Action Comics vol. 1: Path of Doom –– Review

This past week I read the first volume of Action Comics rebirth. I’ve never been a big Superman, but recently I read Superman Birthright and loved it, so I figured I’d give this one a shot. To put it bluntly, I thought this book was awesome. The story is really just one long 128 page fight between Superman and Doomsday. The Superman in this book however, is not the Superman from New 52 (who died) but the Superman from the pre-flash point timeline. This is post-crisis Superman from another world and another dimension who has been living on this world for some time, in hiding. But with the New 52 Superman dead, and with the appearance of Doomsday in downtown Metropolis, Clark can no longer sit idly and watch Doomsday run rampant all over the people of Metropolis. 

Basically, pre-52 Superman teams up with Lex Luthor who in light of the death of New 52 Superman has build his own super suit and taken up the role of Superman, to take down Doomsday. Along the way they meet Clark Kent––yes you read that correctly. This book, while being full of action, also includes a lot of mystery and raises many questions regarding the nature of the Rebirth universe. For starts, how did the post-Crisis Superman come to be on this earth? Who is this new Clark Kent who is not Superman? 

Though Superman has his suspicions of Lex Luthor, remembering the Lex from his world, he decided to put those aside for the moment in order to defeat Doomsday. This was one of the most fun to read comics I’ve read of the Rebirth series so far. While I’ve loved Wonder Woman and Detective Comics, there’s just so much more action in this title than the other two combined. I also love how Dan Jurgens (the writer) managed to incorporate the first issue of Superwoman into the story. In Superwoman #1 her and Lex team up to help stabilise a crumbling building. We find out in this story that the building was damaged during the Doomsday fight which Lex is participating in. I’ve generally liked the Superwoman title so far and seeing that interwoven into the story was really cool. 

We also get a strong Wonder Woman cameo who comes to help Superman fight off Doomsday while Lex tends to Metropolis and helps evacuate civillians. This was a very past paced, action loaded story that while it definitely raises a lot of questions and some confusion, works very well and starts the series off with a bang.

Rating: 8/10

––M

Sexual Assault on College Campuses: The Hunting Ground Reflection

This semester for my Coms 342 class we watched the documentary the Hunting Ground, a documentary that deals with sexual assault on college campuses. As an assignment we had to write a three page reflection on the film. The following is the reflection I wrote:

The Hunting Ground was an informative and powerful documentary that shines light on the growing problem of ‘sexual assault’ and rape on college campuses. The film chronicles the journey of two former students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who both filed Title IX lawsuits against UNC after being raped while enrolled. The documentary highlights students who have been raped or sexually assaulted at various universities across the country and the lack of effective responses by the university administrations. The film seeks to show how the establishment at universities, often influenced by big money donors, try to silence victims rather than offer emotional and legal help. By opening themselves up to more rape charges, administration and board members fear their donations could freeze up due to a damaged public image. While the documentary does a good job appealing to emotions and revealing how universities often Joe Paterno (in other words, look the other way) victims of rape and sexual assault, there were also some problems and misrepresentations with the film. In the next few paragraphs I will explore where I agree with the movie and its message, and also push back on where I think it overstated its case.

One thing I believe the film did a good job explaining is how often the victim knows their rapist or assaulter. The reality is, the old fear of the person who jumps out of the bushes or lurks in a dark alley and grabs unsuspecting women simply isn’t an accurate representation of campus rapes and assaults. Most rape victims know their rapist and as such, it’s not the stranger hiding in the bushes whom people need to fear, but more often than not, the people we know and frequently socialise with. In fact, about 85-90% of sexual assaults that are reported by college women, are committed by someone the victim knows and roughly half of the instances occur while on a date. [1] This is very chilling fact considering how often college students partake in ‘binge drinking.’ Nearly half of college students report that they binge drink at least once every two weeks. [2] This is concerning in that it makes it harder to “be safe” when so often the people we surround ourselves with turn out to be the perpetrators of such heinous acts. It makes one sceptical of who they can trust.

One area where I believe the documentary failed is its lack of showing male victims. After showing several women who were victims of rape or assault they finally got around to showing two men. However, even then, the two male victims received less than two minutes of air time combined. One huge problem with the rape and assault narrative, is the unintended consequence of only focusing on women. While it is true, women are raped at significantly higher rates than men, there is an increasing notion among third-wave feminists (different from 1st and 2nd wave feminists who actually had real goals, ideas, and actually did something relevant) that men cannot be raped. And while 82% of juvenile rape victims are female, along with 90% of adult rape victims, 18% and 10% respectively still represents are large number of victims. [3] The fact remains that defining rape as non-consensual intercourse absolutely allows for men to be victims. A good friend of mine was raped my freshman year by a girl who was sober and had sex with him while he was black out drunk. His roommate happened to come home while they were doing the deed and managed to talk to the girl. The next morning when asked, my friend had no memory of the event. Since he was not able to give consent, that is rape. By that definition alone, one could argue that the rate of male rape victims is severely understated. Even then, some studies have shown significantly higher rates of male victims than others have. For example, a UCLA Health and Human Right Law Project study found that 38% of victims of sexual violence were men. Obviously this is much higher than others and can be taken as a statistical outlier, but it does shed light on the reality that men can be raped by not just men, but also by women. In a survey conducted by the CDC, it found that “among men reporting other forms of sexual victimisation, 68.6% reported female perpetrators.” [4]

You may have noticed my distinction of the terms rape and sexual assault. This is another area where I believe the documentary failed and actually overstated its already solid case. Many surveys and activists often make the mistake of conflating the two terms, both inadvertently and for the purpose of deception. The famous ‘1 in 5’ survey (I’ll get to that in a minute) defines sexual assault as both rape and ‘sexual battery.’ which it defines as “sexual contact only, such as forced kissing fondling.” [5] Others go as far as to categorise unwanted touching such as ‘slapping one’s butt’ as a form of sexual assault. In some surveys, “rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes” is considered sexual assault. So basically grinding. [6]

The problem however is not whether or not one wants to consider such acts as sexual assault, but when one conflates such acts with rape. When one claims that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted, that does not automatically mean that 1 in 5 women are raped, when using such a vague and broad definition of ‘sexual assault.’ This is not to downplay the reality of both sexual assault and rape on campuses and in general, but to show how misleading the statistic can be, so much so as to being counterproductive. Overstated ‘rape’ claims don’t help victims. By taking an unsolicited kiss and equating it with rape is disingenuous and does a disservice to rape victims.

As for the 1 in 5 survey, I will make two points regarding its methodology and then propose a more accurate number. It’s not secret that the 1 in 5 survey which states that around 20-25% of women on college campuses are ‘sexually assaulted’ is highly problematic and riddled with deficiencies. For starts, it uses incredibly vague terminology regarding sexual assault and what that might entail such to the point that it renders the survey completely useless. The number ‘1 in 5’ comes from a 2007 survey conducted by the Institute of Justice. However, despite becoming ‘definitive representation of sexual assault and rape’ on college campuses, the survey only used students from two universities––hardly representative of the nation as a whole. The survey received 5,446 female respondents which even the researchers admit that it was a low response rate. The questions are also poorly worded as it asked women if they experienced some form of sexual assault while they were passed out or asleep, leaving a lot of room for interpretation. If one is blacked out, unless their roommate happens to walk in on the situation (like with my friend) they may never know. It also asked them to count events that they think but were not certain happened (which is pretty dishonest when doing an study of such a critical issue). [7] There certainly needs to be a better way to get these numbers that don’t overstate the argument so as to make it look bad. Overstated or manufactured statistics don’t help anyone. In fact, more recent data from the Bureau of Justice [8], indicates that not only does the 1 in 5 figure appear to be not true, but the focus on college campuses may even be misguided. According to the study which examined data from 1995–2013, an average 6.1 for every 1,000 female students were raped or sexually assaulted. That puts the rate of rape sexual assault on college campuses at 0.61% which last time I checked, granted the hardest math class I’ve taken is Math101, is less than the frequently touted 20%. If you do that math an average it out over a four year period, you get 2.44% or 1 in 41. [9] If you take just the most recent four year for which there is data available, the number averages to 1 in 52. According to the same report, the rate of rape and sexual assault for college women has actually decreased by over 50% from 9.2 for every 1,000 female students in 1997 to 4.4 for every 1,000 female students in 2013. Also of notes, “the rate of rape and sexual assault victimisation was almost 25% higher for nonstudents ages 18-24 compared to students enrolled in a post-secondary institution in that age group.” [10]

Obviously 1 in 52 female students being the victim of rape or sexual assault is still far too high, and that doesn’t even account for male victims. But propagating the notion that 20% of all college women are victims of rape or sexual assault, which in many cases the two are conflated, does not due the cause justice and in fact is likely counterproductive. Universities also need to take larger steps in terms ensuring that victims have access to the resources they need. In many ways I think the universities are most at fault in these situations shown in the movie. I definitely think we should roll back the Obama administration regulations on allowing campuses to handle the incidents internally, and favour allowing students to directly sue not only the individuals, but the schools themselves. This documentary overall did a great job highlighting the deficiencies that college campuses have when it comes to sexual assault. However, there were areas where it was not sufficient and was perhaps misleading, using data from a, basically garbage, survey. That said, the movie as a whole was a very important and moving display of a problem that regardless of the severity, needs to be addressed properly and with great care and caution.

––M

Sources:
[1] National Institute of Justice, Sexual Assault on Campus. (Washington: U.S. NIJ, 2008). https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/Pages/know-attacker.aspx
[2] “Know the Facts About College Binge Drinking.” Last modified 02 November 2011, https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-experience/2011/11/02/know-the-facts-about-college-binge- drinking
[3] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Progras, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement (2010)
[4] “The Understudied Female Sexual Predator,” last modified 28 November 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/please-support-us/next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fscience%2Farchive%2F2016%2F11%2Fthe-understudied- female-sexual-predator%2F503492%2F#seen
[5] “What Does the oft-cited ‘1in 5’ Campus Sexual Assault Stat Really Mean?” last modified 15 December 2014, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/critics-advocates-alike-doubt-oft-cited-1-5-campus-sexual-assault-stat/
[6] “1 in 4 Women: How the Latest Sexual Assault Statistics Were Turned into Click Bair by the NYTs,” last modified 28 September 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-earp/1-in-4-women-how-the- late_b_8191448.html
[7] “No, 1 in 5 Women Have Not Been Raped on College Campuses,” last modified 13 August 2014, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980
[8] United States. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995-2013. By Sofi Sinozich and Lynn Langton. Washington, 2014.
[9] Ibid.
[10] “New Justice Department Study Reveals That about 1 in 52 College Women have Been Victims of Rape/Sexual Assault,” last modified 12 December 2014, http://www.aei.org/publication/new-justice-department-study-reveals-1- 52-6-college-women-victims-rapesexual-assault/

The Democrat Civil War over Healthcare

You would think that with the loss to Donald Trump along with being wiped out at every level of government from dog catcher to the White House, the Democrats would be united together and stand up for progressive values and champion progressive ideas. In the words of President Trump, “wrong.” In fact, the rift (more aptly described as a civil war) within the Democratic party is alive and well. One issue that highlights the rift between progressives and corporatists is health care. On the left you have progressives getting behind a medicare for all, single payer health care system. Meanwhile on the right you have corporate Democrats refusing to sign onto single payer, opting instead to just defend the Affordable Care Act.

Recently while at town hall meetings with their constituents, a string of corporate Democrats have come out against bills in the house and senate introduced by rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) respectively. Their excuses have been less than satisfactory. Washington representative Denny Heck was asked by a constituent why he has opted not to be a co-sponsor to Conyer’s H.R. 676. Conyers presented 3 main objections to the bill. He argued that it would ‘eliminate medicare advantage.’ The problem with that argument is that if we had medicare for all, we wouldn’t need medicare advantage because everyone would have health care. The purpose of medicare advantage would cease to exist. His second objection is that it would hurt 20% of hospitals and 70% of nursing homes which are ‘for profit.’ Basically, he’s putting the profit margins of hospitals over the health of his constituents. His third objection was that it would hard to fund. Now he neglected (of course) to mention that we have money to launch missiles into Syria, to do drone strikes and bomb countries like Yemen, Somalia, and Libya etc. but we don’t have money to provide health care for our citizens. He also failed to mention that we spend more than twice on health care than other developed nations including those that have single payer systems. Another important point he left out is that part of the reason health care is so expensive is because people don’t have insurance. So his arguments basically boiled down to; 1) it would get rid of a programme that there would be no need for anyway 2) it would hurt profits of hospitals and 3) that it would cost more, even though we already spend twice as much as other countries and still don’t cover everyone while simultaneously spending billions on useless wars. Those are the reasons he claims he opposes rep. Conyers’ single payer bill. But I think the real reason he won’t get behind single payer is because his number one donor is the insurance industry from which he took $90,000. He also took $48,000 from “health professionals.” 

In the senate, corporate tools; Dianne Feinstein and Claire McCaskill both recently came out in opposition to Bernie Sanders’ bill, S.B. 1872, a medicare for all bill. When asked by a constituent as to whether or not she would co-sponsor Bernie’s medicare for all bill, Feinstein said “not at this stage” to which she faced several jeers, one person yelling out “sellout!” She even went as far as saying that, “what Bernie is proposing is a take over of all medicine in the United States and I don’t favour that.” So Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, is literally using Republican talking points to justify her opposition to medicare for all. She dismisses it as basically being a government take over of medicine, which is literally what then speaker John Boehner called Obamacare. So now the Democrats who are suppose to be the “resistance” are espousing rightwing talking points on healthcare, all so they can defend Obamacare which is just a federal scale version of Romneycare, which is just a spin off of what people like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich championed in the 90s, which is what the Heritage Foundation wrote up in the late 80s. So rather than support a medicare for all bill which by the way, according to a recent Economist poll, 60% of Americans support, they’re going to simply defend a plan that Newt Gingrich supported and that Mitt Romney implemented. Just let that sink that. Interestingly enough, that very same poll found that 40% of Trump voters support a medicare for all system, along with 43% of self identified ‘conservatives’ and 46% of Republicans. It’s also worth noting that Feinstein has also taken over $1,000,000 from Health professionals and pharmaceutical companies combined during her career. But I’m sure that has nothing to do with her decision to not support single payer.

Claire McCaskill, another corporate hack also came out recently in firm opposition when asked if she would vote for a single payer bill if it came to the senate floor. She straight up said “I would not vote for it.” She the proceeded to rattle off bullshit talking points about cost and funding, yada yada yada. Again, we already pay more than twice what other developed countries do on health care including those that have single payer systems. Now, as Mike Figueredo of Humanist Report pointed out, if she’s so concerned about debt, then why is it she was fully onboard with President Trump’s recent militarism in Syria which cost $29.5M? She went on to say she hoped that the strikes were part of a “broader plan or strategy.” So in other words, she basically just said she wants war with Syria. For someone who’s allegedly worried about the debt, she certainly has no problem spending billions of dollars on another pointless regime change war. She also opened her answer by saying “I’m going to disappoint a lot of you, that’s kind of how I roll, a lot of you want me to say yes [and I would say if a single payer came up for a vote right now I would not vote for it.]” This is a really interesting statement because she basically just said that even though a lot of her constituents support a medicare for all bill and would want her to vote for it, she wouldn’t do it. She says that’s ‘how she rolls.’ And of course, to no one’s surprise, throughout her career, sen. McCaskill has taken over half a million dollars from health professionals, $318k from health services and $297k from hospitals. So in other words, she “rolls” by ignoring what her constituents, who put her in office in the first place, want and instead serves and protects her donors and corporations. And Democrats wonder why they’re wiped out at every level and why working class voters don’t like them.

–M

Osiris, Jesus, the Lion King, and Dying-and-Rising gods

Today is Easter, the Christian holiday on which Christians around the world celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. As the story goes, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the Romans on charges of blasphemy and sedition. On the third day however, he was raised by God, “vindicating his sinless life.” From there it is believed that he ascended into heaven where he assumed his position at the right hand of God.

While the exact details of the story are unique in their own ways, the rough outline of the story, is not unique to ancient religions at all. In fact, it fits right in the mold of other stories of dying-and-rising gods throughout the Mediterranean. The concept of a god who undergoes some sort of passion (suffering) through which they obtain victory over death was quite common among ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman religions, perhaps most notably among the Mediterranean mystery cults.

One of the oldest resurrection stories comes from ancient Egyptian mythology, with the story of Isis and Osiris. Osiris, the son of Geb the sky god, oldest among his four siblings, became king of Egypt and he then subsequently married his sister Isis. However, his brother Set, jealous of Osiris, one day took it upon himself to transform into a monster. In the form of the monster, Set attacked and killed his brother Osiris, assuming the position of king for himself. Set then took Osiris’s body and cut it up into pieces, scattering them all over the land. Mourning the death of her husband, Isis, who possessed magical powers, sought out to collect all the pieces of Osiris’ body and put him back together. Once she had assembled all the pieces, she breathed the breath of life onto them and Osiris was resurrected from the dead. Together again, Osiris knew Isis and together they bore, Horus. Horus would later go on to challenge his uncle Set for the kingship. After a series of challenges, it is decided by the court of gods (even though Osiris had the final say) that Horus was the rightful king, not Set.

In many ways this story of Osiris resembles themes found in the Disney movie, The Lion King. There’s a king with a jealous brother, the jealous brother kills the king and takes over. Years later, the son of the original king emerges and challenges the jealous brother for the spot and eventually assumes his rightful position. Last summer a friend of mine made a Facebook post asking for fictional book recommendations. One commenter suggested The Lion, the Witch, and Wardrobe. My friend responded by saying he had tried to read it before, but abandoned the effort as he felt it was too much Christianity being shoved down his throat. Granted that’s the point and C.S. Lewis doesn’t hide the fact that the story is based on the Easter story of Jesus, I opined in the comments, perhaps unfairly, and asked if he also didn’t like the Lion King due to its forcing of Egyptian mythology down his throat.

Even the ‘dying for sins’ motif is present in the Osiris cult. When people died and went to the underworld, their heart was weighed against the feather of Maat which was the representation of perfect order as Maat was the goddess of truth and justice. If the heart of the deceased weighed less than Maat’s feather, it meant that they had lived a virtuous life and would go on to Aaru, the gates of which were guided by Osiris. Hearts that weighed more than the feather were eaten by the goddess Ammit, and the soul was condemned to the Egyptian realm of the dead, Duat. By this it was believed that one’s sins literally weighed them down, condemning the soul. However, for those of the Osiris mystery cult, it was believed that if one went through the death and resurrection of Osiris through baptism which symbolised his resurrection, your sins would be erased when you were weighed out the scales of Maat as you share in Osiris’ resurrection, and the individual would go to Aaru.

So while the details are not completely lined up with each other, you can see the themes of death and resurrection, and baptism being used to symbolise said death and resurrection and allowing one’s sins to be lifted so that they may pass into Aaru.

This is just one of several examples of dying-and-rising gods that pre-dates Jesus. There are several other examples. History is replete dying-and-rising saviour dieties which pre-date Jesus such as; Adonis, Attis, Baal, Dionysis, Osiris, and Tammuz, however there is also a lot of misinformation on the internet so you have to be careful. Basically anything that suggests Horus or Dionysus were born on December 25th or had 12 followers is bullshit.

–M

 

Happy Mounchia: Quote of the Day

Today marks the date of the festival of Μουνιχιας (Mounchia). This festival was celebrated in ancient Greece on the 16th day in the month of Mounichion (April) to honour Artemis (Roman; Diana), the goddess of the hunt. The festival is a celebration in memory of the Greek victory over the Persians in the battle of Salamis.

As such, today I have made an offering and prayer to Artemis as gratitude for her many blessings. Here is the text of one of the prayers I used. This comes from In Praise of Olympus: Prayers to the Greek Gods by Hearthstone:

I praise bright Artemis, fair as the budding branch, fair as the spotted fawn, brave as the young bear. 
From crafty Hephaistos you took the artful bow, the sharp barbed shafts; from father Zeus you claimed your calling. Far shooting Artemis, through the hick of the darkened wood you make your way, trailing boar and hare, swiftly and silently, your aim ever flawless, ever kind.
Artemis, light-bringer, mountain-dweller, graceful one who runs through thorn and thistle with never a scratch.
Goddess, unparalleled, friend of mothers in their travail, friend of maidens, friend of the pretty nymphs, in old Arcadia you roamed the wilderness, in Tauris you took the blood of men, in Ephesus you wore the mural crown.
The fire of youth is in you goddess, the bold and valiant spirit that marks a child as yours. 
Free hearted Artemis, worthy daughter of Leto, I honour you always.

–M

 

Beauty and the Beast Review

Last night I finally got around to seeing the Beauty and the Beast live action remake. In general, I think Disney has been killing it with these live actions. From Cinderella (2011) to the Jungle Book (2016) to this, Disney has been doing such a great job bringing back these timeless classics. I definitely think they’re targeting millennials with these remakes as we grew up watching the cartoons as kids. Now, fast forward to when we’re in our 20s, in college, just graduated and entering adulthood, it’s really easy to reminisce on our childhood and back to the days when life was much easier. I know I definitely have been reflecting on the past a lot lately, and this movie definitely hit close to home in terms of pure nostalgia. I recently learned that the original Beauty and the Beast from 1991, was the first animation to ever be nominated for an Oscar for best picture. So this had a lot to live up to.

Coming off the huge success of the Jungle Book live action remake, this movie was easily one of the most anticipated movies of 2017. The trailers were amazing and admittedly, when I first saw the trailer for this I cried. Beauty and the Beast was one of my favourite Disney movies as a kid, and I feel like Disney movies definitely played a critical role in my childhood and contributed a lot to who I am today. So much of my outlook on life is a direct result of themes I saw and loved in Disney movies. 

Though I was bit sceptical since the trailers were so good and I was afraid the movie might not live up to the hype (kinda like Suicide Squad), I was happily proven wrong. Right from the jump with the first song, Bonjour, Emma Watson sets the tone and confirms that she was meant to play this role. Emma Watson was amazing as Belle and I can’t think of anyone else better suited to play her. She brought out exactly what Belle from the cartoon was about and nailed the part. 

The cinematography was just stunning and even the Beast, who was definitely the work of some really good CGI, looked great. All the objects from Mrs. Potts who was played Emma Thompson (she also did a great job) to Lumiere, to Cogsworth looked amazing and their personalities came out beautifully. The movie stayed pretty true to the original and to my memory didn’t deviate much at all from the plot. There were definitely parts however where I felt they were either dragged on a bit too long or were rushed. Notably, I thought the final battle scene between Gaston and the Beast was a bit rushed. In the cartoon it seemed longer and more intense. The remake definitely was not as intense as I remember it being and went by pretty quickly. Even the whole angry mob scene seemed like it went by too quick. The battle in the castle also seemed a bit underwhelming, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it none the less. I think that’s a clear case where animation captures some things in a way live action simply can’t. 

Dan Stevens as Beast was amazing. There’s no getting around it. Lots of people were sceptical of a how the Beast would come out in a live action movie and whether or not Dan Stevens would be able to bring out the Beast that we all remember and love from the cartoon. He succeeded overtime. He perfectly got him down to a T. It was so similar to the Beast of the animation. The casting was really well done and everyone fir their role so well. Josh Gad as Lefou was hilarious and really captured the character. I think it helps a lot that Gad also voiced Olaf in Frozen, so he definitely was able to tap into the Disney thing. Luke Evans was a very convincing Gaston. Basically, Gaston is a douche. He’s arrogant, cocky, and a total prick. Luke Evans wonderfully brought out all of those personality traits and I hated him as much as I hated Gaston in the cartoon.

As a whole I thought the movie was fantastic. The soundtrack was great from the opening number to the last and I definitely teared up at the ending scene. This movie, though there are parts I can nitpick, was definitely what I wanted from it. It’s hard to capture a lot of the cartoon in live action. I think the Jungle Book had an easier time because they could just CGI actual animals. We know what jungles look like because we actually have jungles in real life. It’s a bit harder to create a live action talking clock or a magical castle. I thought this was really well done and the nostalgia alone made this movie so incredibly satisfying. Disney once again hit a home run with the live action remake and almost perfectly brought to life this ‘tale as old as time.’ 

Rating: 8/10

Tom Perez Suffers Embarrassing Loss in First Race as DNC Chair

This past week the country witnessed the first congressional race since the election of Donald Trump. The race was for a seat in Kansas’ 4th district that was vacated by Mike Pompeo who was tapped to be President Trump’s CIA director. 

With the growing “resistance movement” among Democrats and liberals, this was the first test to see how strong Democratic opposition to Trump truly is. However, in his first game as head coach of the DNC, Tom ‘corporate tool’ Perez suffered an embarrassing loss to the GOP. Not because the Democratic candidate got blown out, but because he made it so competitive.

The reality is, progressive Democrat, James Thompson who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, lost KS-04 by just 8 points (53-45), which is closer than any Democrat has come in 21 years. What makes this so noteworthy is that Mike Pompeo won re-election in this district by 31 points in November. Donald Trump slayed Hillary Clinton in the district by 27 points. 

Thompson ran on a progressive platform and raised money from individuals and grassroots efforts, not corporations and big money donors. By that he managed to raise $292,000 compared to Republican Ron Estes’ $459,000. The really unfortunate reality of this race is that the DNC and DCCC didn’t even try to win. As Vice reports, “the state Democratic Party initially declined to give Thompson’s campaign money even for a mailer, then relented and gave him $3,000.” As the race drew increasingly closer, Perez simply dismissed it saying, “There are thousands of elections every year, […] Can we invest in all of them? That would require a major increase in funds.”  This however runs contrary to earlier statements he made when he said he wanted to bring back the 50 state strategy, saying it’s the “only way forward.”

So while the DNC completely dropped the ball, Thompson managed to climb within 8 points all on his own in a district that was won by the Republican just months ago by over 30 points, running on a Bernie Sanders inspired platform. Tom Perez being a centre-right corporatist basically reaffirmed many critiques of the DNC and Democratic establishment, that they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. 

The bottom line is; progressives can win and almost pulled off a huge upset in a Republican dominant district. However, the DNC once again screwed over the progressive candidate (Bernie, Ellison, and now Thompson) by spending little to no money, arguing they wanted to “stay under the radar.” The DNC didn’t even try to win this race and the fact that Thompson on his own made it so close in such a deep red district, running on a progressive platform shows that his and Bernie’s (who is the most popular politician in the country) message resonates well with Americans. Tom Perez simply didn’t show up and when he saw how close it was, made a bunch of excuses for his inability and incompetence. If the DNC lifted a finger to help out Thompson, he very well could have won the seat. Thus, Perez’s first test as DNC chair was, as Trump would say, “a complete and total disaster.”

–M

Corporate Dems are Not the “Far Left”

Last night, conservative commentator Dana Loesch, went on a Twitter rant over DNC chairman Tom Perez’s comments about Trump being an “illegitimate president.” In general I agree with Loesch that it’s very damaging for the Republic to label Trump as an “illegitimate president.” The reason they do this is simply because corporate Dems are embarrassed to admit that they abandoned workers and “flyover” country, opting instead to try to appeal to Republicans to elect Hillary Clinton. 

Part of her rant is exactly right while other parts are completely wrong. Where she is right is when she tweeted:

Dems lost majority of an entire voting bloc and manufacturing states that normally vote blue. They refuse to acknowledge they did wrong

This is very accurate portrayal of the current Democratic establishment. The DNC completely abandoned working class voters by supporting destructive trade deals and running to the right. The DNC also worked hard to screw over Bernie Sanders who was an actual progressive who actually could have won by appealing to blue collar, working class voters. Instead, they rigged the primaries against him and still ended up losing. Thus establishment Democrats are bitter and embarrassed and will use any and all excuses for hide their abject failure. That’s why they jumped on the Russia hysteria. Instead of looking into the mirror and acknowledging their corruption and actually providing policy ideas to run on, they just scream Russia and spout off platitudes. So Loesch is correct on that part.

Where she’s wrong is when she said that the Democratic party has been taken over by the ‘far left.’ 

Dems are now so far left an admitted socialist that screams like Jerry Stiller energized their base. Warren is his heir. They’re DINOs.

That’s just simply incorrect. The reality is the Democratic party and establishment Democrats are at best centre-right and at worst just far right. Hillary Clinton was a right wing corporatist. In many ways it could argued that Hillary was to the right of Trump on more issues than she was to the left of him (not hard to do since Trump isn’t a conservative). Most establishment Democrats; the Cory Bookers, the Chuck Schumers, the Nancy Pelosis, and the Tim Kaines, etc. are corporate tools. They aren’t progressives and they aren’t even left of centre. Again, they’re pretty centre right to far right depending on the issue.

Those are the people who are considered some of the ‘leaders’ in the party. This is further evidenced by the DNC electing Tom Perez, who is a total corporatist who supports TPP and taking corporate money, as DNC chair over Keith Ellison who is an actual progressive. Truth is, the DNC has been doing everything it can to squash the progressive movement in the party, whether it was screwing over Bernie Sanders in the primary, or screwing over Keith Ellison in the race for DNC chair. So no Dana, the Dems are not ‘so far left’ now. If anything, they’re more corporatist than ever and did everything they could to make sure that the “admitted socialist” who “screams like Jerry Stiller” lost. 

But even if the ‘far left’ had taken over the Democratic party, that actually would bode well for them in many respects. 

Looking at polling data it’s apparent that many portions of Bernie Sanders’ campaign platform are very popular among a majority of Americans.

According to a Gallup Poll, 58% of Americans support replacing the Affordable Care Act with a ‘medicare-for-all’ style system. Perhaps the most interesting part of this poll, is that 41% of Republicans support replacing the ACA with a single-payer system. Just recently, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced a medicare for all bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 676. As of right now, 93 of all 193 congressional Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors. Interestingly enough, two notable names that are not on board, are; house minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and house minority whip, Steny Hoyer, both corporate Democrats.

Concerning universal college, 62% of Americans support allowing every American to be able to go to college for free according to a Bankrate poll. Among that coalition in support of free higher education, are 67% of the ‘coveted’ independents. Loesch would likely argue that by running on free college, Democrats would be viewed as ‘too far left’ for independents and moderates. And yet, 62% of Americans support the plan, so running on it seems like smart politics.

What issue then was Dana Loesch talking about when she referred to progressives as being unelectable? Was it wanting to raise the minimum wage? Well, according to a YouGov poll, 66% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10/hour. 59% of Americans favour raising it to $12/hour. Support for raising it to $15/hour is lower than the others at 48% but that’s still significantly higher than support for eliminating it all together (8%) and keeping it where it is now (10%).

So whether it’s medicare for all, universal college, or raising the minimum wage, to name three, the majority of Americans support Bernie Sanders’ platform. To Loesch, these ideas may be ‘far left’ or ‘radical,’ but to most Americans they appear to be pretty reasonable. Thus for Loesch to say that the Dems are too far left is both inaccurate and misleading. The Democratic establishment remains a corporatist party that is centre-right at best. But even with that, the ideas of the Bernie wing of the party resonate strongly with Americans and thus are not ‘far left’ but based on polling data, where most Americans are. That would actually make the ideas ‘centrist’. That just goes to show how right of centre the Democrats are and how deeply far right Republicans have become.

–M