), churches calling for the GOP to not repeal the Affordable Care act, and calling for congress to preserve spending on foreign aid. 

Religious institutions have seen a boom in advocacy and awareness for issues concerning social justice, mass incarceration, immigration, and health care since Trump’s election. In addition to that, financial support has also increased. Malone writes that, “Donations to the Christian activist group Sojourners have picked up by 30 percent [since Trump’s election].” For these reasons, Malone sees the religious left as an emerging force on the political landscape in America.

While I agree that the religious left definitely has become more vocal and active in light of Trump’s election, I remain highly sceptical that it could ever reach the kind of status that Malone and many others see it attaining in the future. Certainly I doubt it could ever match the  religious right in its influence on American politics. The reason for that is simple, American is becoming less and less and religious by the minute. The religious right emerged at a time when religion in general had a large influence over American morale. Now things have changed. 

In 2012, the LA Times reported that for the first time, protestants lost their majority in the U.S. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, protestants then made up just 48% of Americans, compared to two-thirds of Americans in the 70s and 80s, the same time frame in which the religious right came to prominence. The reality is, religion is losing its grasp over American society and becoming less relevant in arenas such as politics. That is not to say it holds no influence currently, but that influence is waning, and quickly. Given the attitudes toward religion and religious institutions held by millennials, the ‘religious left’ is simply too little too late to expect to have the same kind of political influence the religious right had in its heyday. 

According to Pew data, “U.S. adults finds that the percentages who say they believe in God, pray daily and regularly go to church or other religious services all have declined modestly in recent years.” Research published by Jean M. Twenge, a professor of psychology at SDSU found that millennials are the “least religious generation of the last six decades” and quite possibly in US history. Based on her research, millennials simply are far less interested in religion and spirituality. And it’s not just religion but also religious institutions and organisations that they aren’t interested in. 

“Unlike previous studies, ours is able to show that Millennials’ lower religious involvement is due to cultural change, not to Millennials being young and unsettled. […] More of today’s adolescents are abandoning religion before they reach adulthood, with an increasing number not raised with religion at all.”
––Jean M. Twenge

This I can attest to myself being a student at public university. By and large it’s not even so much that my generation tends to be less religious but want little of anything to do with spirituality as well. They by and large are not interested in listening to churches or religious leaders and view them as perpetuating the problems they are claiming they want to remedy. Millennials, while they are strongly supportive of religious tolerance particularly when it comes to Islam and perceived “Islamaphobia” are just not interested in religious organisations and what they have to say.

With that I think it’s simply unrealistic for the emerging ‘religious left’ to expect to accomplish much in the long run. As millennials get older and take over the work force and the political sphere, religion will further decline, relegating religious political movements to the back of the room with little to nothing to offer. Trump’s victory in the Republican primaries already started to hack away at the religious right (who heavily backed candidates such as Ted Cruz) and their influence over the GOP. In the end they ended up conforming to Trump rather than him conforming to them. Not only will the religious right decline in relevance, but the religious left, if it becomes relevant at all, it won’t be for long. Religious organisations and institutions need to adapt to a new emerging generation that just isn’t interested. Thus I reject Malone’s insinuation that the religious left can ever truly become a force in American politics.

In short: ‘stop trying to make the ‘religious left’ happen, it’s not going to happen.’

–M

The Flash: Lightning Strikes Twice – Review

Last month I read the first story arc of The Flash Rebirth, Lightning Strikes Twice. I started reading Flash comics because of the television show on the CW. I really liked the show, so I started reading the New 52 Flash. While picking up some comics at my local comic shop I happened to see that the first trade paperback for The Flash Rebirth was on sale, so out of curiosity I picked it up along my pull list.

Overall I was very satisfied with volume 1. Joshua Williamson is the writer for Flash, and he also wrote Justice League vs Suicide Squad which was crazy good. His writing in Flash is just as good if not better. The first story arc is a bit longer than most, consisting of the first 8 issues.

A new wave of speeders have emerged in Central City after a Speed Force storm hits the town. In light of this, Barry takes up the responsibility for tending to and training the new speeders at S.T.A.R. Labs. On top of that, Barry also must deal with a terrorist group called ‘Black Hole,’ and a new villain named Godspeed. Oh, and top of that Barry also has to deal with the return of Wally West, yes he’s back. 

Throughout the whole story, Barry is written as a really enjoyable and charismatic character. He has a very relatable and likable personality as he endures his double life as Barry Allen, forensic scientist at the CCPD, and as Barry Allen, the Flash, the fastest man alive. One thing that Williamson did really well is not wasting any time or space as there is never a dull moment throughout these 8 issues (the same can not be said for Batman Rebirth). 

As Barry deals with training the new Speeders, Godspeed continually becomes a problem and Barry teams up with Wally West to stop him. Uncovering the identity of Godspeed reveals to Barry just how complicated and consuming his life has become trying to balance his double life. There’s also a brief mention of ‘the button’ which will play a huge role in the entire DC Rebirth universe next month with the Flash-Batman crossover. 

As a whole this volume is a total win and kicks off the Flash series on a high note. If you like the show, you should feel right at home. 

Rating: 8/10

–M

CNN’s Clickbait Headlines Intentionally Dishonest

Lately CNN has been on a kick trying to find any possible evidence that points to Trump collusion with Russia or any shady Trump ties to Russia. In doing this however, they’ve sacrificed journalistic integrity, basically running clickbait headlines that look damning, but then cannot be backed up with any evidence and instead are based on pure speculation. 

Back in December, CNN ran a headline which stated, “Intel Analysis Shows Putin Approved Election Hacking.” (side note: even the use of the term “hacking” is misleading as it implies that Russians hacked into the voting machines and changed votes. We now know from Obama DNI, James Clapper, and recently from NSA Director Michael Rogers, that Russia “did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.”) So of course with a headline like that, we should expect to see some evidence that shows that Putin directly approved plans by Russian agencies of some sort to “hack” the US election. The article states that “The use of the advanced tools suggests Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in the hacks” however, in the very next paragraph the article concedes, “But neither of the sources said they knew of specific intelligence that directly ties Putin to the attack.” While the headline, which is probably all that most people who came across that article bothered to read, claimed that there was evidence that Putin was in on the plans to hack into voting booths, at the end of the day it’s pure conjecture as none of their sources could actually provide any specific evidence that implicated the Russian president. So they did all that just to say they have no evidence. 

Just this week, CNN again ran a clickbait headline, stating that there was information which indicated Trump associates colluded with Russian officials. Again, very damning if true. The headline read, “US Officials: Info Suggests Trump Associates May have Coordinated with Russians.” This was suspect because at the time, (and to this day) CNN was the only outlet reporting this. So did CNN have something no one else did? Was there actual evidence from US officials that Trump associates coordinated with Russia? The articles begins by stating that US officials told CNN, “The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” So CNN is claiming that the FBI has actual evidence that implicates Trump officials in colluding with Russia. Or do they? The article went on, “This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.” Ok…but what about the hard evidence? The article then simply states that the FBI has been looking into possible ties to Trump and Russia but like with the article above, ultimately concluded that any ties or collusion charges at this time are speculative as the FBI does not yet having any actual evidence of collusion. In other words, the FBI is investigating Russian interference in the US election and possible Trump ties. But we already knew that. That’s what Comey said on Monday on live tv, everyone saw it. That isn’t new information. So CNN deliberately ran a headline suggesting that they had actual evidence of collusion when in fact they didn’t and just recycled information we already knew. The article later goes on to concede that, “The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.” So all of that, and yet there’s still no evidence. They could have summed all that up in a tweet: ‘Breaking: FBI investigating Russian election interference & possibly Trump ties.’ The article also noted that, “The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.”

This is straight clickbait on CNN’s part in trying to drive up ratings and page views by giving out sensationalist headlines that ultimately are speculative and cannot be backed up by any actual evidence. You  would think this would eventually start to hurt their credibility, though I’m pretty sure they stopped caring about that back when Malaysia airlines flight 370 went missing.

Keep in mind that while CNN is trying to find shady ties between Trump and Russia, Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, in 2016 hired the Podesta Group, to lobby against sanctions placed on the Russian banking industry. Podesta Group is chaired by Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. According to Zerohedge, “Tony Podesta was proactively lobbying for cancellation of a range of anti-Russian sanctions against the banking sector. In particular, he represented interests of Sberbank and was paid $170,000 for his efforts over a six-month period last year to seek to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country.” I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that a Russian bank hires a lobbying firm that just so happens to be run by the brother of the chairman for the Clinton campaign. Especially since, John Podesta has been silent on Russia of late while other members involved in the Clinton campaign are all in on the Russia craze. But that’s none of my business.

–M

Pay to Play: Should Prostitution be Legalised?

Today I got into an argument with someone over whether or not taking money in exchange for sex is “dangerous” or “wrong.” I initially responded to a post I saw which advanced the notion that prostitution is morally wrong and somehow inherently dangerous. 

A few quick points on the original post; first, as a left-libertarian I almost always lean in favour of allowing the individual to do as the please so long as it is consensual and does not cause physical harm to another. So long as it meets those standards, I’m pretty much live and let live. Secondly, the poster failed to demonstrated how prostitution in any form is intrinsically dangerous. I wholly accept that there are potential risk to prostitution in its current state such as STI risks, sex slavery, and other abusive practices and each of those are important issues. Yet I would contend that it is exactly the fact that prostitution remains illegal which allows those elements to persist. 

Making a good or service illegal creates black markets which are dangerous and come with huge risks. In 2014, Barbara G. Brents, a sociologist at UNLV wrote an article in the New York Times about her published research on legalised prostitution in Nevada. Her research dispels the notion that legalised prostitution is ‘demeaning’ or a ‘last resort.’ She writes that, “In legal brothels, employees report that they feel safe, are free to come and go, and are bound only by their contract. Of the brothel workers we surveyed, 84 per cent said that their job felt safe.” Ms. Brents’ research at UNLV found that the reasons women came into industry include: to overcompensating for low paying service jobs, a way to enhance their erotic dancing of film career, and to “escape the hustle and danger of illegal sex work.” So despite the popular idea that prostitution is always dangerous, it appears as though it would be far more dangerous to keep it illegal.

As for abusive pimps and sex trafficking, Brents reported that, “Some had pimps. Most did not. One woman told us the brothel allowed her to sever ties with an abusive pimp. Most important, in all our research, we found no evidence of trafficking in the legal brothels.”

Even further, the legalisation of prostitution in Nevada allowed for competition among brothels, leading to improved working conditions. I know, market competition advancing the standard of living, who would have thought? Of this, Brents writes, “Women flock to the brothels with the best working conditions, putting pressure on more exploitative managers. Just like in any job, workers with more education and resources were better able to protect their rights.”

In 2011, France 24 reported that the French government’s efforts to ban prostitution would actually “endanger lives.” A bill that was introduced to the French Parliament that would place €3,000 fines and up to 6 months in prison for clients was met with harsh criticism from organisations representing sex workers. According to Sarah Walker of the International Prostitutes Collective, “The French proposals are dangerous, and criminal. Sex workers experience and all the research shows criminalizing clients drives women underground and into more danger […] They’re making it worse under the guise of making it better.” This Union for Sex Workers in Paris put out a statement saying that, “Prostitutes will be hidden from organizations that can help them, as well as from health services and they will be more susceptible to being victims of violence.” 

Again it appears that criminalising the sale of things such as drugs or sex, drives them underground creating black markets which endangers the lives of those involved. Legalisation allows for safety standards, unionisation, and ending monopolies of drug lords or abusive brothels or pimps. 

Outside the US prostitution has been either legalised or decriminalised in several other countries including New Zealand. In 2003 New Zealand enacted the Prostitution Reform Act of 2003 (PRA) which decriminalised prostitution (different from legalising as it did not endorse it). In 2008 the New Zealand Justice Department issued a report reviewing the law. The report was issued by the Prostitution Law Review Committee. In it’s report the committee found that since legalisation the number of prostitutes in New Zealand actually decreased, “In the committee’s first report it was estimated that there were 5,932 sex workers in New Zealand. The current report estimates the number of sex workers to be 2,332 in the areas included in this study.” (Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the PRA, pg. 13) The committee acknowledges the methodology in the two reports is different and concludes that the number of sex workers has remained relatively stagnant.

In terms of safety the committee reported that over 90% of sex workers in each sector (private indoor workers, street-based workers, managed workers) felt they have legal rights under the PRA. Also, only 3.9% of all sex workers in all three sectors reported being coerced into the industry. Since decriminalisation only 11% of the industry is made up on of street-based workers, the smallest of all three sectors.

The committee recognises that the illegality of prostitution open the gates for coercion and exploitation by managers, pimps, and clients. The committee found that generally conditions had improved since decriminalisation but that it was not concrete enough to make a general statement on the whole industry, but states that the PRA has empowered the sex worker to take control of their employment situation. They also recommended that the sex industry work with the department of labor to develop “best practice employment contracts” and standard working conditions. Under section 9 of the PRA it is required that all sex workers and clients practice safe sex practices. In 2008, after five years only one person (client) was convicted of a violation of section 9. 

The report points out that “private sex workers were less likely to be connected to organized crime” and that “many commercial sex businesses had no connection to with criminal activity.” The Police Association told the committee that based on evidence there was no link between between the sex industry “general crime.” (pg. 163) 

Based upon the committee review they also found no link between the sex industry and human trafficking in New Zealand. (pg. 167)

New Zeeland’s experiment with decriminalised prostitution gives us one way for how to effectively handle prostitution and the potential dangers associated with it. By decriminalising prostitution, New Zeeland actually saw no link to crime or human trafficking, improved safety standards, and overall positive feedback from sex workers. The report highlighted the fact that criminalising prostitution correlated with exploitation, abuse, crime, and the typical dangers that people generally associate with prositutution. So again, it appears as though keeping prostitution illegal is not the answer if the desired goal is safety and fairness. To the contrary, criminalisation would actually put the lives of sex workers in serious danger.

Now, a few points on whether or not the simple of act of paying for sex is “dangerous” and “wrong.” The person I was arguing with was not even necessarily talking about prostitution, although they later brought it up, but merely began with “taking money for sex.” This is an even weaker point. The mere act of taking money in exchange for sex is not intrinsically dangerous anymore than the act of jogging in the park at night. Sure, there are some dangers and risks with jogging in the park alone at night, but there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about the act itself. Secondly, accepting payment does not change the situation and automatically make it dangerous. If one were to meet someone at a bar, have a few drinks, return to their place and have consensual sex, nothing wrong or inherently dangerous has occurred. Adding a payment into the equation does not change that. The situation does not suddenly become more dangerous or more wrong just because before leaving the one leaves a $50 on the nightstand. Likewise, it could be equally argued that taking someone out and buying their dinner is a form of payment. If two people go out to dinner and one person pays, following which they return to one of their homes and have intercourse, the one who bought dinner has effectively paid for said intercourse.

In short, there is nothing intrinsically wrong or dangerous about accepting a form of payment in exchange for sex. What two or more people willingly consent to is no business of others or and especially the state. 

–M

 

Thoughts on the Dutch Elections: Why the Left Has Little to Celebrate

Yesterday, Europe had a test to see how populist it was willing to go. Back last summer, British voters stunned the establishment by voting to disband from the European Union. In December of last year, Italian voters sent yet another shockwave through the halls of the elite, by rejecting then PM Matteo Renzi’s proposed referendum which would reform the Italian constitution by giving significantly more power to the government. Renzi tied the vote to his position as PM and with the referendum’s defeat, the centre-left PM stepped down. 

Now the Netherlands had their chance to continue this trend of populism in Europe, often described as “far-right” by electing Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV), to power. Based on exit polling data however it appears as though Wilders, who has been described as the “Dutch Trump” will not be assuming power. For that the left is euphoric as they trumpet the apparent victory of sitting PM Mark Rutte. However, just because the far-right party appears to have lost, does not mean the left necessarily should have reason to celebrate. 

Geert Wilders’ and PVV were the far-right party, yes. However, the left should not let the defeat of PVV cloud their judgement into thinking that a left-wing or progressive party won today’s elections. To the contrary, PM Rutte and his party, The People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), is in fact a centre-right party. The VVD is described as:

The VVD is a party founded on liberal philosophy,traditionally being the most ardent supporter of ‘free markets’ of all Dutch political parties, promoting political, economic liberalism, classical liberalism, cultural liberalism, but also (in contrast to this) committed to the idea of the welfare state.

To act as if the left scored some kind of victory in tonight’s Dutch elections is to betray common sense and rationality for the purposes of wishful partisan thinking. The left, particularly here in America and many in Europe are championing the defeat of Wilders and PVV as a rejection of the right and an embracement of progressivism and the left wing. But in reality it is nothing of the kind. VVD, though I grant it has become more centre than right under Rutte, is still a centre-right party which advocates for private enterprise and classical liberalism–so did Milton Friedman. From what I can gather, VVD is like the David Cameron wing of the UK Conservative party with Rutte being the Dutch version of David Cameron–not someone known to be a left wing socialist. Looking at it through a US frame; if VVD were the Republican party (which due to its support from free markets, personal liberty, one could make a strong case it’s the Dutch equivalent) and if Wilders is Trump, then Rutte is Jeb Bush. So just because Wilders appears to have lost, does not mean that a progressive won. By popping champagne and partying on social media, the left is literally cheering the victory of the political equivalent of Jeb Bush. Just let that sink in.

Part of the problem I believe, is that in the US, the term ‘liberal’ is associated with the political left. However, in most of the rest of the world, the word ‘liberal’ is associated with what we in the states consider ‘libertarian.’ Economic liberalism is not Bernie Sanders, it’s Rand Paul. 

Here’s a nice chart which shows some of the positions and ideologies supported by VVD.

Now how much of that other than; same-sex marriage, animal rights, pro-choice, and a few others would the left agree to? Laissez-faire? Tax reductions? Deregulation? Mandatory sentencing? Balanced budgets, in other words no Keynesian deficit spending? That sounds like the political right. That sounds like something Marco Rubio or Mike Lee would prescribe. Sure, they support Universal health care and a few other social issues typically advanced by the left, but the rest is all in the realm of the political right. Based on that, VVD is just the Dutch version of the UK Conservative party. You know, the one with Borris Johnson, a big Brexit supporter. From a British frame, just because UKIP lost does not mean Labour won, the Tories still won.

The left simply cannot take this as a “win” when in fact the centre-right party that advocates for free markets and lower taxes won. And further, the “right-wing populists” still finished second. 

Here’s some data from earlier tonight which shows the PVV in second place.  (see picture)

So the “far-right,” “racist,” “Islamaphobic” whatever party is now going to be the second most powerful party in Holland. PVV won 13% and they still gained seats from what they had going into the elections. In 2014, AfD won 7% in Deutschland and  everyone lost their mind thinking “fascism” was on the rise. Even while holding on to the number one spot, VVD received 31 seats which is down from 41 seats in the 2012 elections. PVV on the other hand gained moving from 15 seats in 2012 to 19 seats according to Zerohedge. 

So the bottom line is, this is still a big loss for the political left and they’re now reduced to celebrating a win for the political equivalent of Jeb Bush. Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that, “the big loser appears to be the mainstream Labor party. The exit poll put it in seventh place, with nine seats.” So the Labor Party (PvdA), which is the equivalent of the Democrats and is the centre-left party which would actually advocate for progressive policies is the loser of the night, despite the left wanting to put the crying Jordan meme over Geert Wilders’ face. In 2012 PvdA took 38 seats, this time around they have just 9 seats. Let me ask it this way, just because it’s not Trump, would Democrats celebrate and vote for John Kassich? Or Marco Rubio? That’s basically what you have in Holland. PVV still made solid gains. You didn’t get Wilders, be happy about that if you want, but you still got centre-right, free market government, and the progressive party, PvdA, took 7th place. Maybe they can get a participation trophy.

–M

Indestructible Hulk #1 Reivew

Last night I read the first issue of the Indestructible Hulk series by Mark Waid. As far as comics go I tend to prefer DC to Marvel. For movies though there’s no doubt that Marvel has been beating DC over the head of late (hopefully that will chance with the Wonder Woman and Justice League movies coming out later this year). As a kid I liked Spider-man and the Hulk (actually, Spider-man: Revenge of the Green Goblin was the first graphic novel I ever read) and figured since I’ve recently within the past 9 months gotten back into comics I would now try getting into some Marvel stuff. Waid’s Indestructible Hulk series seemed to come highly recommended as a good starting point so I figured I’d give it a shot.

Issue #1 begins with Maria Hill, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D., eating at a local diner. It is revealed that SHIELD has lost track of the Hulk and is trying rigorously to find him. While texting about the situation Maria is confronted by none other than Bruce Banner who shows up at the diner. Banner, ready with an agenda, sits down to talk to Hill about a proposal he’s come up with. He informs her that he has discovered he is incurable of his ‘green problem.’ Banner recognises the problem that presents and admits he’ll be lucky if his “tombstone doesn’t simply say Hulk Smash.” He explains that he’s had an “epiphany” regarding his situation. He compares being the Hulk to having cancer or MS and declares that, “the secret to living with it isn’t obsessing over a cure. It’s managing what exists.” 

Banner then shows Hill a device that he’s been working on, capable of eliminating all waterborne diseases if put into production. He says that if given the right resources he could “break ground like this once a week.” This is where his proposal comes into play. Banner asks (initially) to be a part of SHIELD so he can use his “Banner time” more productively as well as keep a monitor on his Hulk side, also arguing that the Hulk could be a good resource for SHIELD to use. When Hill is resistant to accept Banner’s proposal he  brings out some insurance to twist her arm, basically he blackmails her into it. Banner suggests as a test trial, he can be used in the string operation that SHIELD is about to do (which of course Hill is shocked to learn that he knows about. Banner clearly did his homework before this meeting). From there we get a good Hulk smash scene and in the end Hill tells Banner that he’s officially hired. 

This is a solid start to what I’ve been told is a great series. Granted there are a few spots where it’s a bit hard to understand what’s going on and where you just kind of have to accept the plot but other than that it’s a really nice intro. On the one hand it’s a bit annoying that he’s working for SHIELD–seriously, why do they always have to work for the government?? But it seems like it will be a good series and look forward to continuing the story.

Rating: 7/10

–M

Quote of the Day

Today’s ‘quote of the day’ comes from CNN commentator, Van Jones. Here I believe he is spot on as he makes a statement speaking on a college campus about the growing trend of “safe spaces.” Briefly I will just say that I think safe spaces on college campuses are at best ridiculous and at worst dangerous with the mentality behind them being a leading cause of division today. Shutting out and shouting down anything that you disagree with, even slightly, is not the way to learn. We need to constantly read, listen to, and talk to that and those with which we disagree with. In fact, the reason we disagree with people so much is exactly why we should be talking to them. If I simply cut out anything that I disagree with, I learn nothing and spend my life in an echo chamber. That’s not the way to learn and it will not do anyone any service when they leave college and head into the real world. 

“I got tough talk for my liberal colleagues on these campuses […] There are two ideas about safe spaces; one is a very good idea and one is a terrible idea. The idea of being physically safe on a campus, not being subjected to sexual harassment or physical abuse or being targeted personally for some kind of hate speech, “you are an n-word,” I’m perfectly fine with that. But there is another view that is now I think ascendent which I think is a horrible view, which is that, “I need to be safe; ideologically, emotionally, I just need to feel good all the time, and if someone says something that I don’t like that’s a problem for everybody else including the administration.” And I think that is a terrible idea for the following reason: I don’t want you to be safe ideologically. I don’t want you to be safe emotionally. I want you to be strong. That’s different. I’m not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots and learn how to deal with adversity. I’m not going to take out all the weights in the gym. That’s the whole point of the gym. This is the gym. You can’t live on a campus where people say stuff you don’t like? And these people can’t fire you, they can’t arrest you, they can’t beat you up. They can just say stuff you don’t like AND you get to say stuff back. And this you cannot bear. This is ridiculous, b.s., liberals. My parents […] marched. They dealt with fire hoses, they dealt with dogs, they dealt with beatings. And you can’t deal with a mean tweet? You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world it is not only useless, but obnoxious, and dangerous. I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply […] offended and upset, and then learn how to speak back, because that’s what we need from you in these communities.”

 

–M

JLA: Power & Glory – Review

Back a couple weeks ago I read Bryan Hitch’s JLA: Power and Glory. I became curious about this book while reading Hitch’s first volume for Justice League Rebirth. In either the first or second issue (I can’t remember) Wonder Woman is seen using a Zeus Bolt as her weapon of choice. I’ve read all of Wonder Woman’s New 52 stuff and most of the New 52 Justice League, yet I didn’t remember her ever getting a Zeus bolt as a weapon. I did some investigating and found that she acquired it in Hitch’s New 52 run with JLA. So naturally I wanted to read it.

I looked around and from what I could deduce the series had pretty mixed reviews. Some people really liked it, some people really didn’t. I however, loved it. Once I started reading it, I couldn’t put it down. I would describe this book as a total page turner and while it isn’t without its flaws, it’s definitely a fun and exciting book. The plot surrounds the Justice League of America and their attempts at stopping Rao, a Kryptonian God who has come to earth with the intent on “converting” the people of earth to be his followers so that he can suck their life from them and gain more power for himself. Initially he dupes Superman into believing in him and convinces him to convince the governments of earth. Eventually, Batman with his superior inductive reasoning, snuffs out Rao’s plan and Superman, crushed by this realisation, agrees to help stop Rao. 

The whole story was very captivating and the story flows very well. Though there’s a few spots with some awkward or poorly written dialogue, Hitch’s writing is actually very solid. (Which makes me wonder what happened to him between this and Extinction Machines). The only part that was really lacking in substance was actually and unfortunately the very end. It concludes on a bit of a cliffhanger and doesn’t really bring much closure to the story. Nonetheless I found it to be immensely enjoyable, regardless of what some others may have though of it.

Rating: 8/10

–M

Superman: Birthright – Review

This past week I read Superman: Birthright by Mark Waid. Though I’m a fan of Justice League and actually really liked Man of Steel, I’ve never been a big fan of Superman as a solo character. The reasons for that are pretty standard: I find him to be unrelatable, overpowered, too excessive, and dehumanised. That said, I recently decided I’d make more of an effort to get to know the character. I asked around as to where to begin reading Superman and was directed to Birthright. Admittedly after reading this, I still wouldn’t quite call myself a “fan” but I thoroughly enjoyed this and it’s undeniably a fantastic story that was very well written and very well drawn. While it doesn’t make me want to go out and get a tattoo of the house of El emblem, it definitely gives me a new appreciation of the character and a desire to explore him further.

What Waid is able to do is take a seemingly invincible and larger than life character and actually make him relatable. The book actually starts out with Clark as a freelance reporter who is in Africa reporting on tribal conflicts. From time to time during his travels as a freelancer, Clark finds himself in situations where he must use his powers to help others. It is the situation in Africa that causes Clark to think that perhaps he should use his powers for good to help people, rather than try to hide them from people.

He returns home to Smallville and there we get to see a really nice dynamic between Clark and his parents. This was also a really great way for Mark Waid to humanise Superman and make him relatable. Jonathan Kent, his father, is at first very sceptical of Clark’s decision to become a hero in the public eye and comes off as distant and aloof. Eventually though, he comes around and we get a really great dialogue between Clark and Jonathan. 

We also get an origin story for Lex Luthor who emerges as the villain of the story. We get to find out what happened that made Lex go off the deep end and why he hates Superman so much. Though I’m typically not a fan of villain origin stories (i.e. Maleficent) I actually really did enjoy this part. I’ve never really read much Superman so it was nice to see how Lex Luthor came to Smallville, KS, befriended a young Clark, and what drove him to become the person he is. There’s a very interesting layer that connects Lex and Clark. Both feel like total outsiders who are misunderstood by the rest of the world. In a weird way, Lex is the only person who truly understands Clark. It’s kind of true of most rivalries in a way, like how maybe the only person who understands and can relate to a diehard Michigan fan, is an Ohio State fan. 

Overall this was just a really great story about the origins of Superman that does a great job of making a otherwise completely unrelatable character actually seem very human and normal. I loved seeing the early parts of Clark as a freelance journalist and seeing how he came to work for the Daily Planet and seeing the dynamic between him and Lois Lane. We really get to see the early stages of Superman as he begins his journey and there’s a lot of really good character development. By the end the reader really feels like they know Clark, and throughout we see him slowly find his own identity both embracing his Kryptonian blood and yet still being a proud son from a small town in Kansas.

While this doesn’t make me a Superman fanboy, I definitely now have much more respect and appreciation for a character I used to basically dismiss. Mark Waid clearly loves Superman and has written what has to be the definitive origin story. I can’t say enough good things about this book and would recommend it to anyone who wants to start reading Superman.

Rating: 9/10

-M

Distant Relatives: Shared Traditions Between the Dhammapada and the Upanishads

The following is an excerpt from a comparative essay I wrote for my Religion In India class on the Upanishads and the Dhammapada. In this I compare the ways in which both texts speak of and conceptualise knowledge and understanding. Admittedly this is not some of my best work (mostly since I wrote the whole thing the night before it was due) but I still got an A on the paper anyway.

The Dhammapada and the Upanishads are among two of the most important textual sources concerning eastern religions. The Dhammapada, while compiled considerably later than other texts containing sayings that are attributed to the Buddha, is firmly believed to house over four-hundred authentic sayings of the Buddha. [1] The Upanishads, are a collection of Hindu texts which contain important philosophical teachings of Hinduism. Though they are primarily Hindu texts, there is much overlap between the philosophical teachings within the Upanishads and that of other eastern religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, etc. The focus of this paper is to highlight the stark similarities in the teachings between these two texts, specifically concerning their approach toward knowledge and enlightenment. The primary areas of concern here shall be chapter twenty of the Dhammapada and chapter three of the Upanishads. Not only do these two texts share philosophical teachings, in a few instances they even contain almost identical language.

In Buddhism, a central component is that of purity. The seeker of what the Dhammapada refers to as “the Way” will constantly follow the way of purification. In chapter twenty which is not particularly long, there are four mentions of purification or purity. In Buddhism, one must purify themselves to begin seeking nirvana and enlightenment. [2] This theme of making oneself pure can also be found in the Upanishads in the context of achieving enlightenment and making “the final step.” In Chapter three there is a clear emphasis on one being pure to attain their final step. The Upanishad reads, “when a man has understanding, is mindful and always pure; he does reach that final step.” [3] Both “nirvana” and the “final step” referred to in the respective texts can each be taken to be a state of achieving knowledge and enlightenment. By following certain ways of life, one attains this hidden knowledge and gains a realisation that they otherwise would remain ignorant of. In this instance, the ability to receive this knowledge centres on the individual purifying themselves in some form. There is also a strong shared literary component worth noting within each text. In the Dhammapada, the phrase “when one realises” is repeated to stress the state of when one finally reaches the state of enlightenment. In the Upanishads this same literary device can be found with the repeating phrase, “when a man has understanding.”

One area in which these two writings are in complete agreement on, almost verbatim is regarding the notion of curbing one’s speech. Again this is all framed within the desire to achieve wisdom. The Upanishads state that, “a wise man should curb his speech and mind, control them within th’intelligent self.” [4] Likewise, the Dhammapada, prescribes nearly the exact same means by which one can “accomplish the practice of the path.” Dhammapada 20.9 reads as follows, “Curb your speech. Restrain your mind. Commit no evil deed.” In both instances the curbing of one’s speech and the restraining of one’s mind are stated as necessities for tapping into the hidden knowledge of each respective doctrine. The central focus for both of these teachings is that to gain knowledge one must let go of their ego and their desires of the material world. This means thinking beyond this world and not limiting oneself to the narrowness of the world that the individual knows.

Sources:
[1] Ananda Maitreya, trans., The Dhammapada (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1995), vii.
[2] Ibid., 75-76
[3] Olivelle Patrick, trans., The Upanishads (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1996), 239.
[4] Ibid.

–M