Pop Culture Update (12/27/19)

Are we not entertained?

Christmas has come and gone, and Mrs. Gamer and I have been consuming some more pop culture lately. The kids are finally on a schedule, and the evenings are relatively free.

Television

Finally, the wife and I get to actually watch some TV!

2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings (12/3/19 Update)

(Completely Unqualified and Somewhat Arbitrary) 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings

The winnowing!

A lot has happened this fall. Let's see where things stand as winter approaches!

Note: I need to update the "Recent News" and "Video Playlist" sections, but don't have time tonight. No idea when I'll get to it.

I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.

2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings (6/6/19 Update)

(Completely Unqualified and Somewhat Arbitrary) 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings

The field may have one or two left, but it's probably final.

I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.

Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)

• Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
• Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
• Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
• Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
• Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
• Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
• Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?

So, without further ado, the rankings!

2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings (4/25 Update)

(Completely Unqualified and Somewhat Arbitrary) 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings

The field may be finalizing. There's very little reason for me to be settled on just one candidate at this point, but I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.

Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)

• Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
• Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
• Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
• Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
• Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
• Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
• Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?

So, without further ado, the rankings!

My 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings (4/19/19 - Now with Video Playlists)

My (Completely Unqualified) 2020 Democratic Primary Preference Rankings

There's very little reason for me to be settled on just one candidate at this point, but I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.

Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)

• Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
• Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
• Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
• Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
• Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
• Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
• Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?

So, without further ado, the rankings!

Who I Like in the Democratic Primary for President in 2020

2020 Preference Rankings

There's very little reason for me to be settled on just one candidate at this point, but I have thoughts. What point is a blog if I don't share them with my (incredibly limited) audience? So, I'm starting a Ranking of Preference for 2020 Democratic Candidates. I'm considering a number of factors when putting together this ranking.

Ranking Factors (in No Particular Order)

• Candidate's Story: Why them and why now? Why are they running for president? Why are they the best candidate (in their minds or those of their supporters)?
• Campaigning and General Election Strength: The most important thing is beating Trump. Why do I think one candidate would be better in the general than another? Read below to find out!
• Ability to Inspire: Let's face it--turning out voters is essential, and people are reluctant to turn out if they are not inspired.
• Qualifications for the Job: This whole experiment with an extremely unqualified president has been a complete disaster. The Democratic candidate needs to be ready, able to pick good advisers, able to listen to people who know more than them, able to learn the job quickly or already have a high level of understanding of the job and be someone we can trust to make the right decisions.
• Positions on Issues: I want to support a candidate I agree with. If I don't agree with their position on an issue, can I accept their reasons for why they believe what they believe?
• Momentum/Trending: Is this candidate trending up or down in my rankings? Why?
• Status: Have they declared their run or exploratory committee? If not, will they probably do so?

So, without further ado, the rankings!

*GASP* A Games Post?!? - Assassin's Creed Odyssey

It has been just about forever since I wrote about games. I recently finished Assassin's Creed Odyssey's main plot lines (all three of them), so I thought I'd write a thing.

Here we go!

From the E3 Fan Kit Promotional Materials

Background

The game is an action-RPG mostly set in ancient Greece during the thirty-year Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. You play as either Alexios or Kassandra and venture on a long journey throughout Greece over the course of the game's story. I'll avoid spoilers, but know that both characters are well-acted, completely voiced, beautifully animated, and just plain fun. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this game, and the protagonist is a large reason why. I chose to play as Kassandra after I found out that she was the "canon" character.

Generally, your character is a misthios, or mercenary. You are a direct descendant (grandchild) of King Leonidas of Sparta, who died heroically at the battle of Thermopylae. In the game's version of events, Leonidas' magical spear was broken in the famed battle, but the spearhead and about a foot of the pole were preserved and returned to his family. This spear was passed down to your character who uses it (practically or not) as a tool for mass-assassination and slaughter. Way to honor grandpa!

New Stuff

Romance

Regardless of which character you play, you will get romance opportunities of both sexes, which although close to historically accurate, can be surprising for its casual dismissal of heteronormative standards. I'm actually okay with that, but there still comes a time when, if you've taken advantage of all of your opportunities, you've romanced so many targets you start to question the choices that led you there. That's less a statement on the open choices around genders of romantic partners and more a statement on the "hook-up culture" appeal that romance has in most modern RPGs. This is actually kind of disappointing. None of the romances are particularly deep, and none of them lead to any impactful in-game consequences in story or gameplay.

Dialogue Choices

This is something that bears mentioning. This game has dialogue options. Previous Assassin's Creed games had long dialogues where you were passive observers. In AC Odyssey, you decide what you want your character to say, and your choices actually have consequences.

Are those consequences profoundly different?

Some of them.

I promise he's not teabagging. It just looks that way.

Mercenary System

This is an actually interesting idea. In a nod to the Grand Theft Auto series, as you start to do bad things, the law in a province (or kingdom) begins to escalate their attempts to rein in your behavior. Kill a couple people and a mercenary will start hunting you down. Kill dozens while assaulting an Athenian fortress? You will soon find three or four challenging mercenaries chasing you and interfering in your every move.

This element of gameplay was sold as a comparison the Nemesis system of the Shadow of Mordor games from Warner Brothers. 

It's not.

The mercenaries are elite foes that are challenging, yes. That's where the comparison ends. They have nearly zero personality. They never flee and come back later. They never ambush you without warning. They never talk much. They are not particularly deep.

It's neat to see where Kassandra (or Alexios) stacks up against them on the "rankings." It's fun to unlock the next tier on the ladder and open up discounts for weapons, armor, engravings, and ship upgrades.

Overall, this system is pretty shallow. This is an area for growth in the future. Take further cues from Shadow of Mordor/Shadow of War, please.

Greatest Hits

Gear

AC Odyssey brings back some old ideas from AC Origins that you may or may not have enjoyed. Among these is the Action-RPG loot system where random properties are attached to gear that has stats relevant to gameplay.

Gear is not just cosmetic, and the microtransactions element of gear possibilities is both frustrating and interesting in a metagame sense. This game is not "Pay-to-Win." You can't just buy good stuff and be done with it. You can use Ubisoft Club Credits to get some in-game gear, but gear quickly becomes obsolete as you play. Even legendary gear is obsolete within about four levels.

Speaking of cosmetics, the fact that you can change your appearance to show any gear you have ever looted is a nice bonus. I found that having Kassandra run around in Battleplate of Ares or Brawler Armor was fun, despite whatever armor she might have looted. I enjoyed the aesthetic touch. Kudos to the design team for bringing that into the game!

Skills

AC Origins began using skill trees, and they have returned for Odyssey. There were some really amazing skills that I very much enjoyed. The Spartan Kick was amazingly fun. There's something incredibly satisfying about the sound and the animation. It's just a great tool, even though it does not do much damage by itself. It also has a great feeling of "oomph" to it that appeals to my aesthetic appreciation, kind of like God of War's Ax.

There were multiple times while I was playing the game that I snuck up behind an enemy that I might have otherwise ignored solely because I could kick him off a cliff or a ledge. I found myself steering entire battles to cliff edges and high buildings just to use the kick offensively. It's just an extra enjoyable element to the game.

Obligatory 300 reference.

Add in Hero Strike (using assassination attacks during combat), the Second Wind self-healing, and the Shield Break ability that lets you dominate battlefields, and you've got an excellent recipe for slaughtering Greeks throughout the ancient world.

One of the common concerns around Skill Trees is the dueling desires to get everything (which you should largely avoid in AC Odyssey) and the desire to maintain balance. As you power up, the enemies use more abilities as well. Whether it's flaming weapons, multi-shot bowmen, or foes who quickly roll away from your attacks, the challenge scales well throughout the game. The only thing that's frustrating is how weak assassination can become if you don't focus on it. The game is designed for an increased amount of combat compared to the pre-Origins games. If you're entirely avoiding combat, it's just... harder. There are ways to build your character to do more assassination damage, and it's relatively effective to do so, but more challenging enemies like mercenaries and polemarchs are just too tough to count on assassination as the only way to win.

Fast Travel

Due to the ever-present eagle companion of Assassin's Creed games, you can synchronize your animus with the various landmarks in the game and can fast travel back to them when out of combat, outdoors, and not in a security zone. This is incredibly useful. It's also incredibly slow unless you use a solid state drive. Get one. Load times are a bit of a bear.

Ship Combat

Ship-to-ship battles return from Black Flag and Origins, with the interesting element of underwater exploration that's fun and stressful as your breath meter begins to run out, I really enjoyed this. Ubisoft also does water extremely well. Thumbs up to this section.

Review

For most Assassin's Creed games, story quality is a big draw. Good story plus good open-world action gameplay plus fascinating references to historical events are all reasons why people pick up an AC title. Odyssey does not disappoint on all fronts.

Kassandra (and I assume Alexios, but I didn't play through his story), the evil Cultists, Kassandra's journey, her family, her friends, the famous ancient Greeks she encounters... All of the writing is top notch. 

The size of the game is intimidating, and travel times and load times were frustrating sometimes. The map is beautiful. The architecture, the art design, the character animations, the visuals are just stellar. It's AAA quality and it shows. It takes a beastly computer to make it run, but doing so is very visually rewarding.

Actual screenshot taken by yours truly.

The voice acting is phenomenal. Bonus: Enjoy this video of the voice actors being goofballs.

Gameplay is fun, but the open-world aspect can be intimidating. As a completionist, I wanted to do everything. At 120 hours, I decided I was done. There were probably another fifty or more places I could have visited with little question marks on my map. There were dozens of places I had visited and not completed all objectives. I completed the entire story, saw the endings I wanted, and earned most of the achievements available on Steam. It was time to set the controller down and move to other things.

I'm pleased with my time and money invested. I enjoyed this game wholeheartedly. I would recommend it to any gamer at $40 or less and any Assassin's Creed fan at full price.

I have heard bad things about the Downloadable Content, however. Take this with a grain of salt, but it appears to utilize different writing staff.

Epilogue: On Kassandra

Actress: Melissanthi Mahut

I also feel like I need to take a moment to talk about Kassandra because she represents a major shift in RPG character design that has played out in the industry over the past handful of years. 

Kassandra is a beauty.

But she is not your typical "gamer-girl" beauty. 

She is tall, broad-shouldered, athletic, scarred, and muscular. She is proportioned athletically, not seductively. She wears armor that covers her and protects her. 

Yes, she's pretty. 

Yes, she can even be sensual when she attempts to seduce characters in the game.

Her appearance is not what makes her so amazing. I cannot say enough how much I enjoy the Kassandra character. She is entertaining in her dry wit, completely believable in all her emotions, and just a joy to watch and listen to. She is written as such a great character... It's amazing. I love what the designers did with this character. 

Is it historically accurate to portray an Ancient Greek woman in such a way? No. Few Greek women were allowed to participate in most of society. Fewer still were allowed property and rights. A female mercenary who is hired to support the Athenian or Spartan war efforts? Never happen.

Who cares?

Many white male heterosexual gamers are probably turned off by this. I, for one, am overjoyed. The character design, the voice acting, the writing, the realistically body-positive image she represents, the liberating role of a female character who isn't a token or a sex object. All of those things make her one of the best female video game characters that I can ever remember.

She may not be the video game heroine that some gamers wanted, but in 2018/2019, she's the video game heroine we all need. 

Hopefully, more studios follow suit.

My “Way-too-Early Thoughts on the 2020 Democratic Primary”

Not that anyone cares, but here are my "Way-too-Early Thoughts on the 2020 Democratic Primary."

Elizabeth Warren
Official Portrait

1. Elizabeth Warren came out of the gate strong. She's campaigning well, she's made connections, and she has answered questions well. I'm impressed. The more I see of her, the more impressed I get. Her Instagram "beer video," however, seems like a bit of a gaffe in hindsight. I would happily support her in the general election. I'm strongly considering voting for her in the primary, but I'm not committing to volunteer or donate to a candidate this early.

Julian Castro
Official HUD Portrait

2. Julian Castro has the right things to say and he's got some strong regional support, but I worry about his national support. He's getting buried by the bigger names and I don't see him recovering. It doesn't help that there's another Texan that many keep considering, even if he hasn't declared. I find it unlikely he goes anywhere in the primary. The other candidates have too much name recognition and are too good at campaigning. He would get my vote in the general election, but I don't see him getting my primary vote.

Tulsi Gabbard
Portrait, 113th Congress

3. Tulsi Gabbard has issues with her past positions, questionable international decisions, and rubbing many voters the wrong way. She is strangely not actively campaigning. If she's building an infrastructure to support later campaigning, that's great, but why did she announce before she was ready? I can't foresee any future where she gets my vote in the Kansas caucuses. The decisions are usually over by that point anyway, but with such a huge field, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. She would, of course, get my vote in the general election, but I don't see her getting my primary vote.

John K. Delaney
Portrait, 113th Congress

4. John K. Delaney has done nothing to distinguish himself from the field. I
had honestly forgotten he was running. According to the Wikipedia page on his political positions, he's on the right side of most issues, and his campaign is focusing on gerrymandering and redistricting as major issues. He does not support Medicare-for-All as it's currently publicized but instead wants to slowly expand Medicare and slowly transition to a single-payer system. He's not on the record on most criminal justice reform issues. He's frequently painted as a "moderate," but he's probably more of a traditional Democrat than a "centrist." I don't know enough about him, but with so many strong candidates, he's unlikely to win me over. He would, of course, get my vote in the general election, but I don't see him getting my primary vote.

Kirsten Gillibrand
Portrait, 112th Congress

5. Kirsten Gillibrand has some history to fix with progressive activists. She's a brilliant and passionate speaker, but she has only moved to the left over the past dozen years or so. She was once a conservative Democrat who did not share my views on many policies. She's said publicly and in interviews that she was working from incomplete information, and as she's learned more about the issues, her views have changed to better reflect the facts. This has led to her more progressive stance on everything from gun control to criminal justice. I'm glad she's learned. She's still had a tendency to make questionable choices like her (at least) neutral positions toward Wall Street and rushing to judgment on Al Franken. As I learn more about her, her interviews are impressive. She talks the talk well and seems earnest in her beliefs. She says she'll fight for equality, representation, and repairing America's standing in the world. She's got a track record of standing up to bullies and working with anyone who she can get on her side to build consensus. She looks formidable and I'd happily vote for her in the general election. I'm strongly considering voting for her in the primary, but I'm not committing to volunteer or donate to a candidate this early.

Kamala Harris
Official Senate Portrait

6. Kamala Harris is a strong candidate. She has a compelling story as a former prosecutor and attorney general. She's a strong speaker and an intelligent planner. She comes from a history of activism and social justice. She knows the issues and fights strongly for them. She comes across well on television. She shares my views on every major political issue except trade. Her biggest weaknesses, in my opinion, are a tendency to look too "polished" and a mixed history on criminal justice due to decisions she says were made by people who worked for her. She does say that those decisions were ultimately her fault for not reviewing what the others were doing, so that concerns me a little. Her tendency to be polished looks like she's a little too "close to the vest" with her beliefs as if she's afraid of alienating people. I get it. I'm a "don't burn bridges" kind of guy. I just don't know if she will win over undecided voters in the primary without flying her true colors every chance she gets. There are too many people who show exactly who they are, and that quality is endearing to voters. Senator Harris just seems a little reserved. Her "For the People" message is strong, and her campaign is starting well. I look forward to seeing where she goes from here. I would happily support her in the general election. I'm strongly considering voting for her in the primary, but I'm not committing to volunteer or donate to a candidate this early.

Pete Buttigieg
Official Portrait

7. Pete Buttigieg (pronounced BOOT-idge-edge according to Pod Save America) is a relative unknown on the national scene. Obama mentioned him as an up-and-coming star a number of years ago. Until recently, he was the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and he helped turn that city around. He's a Harvard graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, a Veteran of the War in Afghanistan, and an openly gay married man. His parents were both professors at Notre Dame. He graduated magna cum laude. He's brilliant, well-educated, and articulate. I still don't see how he gets anywhere in this crowded field. He ran for Indiana State Treasurer in 2010 and lost by 25 points. He ran for the head of the DNC in 2017 and withdrew at the election meeting when it became clear that he would finish a distant third. He used his concession speech to encourage "Democrats to 'pay attention to communities like ours in the heart of the country not as an exotic species but as everyday Americans.' Buttigieg encouraged Democrats to engage with the next generation of liberals. 'There’s nothing wrong with our bench, we just haven’t called enough people off the bench and asked them to get on the field,' he said." (Quoted from The Hill's coverage of the 2017 DNC election by Jonathan Easley on 2/25/17.) He's an interesting candidate, but I don't see him breaking through the noise to deliver his message to voters without some serious backing from a major name like Sanders or the Obamas. He probably needs to run for Congress or move elsewhere to establish his political future where he can make a more significant impact on the national scene. I would happily support him in the general election if he pulled off the miracle it would likely take. I doubt I'll support him in the primary, but you never know.

Andrew Yang
2015 - Speaking in Detroit

8. Andrew Yang is a largely unknown (on the national scene) former tech executive and startup founder whose main issue is a federal universal basic income. I like the issue. I like the idea. I don’t think we need to try the whole “businessman with little-to-no public service experience as President” thing again. It didn’t work so well the first time. I’d probably vote for him in the general, but I don’t see any way I’m supporting him in the primary.

9. On unannounced candidates:

Joe Biden
Official 2013 VP Portrait

9a. I really love Joe Biden. He's a flawed and wonderful human being. I just don't think he should run for president. There's so much talent in the field, he doesn't need to. If he runs, I'll happily support him, but the reason you run for President is that you think you're the best person for the job. He is highly qualified, he knows what the job entails, he’s a thoughtful Democrat and he has a history with most of the leadership on the Hill that is endearing. But, and this is a big “but,” I think Dan Pfeiffer had a point on last Thursday’s PSA when he said something along the lines of, “Politics has changed and I’m not sure Biden has changed along with it.” (Paraphrased.) Biden likes to work across the aisle. (see number 10 below)

Bernie Sanders
Official Senate Portrait

9b. I'm lukewarm on Bernie Sanders. He's disconnected from a number of issues that are important to me--especially gun control. I love his pro-Labor and populist economic messages, but I worry that he has a history of choosing the wrong people to work with (or even worse, choosing the people who choose the wrong people). He still hasn't publicly acknowledged the Russian support his campaign unknowingly benefitted from in Putin's attempts to sabotage Hillary. There's just an element of naivete there that terrifies me. I really don’t want him to run, but if it means making Trump a one-term president, he will get my vote.

Beto O'Rourke
Portrait, 113th Congress

9c. I still like Beto O'Rourke, and he still has a lot to offer the Democratic Party. He’s popular, a skilled fundraiser, a strong campaigner, and a good speaker. But if he doesn’t make a decision soon, it will probably be too late. I know a lot of former Bernie supporters who are keen on Beto. That’s fine. Come one come all! I don’t think he’d win in such a crowded primary, but I’d gladly support him in the general election.

Cory Booker
Portrait, 114th Congress

9d. Cory Booker just doesn’t excite me. I’m not sure why. He doesn’t inspire me like the other Senators or Beto. Most of his policy positions are fine. He’s got the financial support necessary to run a national campaign, but that might actually be a weakness. According to opensecrets, more than 68% of his fundraising comes from wealthy donors who contributed more than $200. This is... concerning. He has also had issues navigating the tension around Israel and the BDS movement. If this is a sign of how he would handle sensitive issues in the White House, I’m not enthusiastic. I would vote for him in the general election, but I’m not sure I would support him in the primary.

John Hickenlooper
January 2015

Eric Garcetti
May 2013

Mike Bloomberg
Headshot from Website

Sherrod Brown
2009 Official Photo

9e. Others: John W. Hickenlooper, Eric Garcetti, Michael Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown... I’m not sold. I like Garcetti and Brown best of this group. Brown’s an excellent speaker and has a great message. Garcetti is extremely charismatic, but I don’t know enough about him. Bloomberg, Hickenlooper, and Schultz are all meh. Bloomberg’s views are way too “centrist.” Hickenlooper’s okay, but I’m not sold. Schultz seems not at all interested in the party, and winning without party support is probably impossible. Governing without party support is a terrible idea. Anyone over Trump, but others appeal to me more than most of these guys.

10. Biden, and to a lesser extent the Senators who have declared, are STILL naive about Republicans. Biden suffers from the same delusion that Obama did in his first term--that Republicans in the current political environment will compromise to get things done. The current Republican party is only interested in power and securing their immediate short-term interests. They are not interested in the long-term health of the country or its people. They do not have a “big picture” view that is pro-America. They have a, “What have you done for me lately?” view that is destructive and regressive. The Republican party, and the media environment it exists in an ouroboros-li
ke parasitic relationship with (Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge, Coulter, Limbaugh, Shapiro, O’Reilly, Carlson, Pirro, Bannon, Steven Miller, and all the rest), see billionaire-funded racial identity politics as the way to keep the plebes busy hating each other while plundering the country’s wealth and dismissing the rest of the world to burn. This is not a healthy opposition party. There has not been a healthy Republican party in our country since the 1990s. Gingrich and Limbaugh stabbed it in the back and it’s been bleeding out ever since.

There is no need to try to appeal to that mentality. Do not propose legislation and policies that will be palatable to them. Do not dismiss Republican voters, but convince them directly. Force Republican politicians to see that going along with your positions is necessary to their own survival! Republican politicians truly embody the idea of, “I must know where my people are going so I may lead them!” They don’t propose bold policies and try to convince voters that they are right. They look at any changes that people are resistant to and try to convince voters that those changes must be wrong. To appeal to those voters, you have to propose ideas that will appeal to the vast majority of Americans. When Republican politicians see how popular those positions are, they will be forced to support them in the end.

Progressive policies are hugely popular on the national stage. Federal jobs guarantee, pro-Labor positions, women’s reproductive rights, healthcare as a right, paid family leave, free public college tuition, green jobs, green energy, criminal justice reform, marijuana decriminalization. All of these are ideas that are hugely popular nationwide. Don’t propose a compromise position to try to appeal to Republican politicians. They won’t see it as an attempt to get them on board; they will see it as a sign of weakness in your beliefs. They will attack at any hint of weakness and invent false weaknesses if there aren’t any real ones. You can’t work with that type of person.

It’s like this: If it will take 32 trillion dollars to make a universal healthcare system in the United States, don’t propose sixteen trillion dollars worth of reforms as an effort to bring Republicans on board. Tell them why it will take 40 trillion dollars to also implement free mental and dental health along with it. Tell them that you will pay for it by increasing estate taxes, implementing a wealth tax, raising capital gains to match the income tax, and adding a scaling payroll tax related to the median nationwide healthcare premiums paid before subsidies. Sell it to the voters that they will never have to pay a healthcare premium, copay, emergency room fee, prescription cost, or any other medical expense ever again. The median taxpayer will see a slight increase in their overall expenditures, but the wealthiest will see a significant one, and the bottom two quintiles should see a drop in total expenditures as they will no longer need to worry about paying anything for healthcare. (I have no idea if these numbers are even close to right. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am on the details. It doesn’t change my point.)

Make your argument to the voters.

Ignore the right-wing bubble that will attack anything you propose no matter how well-intentioned or catered to appeal to more conservative voters. Just ignore them. Let AOC or someone else who knows how to clap back at them handle it. That’s not your job. Go around them. Your job is to put the American people and their futures, as well as the people of the world, ahead of any corporation, any pundit, and any right-wing nutjob. If you can do good for the world while doing that, do it every chance you get. They will come along. They will kick and scream the whole way, but they will come.

Be bold. Your job is to lead.

Progressives and Anti-Semitism

So, in my ongoing effort to learn more about the world and try to see things from varying perspectives, I've been investigating the online narrative that progressive politicians are anti-Israel or anti-semitic. This fairly new narrative is one I've been observing spread by a few of my friends on Facebook and a significant number of accounts I follow on Twitter, and I'm curious where the impression comes from, what evidence supports it, and why the Overton Window has moved in such a direction. Any movement should be willing to look at itself honestly, so looking at what progressives have said and done about Israel and Jewish issues is a reasonable thing to do, and I think it can be done without feeding any sort of false narrative.

I spent about an evening on Google. There's probably more to this story than I found looking into it. Your mileage may vary.

Here's a link to the search I used.

Research Articles

The first results were a number of opinion articles by Karol Markowicz for the New York Post with such titles as, "Liberals refuse to face the left’s growing anti-Semitism" and "Liberal Jews still turning blind eye to anti-Semitism on the left." Notice a theme? Anyway, I read through these articles and also looked into the author. Ms. Markowicz seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill conservative independent journalist who was born in the USSR and writes about politics in the New York Area. She's clearly biased, but I'm not just going to chalk her up as a partisan hack. Regardless of the source, the articles had some evidence that I couldn't completely ignore.

The next result that actually was about this topic was an op-ed in the Detroit News (according to MediaBiasFactCheck it’s a right-of-center daily publication in Michigan) titled "Opinion: Democrats won't fight anti-Semitism." The author emphasized Ilhan Omar (freshman Congresswoman from Michigan) and her connection to the BDS movement. This is factually true. Omar's statements about the BDS movement are far more nuanced than any sort of blind loyalty to it, though. She seems to have wrestled with the issue and has subtleties behind her support for it. More about that later. The author's credits at the end of the article state, 'David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun."' Okay. We might have another partisan operative here, but rather than spending all my time attacking the messengers, I also should consider their arguments.

Next was a piece on Breaking Israel News (Which has no Media Bias/Fact Check rating but is owned by Israel365, who owns the Blaze, and also owns the Israel Video Network. That last source is rated Extreme Right, Propaganda, Zionism by Media Bias/Fact Check. I'm going to chalk all of these up as questionable.) by author Daniel Greenfield called, “How the Liberal Jewish Establishment Failed to See Left-Wing Anti-Semitism Coming.” Greenfield has also written articles like, “The Democratic Socialists of America Have an Anti-semitism Problem” on such sites as Frontpage Magazine (Media Bias/Fact Check rated as Extreme Right, Hate Group) and his articles are pretty extreme in attacking liberalism and progressives in any way he can. This particular article is about attacking the Anti-Defamation League as obsolete and American liberals as anti-semitic. I’m going to write this one off. I can try to consider articles in good faith when from questionable sources, but this one is too far out there.

Next up is, “Sorry, Liberals: Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic” from the Forward (formerly the Jewish Daily Forward which Media Bias/Fact Check rates as Left-Center Bias with High levels of Factual Reporting). This one is written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman. Marquardt-Bigman argues against any sort of ideas of giving Palestinians equal rights in Israel as leading to an Arab-dominated country that will subvert and expel Jews if not restrained. The author continues to argue about the Temple Mount and other issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict throughout the history of Israel. She argues that the left cannot be pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist and ignorant of the “long history and legacy of anti-Semitism in the Christian west, but also the ancient and enduring anti-Jewish bigotry in the Muslim Middle East” without being anti-Semitic themselves. I did some checking into Ms. Marquardt-Bigman and found that she has been a pretty consistently conservative author in regard to Israel, and has been criticizing liberal activists for about a year now. I think the author has some valid points that people should consider. I think it’s likely that people who look at the BDS movement do not consider things from this view and do not have a grasp of the nuances and subtleties related to the Arab-Israeli relations. I also think the author is a partisan who wants to undermine any Leftist who disagrees with them. Both things can be true.

Next on the list was a targeted article about BDS from The Guardian (Left-Center Bias with High levels of Factual Reporting according to MB/FC) written by Nathan Thrall. This article was a doozy, but I don’t know much about the BDS movement and I’m not sure why it’s seen as such a threat. Thrall is a Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group and lives in Jerusalem. He’s pretty widely published and the article is quite strong. Included in the article is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism “known as the ‘three Ds’: delegitimization of Israel, demonization of Israel and double standards for Israel.” I find this definition helpful, as the double standards issue is frequently where the above authors that I examined found fault with Progressive views toward Israel.

BDS Discussion

After reviewing the above information, I find that the idea that Israel should be held to the same standard as all other nations is a challenging one to grapple with. Generally, Americans view Israel in a positive light but are frequently condescending in their view. People frequently think of Israel as a country that wouldn’t be around without American assistance. This is not (and has not been for a very long time) the case. Israel is a military and intelligence power in the region, and seeing it in any other way is naive. The BDS movement in modern progressive politics is, perhaps, a symbol of that naiveté.

Representative Ilhan Omar had some thoughts that she shared on the BDS movement on a recent episode of Pod Save America. Omar said that her goal for the BDS movement was to pressure our allies to promote equal rights, end any human rights violations, and be sure that “there is not one human life that is worth more than another.” She wanted us to challenge all allies to measure up to that standard. The problem is that she doesn’t publicly push any such standard for allies beyond Israel. This is easily seen as a double standard for Israel. I see how people view this as anti-Semitic.

Personal Notes

It’s a challenging viewpoint. I understand the view. I understand why people see it as anti-Semitic. I think that the idea that we should hold our allies accountable for human rights violations is a good one. I think that we should push our allies to treat all citizens as equal is a good one. I think it’s hard to hold Israel and China to the same standards we might hold England, Australia or Canada to. The countries have different realities on the ground. I think that black-and-white definitions lose their value when applied to the real world.

The following section is about my own views about Israel, the BDS movement, and whether young progressive leaders (particularly Representative Omar) are anti-semites.

I don’t think this means that Omar is anti-semitic. I’m not saying she’s not. I’m saying this alone doesn’t make me see her as anti-semitic. I know that I just poked holes in my own logic, but hear me out.

Governments are made of people and people change. They grow and develop. They have events happen to them that make them see the world differently (for good or for ill). They make mistakes, and they usually try to do things that benefit their populace.

In Saudi Arabia, the leaders regularly engage in cruel and inhumane treatment of their citizens in order to strengthen their theocratic relations and shore up security. Saudi is an American ally with a horrible history of human rights abuses. I personally feel we need to cut all ties with Saudi Arabia until they get their shit together. That’s a whole other issue, but it’s also related to Israel, as relations between the two countries have warmed significantly in the past decade or so.

In China, this looks like authoritarianism. Chinese policies are ruthless and brutal, but they are usually for the empowerment of the nation of China. Should we pressure China to treat its people more humanely? Hell yeah, we should! Should we cut off all ties with them and boycott their economic output until this happens? God, no! Diplomatic solutions, please!

In Israel, this looks like mistreatment of Palestinians. Israeli people live in constant fear of terrorist and rocket attacks. This fear is frequently stoked by politicians for their own gain, yes, but it’s also rooted in reality. Israel has had an existential threat for its entire history. Not taking that into account is ridiculous. Palestinian people have been mistreated for decades. Yes. This is true. They exist in a massive open-air prison. The conditions in Gaza are worse than most of the rest of the world and clearly all of the rest of Israel. Are settlements counterproductive in producing a lasting peace treaty with the Palestinian people? Yes. Should we Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Israel until they change their behaviors? Probably not. Diplomatic solutions, please! Is this a double standard for Israel? Maybe.

Closing Thoughts

Is this an anti-semitic view? I hope not, but that’s for someone else to judge. I don’t feel it is, but Donald Trump doesn’t think of himself as racist. I could be wrong. It’s happened before and it will happen again. I’m not Trump; I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong.

The freshman class in the House and a number of vocal young progressives have associated themselves with movements and thinkers that are controversial. The Women’s March has been under fire for organizers supporting Louis Farrakhan. Progressives are getting attacked for questioning Israel. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the one getting all the press, but in the dark corners of the internet, people still seek to divide us against ourselves.

I listened to Ben Rhodes and Jen Psaki talk about Russian information warfare around the 2016 election, and I couldn’t help but notice the attempts to undermine the new progressive leaders run interestingly parallel. Are Russian bots promoting this idea in order to destabilize the progressive movement? Am I (unknowingly) helping them? I think it doesn’t really matter. I think we should always question our beliefs and our leaders. I think we should always look for the nuance around issues and learn about the subtleties. I think that’s part of what being a progressive means. I think we have to seriously consider most issues from as many angles as possible.

Except for white supremacists and incels. Fuck those guys.