Bernie Sanders is no saint: he’s a politician who needs to get his head out of his ass

The Sanders camp likes to present Bernie as more than a mere politician; he’s a real human being who cares more about the issues than winning elections. Ostensibly, this is a fairly accurate evaluation. As far as politicians go, he’s always been one of the good guys. His career has been generally fairly progressive and his current rhetoric around Wall Street corruption hits all the right notes. I believe he genuinely wishes to uplift the middle class.

Despite this, one has to understand something. While he’s more genuine than the average career politician, he’s by no means a saint: he is very much a politician. Over the course of the primary season, he has increasingly succumbed to the pitfalls of election campaigns, manipulating facts and doing damage to the very causes he champions.

Those following this blog or my Facebook feed might get the impression that I hate Bernie Sanders. While I have certainly posted a few “Bernie bashing” pieces, I nevertheless admire the man. I admire what he stands for, and how he’s changed the landscape of this election. I appreciate the fact that he has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left and forced her to work for the nomination. On top of that, I think he’s a genuinely decent man who believes in his cause.

That being said, he’s a politician, possessing all the traits necessary to succeed in this role. His career reflects this fact, as much as his supporters like to deny it. As Hillary Clinton has basically now claimed the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders needs to grow up and admit that he’s lost. Likewise, his supporters need to stop treating the man like a saint and recognize that Hillary Clinton is not the devil. To do otherwise is to aid Donald Trump’s campaign.

Those “feeling the Bern” like to point to Bill Clinton’s tough on crime bill as proof of Hillary’s racist incompetence. Few dispute that the 1994 bill was a horrendous piece of legislation that Hillary was wrong to support. That both Bill and Hillary have since stated their regret over the bill does not mean we should simply forget it.

However, what Bernie supporters do like to forget is the fact that Bernie Sanders also voted for the bill.

Can we all take a moment to consider this hypocrisy? Bernie Sanders, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Dragons – wait, I’m getting my posts mixed up – voted in favour of the very bill he and his supporters like to throw in Hillary Clinton’s face. Was he as enthusiastic about it as Clinton? No. For him, it was seemingly more of a grudging concession. In the end, his rationale does not matter. His name is on that bill as much as Hillary Clinton.

Does this mean I think Hillary should be forgiven for supporting the bill, or the ridiculous manner in which she went about it? No, obviously not. But if one is going to point out this specific stain on her political record, one also has to acknowledge that it is just as much a mark against Sanders.

Another issue that the Sanders camp likes to throw out is her reluctance to embrace gay marriage until recently. Hillary Clinton did not publically support of gay marriage until 2013. This was around the time that every other liberal politician jumped on the bandwagon – including Bernie Sanders.

Sanders did not give a definitive support of same-sex marriage up until 2009. Prior to this, he specifically avoided discussing the issue. Despite his championing of the economic underdog, or his involvement in the civil rights movement, when it comes to LGBTQ issues, he’s hardly been a political maverick. One reporter said that “obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros.”

To be sure, Sanders’ record on this issue is more progressive than Hillary’s. He was (slightly) quicker to endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage, and he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which would have limited marriage to being exclusively between a man and a woman. The Act is yet another shameful aspect of Bill Clinton’s legacy, one that Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed.

However, unlike how he is currently attempting to portray it, his opposition was based primarily on pragmatism and contemporary issues. As a supporter of state rights, Sanders feared that the DOMA would undermine the ability of the state to determine their own legislation. Jane Sanders, Bernie’s wife and chief of staff, was quoted at the time as saying “we’re not legislating values.” This seems like an odd statement from a man whose entire campaign has been based on specifically appealing to such values.

All politicians are fickle, altering or masking their opinions to win elections. This is the nature of the game. If Bernie Sanders was not so hypocritically claiming moral superiority, holding himself above the corrupt fray everyday politics, his engagements in this tactic would not be such an issue. He cannot portray himself as a maverick and a radical when he continually engages in the same tactics he criticizes his opponents for.

Bernie’s supporters like to highlight the civil rights records of the two candidates. While Hillary was out campaigning for a segregationist, Bernie was off getting himself arrested while protesting segregation. Is this true? Yes, Hillary Clinton did indeed campaign for Republican Barry Goldwater around the same time that Bernie Sanders was actively engaged in the Chicago civil rights movement.

Unfortunately, this comparison represents another manipulation of how the facts are presented. When she played the role of a “Goldwater Girl,” Hillary Clinton was a sixteen year old living in an incredibly right-wing household; Bernie Sanders was a twenty-two year old university student at the time he got arrested, having grown up in the aftermath of the Holocaust a Jewish household. These differences may not seem like much, but is there a single person out there who claims to have been a fully formed individual at age sixteen, entirely free of the biases of their upbringing? We are all influenced by our surroundings. Family and education are undoubtedly the foremost influences in childhood and young adulthood.

There is an immense difference between being a high school teenager and a university student. In high school, one’s world is relatively insular and contained; university, conversely, is about expanded horizons and self-discovery. Speaking as a second year university student, my understanding of the world is very different from that of three years ago, and it will likely be different again three years from now. I challenge anyone to tell me that they are different.

A more accurate comparison would be where the two candidates were at the same relative age. Four years after campaigning for Barry Goldwater, at the age of twenty, Hillary had denounced the “racist” Republican Party and was a staunch liberal. In 1968, she campaigned for Eugene McCarthy, arguably the Bernie Sanders of his day. At her 1969 university graduation, she gave an ad-libbed speech that directly denounced the University’s chosen “anti-activism” speaker.

When one compares the two candidates in this manner, the difference between them becomes far less prominent. Hillary readily admits that she was not born a Democrat, and it is immature to hold any 68 year old woman – let alone someone with a distinguished career– accountable for the mistakes she made as an adolescent over five decades ago.

Is Hillary Clinton the perfect candidate? No. She has made huge errors, some of which the Sanders camp are very right to point out. I could easily write a long essay on the problems of a Hillary candidacy. Perhaps I will. But if Bernie supporters aren’t going to examine their own candidate with the same scrutiny they demand of Hillary Clinton, their arguments lose credibility.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been a disappointment. He has contradicted his own beliefs and held his opponents to hypocritical standards. In the wake of the June 7^th primaries, his chances of victory at the convention are arguably nonexistent, despite his intention to win the support of the party superdelegates (which, one might recall, he previously critiqued Hillary Clinton for).

At this point, by continuing to fight, Bernie Sanders is hurting the people he claims to represent. I doubt he would argue that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster, so why does he continue to divide the Democratic Party in a manner that can only benefit Trump?

Bernie Sanders claims to be a man of the people. Well, the people have spoken. He has lost fairly. Arguing otherwise is hypocritical and insulting. He seems unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, people have heard his pitch and are unconvinced.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones: Mid-Season Update

Now that we’re past episode seven, two thirds of the way through the season, I feel it’s time to give an update on my thoughts about Game of Thrones.

Warning for those who are not up to date, this will contain spoilers for the current season. Read at your own peril.

Overall, I’m fairly happy with this season, but I do have my concerns.

As some may recall, I was wary about the (predictable) decision to revive Jon Snow. Five episodes later, and I’m still not entirely sure what I think. As much as I love Kit Harrington’s interpretation of the character, I can’t help but feel that the writers continue to play it safe. With the exception of the episode immediately following his revival, they have largely glossed over the psychological effects of of the ordeal.

Existentially, the realization that there is no life after death is crushing. Yet, other than his decision to reclaim Winterfell, Jon seems to be plodding on as usual. After he sulkily leaves the Night’s Watch, Sansa’s arrival is the only reason the character is not consigned to oblivion. That said, I love the new interaction between the two half siblings. Both characters have been inalterably changed by their experiences, and the showrunners have done a fairly good job of exploring the dynamic between characters who have largely not interacted onscreen.

You should probably ditch the ponytail, Jon... Your dad could pull it off, but you can't.

The reintroduction of Rickon Stark really frustrated me. Understandably, the writers wanted to motivate Jon to take back Winterfell, but the execution was clumsy. Last time we saw him, back in season three, Osha was taking Rickon to Last Hearth, seat of the Umbers, a family who was fiercely loyal to Robb Stark. The knowledge that Rickon was out there, safe, as a Stark ace in the hole, was comforting knowledge against all the horrors they have had to endure. To reintroduce him as the prisoner of Ramsay Bolton seems like an unnecessary ploy to create tension. Personally, I believe there was enough motivation for Jon to rally the north without adding Rickon as a prisoner.

Speaking of artificial tension, I still can’t get over the ramshackle Dornish storyline.

I didn’t talk about it in my other post due to my word count and the assumption that the story would have farther developments. However, we have now gone six episodes since Ellaria Sand and the Sandsnakes staged a coupe in Dorne and there seems to have been no repercussions. We have seen nothing more of these revolutionaries, and there seems to have been little or no reaction throughout the rest of Westeros. Aside from the actual scene’s clumsy execution, this leaves me wondering… why is Dorne even in the show?

In the books, the Dorne plot was dry but intriguing. One knew this was a possible game changer in Westeros’ larger political conflicts. The show’s adaptation of this storyline? Not so much.

While certainly Game of Thrones has done an excellent job of streamlining other plotlines for the TV format, the excursion into Dorne represents a failure to do this. In A Song of Ice and Fire Doran Martell was a wildcard who’d worked for decades to bring about the fall of the Lannisters. When Arriane Martell and the Sand Snakes (who Ellaria and her daughters are based upon) unwittingly threaten this plan, Doran lets them in on it. At no point is he assassinated: as of right now, he’s alive and well and plotting away.

The Sand Snakes look as dissapointed with the Dorne storyline as I feel

For someone who has not read the books, I imagine this plotline seems pointless. For someone who loves the books, it’s downright frustrating. The showrunners need to find a way to wrap it up, as there has not been adequate set up, nor do they have the time, to do it justice.

The Iron Islands plotline is another one that doesn’t fit smoothly into the show’s narrative progression. Even in the source material, the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field. In the show, the reintroduction of Balon Greyjoy in addition to new characters seems out of place. The new dynamic between Yara and Theon is really engaging, and both actors give excellent performances, but the politics of the Iron Islands seem inconsequential on the grand scale of the show. I can’t help but feel like this is going to be another plot tangent that is left ultimately unaddressed.

That being said, the show is doing an excellent job of bringing together certain tangents left wide open in the books. George R.R. Martin has always stated his intention to expand from the relative insularity of the first book, into the middle books’ vast wealth of viewpoints and landscapes, before drawing the threads back together for the final books, giving the series a degree of symmetry.

Despite this, we have largely yet to see this closing of threads in the books, with A Dance with Dragons introducing even more viewpoint characters. The show seems to be moving more actively towards this goal, as can be seen in Sansa and Jon’s attempt to rally the north, Arya’s upcoming return to Westeros, and Danaerys’. One senses that the final act of the saga is about to begin.

Perhaps my biggest disappointment about this season is the apparent spoilers for the upcoming Winds of Winter. As George R.R. Martin originally intended to have ASOIAF’s sixth book out before this season, it divulges certain key plot points, such as the apparent identity of the mysterious Coldhands, the nature of the White Walkers, and the possible confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. That being said, I am by no means jumping on the anti-George R.R. Martin bandwagon. As I’ve said many times, I’d rather he take six years to write a good book than six months to write a bad one. To quote Neil Gaiman for the umpteenth time, “George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.”

Not only is this one of the show's most badass scenes,
it's one of the most important to the plot

Ultimately, despite its flaws, Game of Thrones remains the best show on television (certainly better than whatever The Walking Dead has become) and one of best page to screen adaptations. The problem with a show this good is that its few flaws, even the minor ones, stand out against such strong writing and performances.

This season has seen some epic and powerful moments, such as young Eddard’s duel at the Tower of Joy and the tragically beautiful “hold the door” scene. The reintroduction of the Blackfish, Benjen Stark, and Sandor Clegane seem to promise great things to come.

I’ll probably write another piece once the season is over, so stay tuned.

As always, thanks for reading J

Still

A review of Captain America: Civil War and my updated thoughts on Spider-Man joining the MCU

A couple of months back, I wrote a post explaining why I didn't think Spider-Man should be included in Captain America: Civil War. Simply put, I didn’t believe that justice could be done by including him as a secondary character in a larger story.

Having seen Civil War, I have been proved wrong.

"Avengers: Civil War"

Titling the film Captain America: Civil War is a little bit of a misnomer. Really it should have been called Avengers: Civil War. But I imagine Disney simply didn’t want to draw attention away from the upcoming Infinity War films. Besides, what would a cinematic portrayal of the Avengers be without Chris Hemsworth’s Thor or Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk?

This is, perhaps, the most mature film to have emerged from this series. Rather than dealing with cosmic entities and alien invasions, Civil War attempts to present a realistic approach to governments dealing with super powered beings. At the same time, the film does not become trapped by the seriousness of this premise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has always effectively balanced realism, plot, and entertainment without being bogged down in any of them, and Captain America: Civil War is no exception.

The movie has some major plot holes, and in many places one can clearly see characters being guided by the writers’ omnipotent hands. Some of the action scenes are over the top, and I find it hard to believe that Iron Man’s armour only would only begin to show damage when it provides the most dramatic effect. Martin Freeman’s American accent is about as believable Tom Cruise playing a Nazi colonel.

I refuse to take Falcon seriously as a member of the Avengers.

Yet, despite the number of things one could say was wrong with this movie, it does something very right. As with all of the MCU’s films to date, the undeniable problems with Captain America: Civil War are eclipsed by some intangibly endearing quality. Unlike many comic book adaptations that attempt to transcend the genre, Civil War succeeds because it firmly embraces the best aspects of its source material. In its aesthetics, its narrative, and its action, Captain America: Civil War thrives as a comic book movie.

Civil War’s combination of entertainment value, quality casting, and pure heart allows – no, demands – that the viewer simply forget its problems and embrace its better aspects. In its ability to do this while tackling mature and realistic themes, Civil War is arguably the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s best film yet.

Also, there’s an undeniable pleasure to watching our favourite superheroes duke it out.

But what about Spider-Man?

As some of you may recall from my previous post, I was rather skeptical about whether Civil War could do justice to Spider-Man’s MCU introduction. Among so many top notch characters, how could the directors accurately capture the heart of what makes the character so uniquely endearing?

Apparently the Russo brothers understood these concerns, as the film seemed to consciously address them. The choice to cast Tom Holland as a high school Peter Parker, true to the original source material, was an effective method of distinguishing his portrayal from those before him. This Spider-Man’s age is very apparent in his actions and his dialogue. Though his screen time is short, the banter he engages in with other characters is incredibly amusing, one of the film’s most endearing aspects.

The choice to make Spider-Man so distinctly innocent, a kid who’s stumbled into this world of super powers and epic battles, gives him a huge degree of relatability, which has always been Spider-Man’s best quality. As an admirer of the Avengers, just as the viewer is, this Spider-Man finds himself thrust into the middle of battles he is only just beginning to understand, forced to engage in combat with people he admires.

The best depictions of Spider-Man embrace the character’s coming of age story, and I’m willing to say that this seems like no exception. Skipping the origin story did little to hinder his introduction – though I’d like to see the loss of his uncle dealt with in the upcoming standalone film – and Tom Holland provides a unique performance to distinguish him from previous portrayals. Visually and stylistically, the character fits into the tone already establish by the MCU.

I really love the paternal relationship introduced between Peter Parker and Tony Stark. The two actors have some great chemistry, and I think there’s some great potential here. I’d love to see many more “I’ll call Aunt May” jokes.

At the same time, this dynamic lends another layer of thematic significance to the film. As I noted, Spider-Man is young and impressionable, a teenager struggling to come to terms with his new identity. Tony Stark, arguably, takes advantage of this, as Captain America notes during the film when Spider-Man insists that he “has to impress Mr. Stark.” Tony Stark uses the young Parker’s admiration to compel him into a fight where he has no real stakes. This situation poses some questions about the morality of manipulation, an added layer of significance to a film that already questions the extent that one should go to do what is right.

Overall, I was highly impressed with Captain America: Civil War. The film’s ability to handle mature themes without losing entertainment value gives it a rare place among the ranks of comic book movies. Spider-Man’s introduction exceeded my highest expectations, and I’m really looking forward to seeing his follow up movie, as well as that of Black Panther.

Some of the action sequences are predictably over the top, and there are a few big plot holes, yet the film embraces its comic book heritage in a manner that one can’t help but like. Arguably, this is the MCU’s best film yet.

I’ve never liked arbitrary numerical ratings, yet I know that many people do.

8/10

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and why I’m not “Feeling the Bern”

I’m not an American, yet I believe we should all have a vested interest in the upcoming presidential election. As the political, economic, and cultural hub of the western world, what happens in the United States directly affects what happens throughout the rest of the world.

When I tell people I’m not a supporter of Bernie Sanders, the reactions range from “That old guy? I saw a post on Reddit about him” to “How could you?! You’re a disgrace to the very nature of liberalism!”

Basically, most Canadians either don’t care about the presidential election, or they actively support Bernie Sanders. This is, admittedly, better than supporting Donald Trump, though a small part of me is surprised that there aren’t more Harperites proclaiming their admiration for Trump or Ted Cruz. Seriously. In terms of ideology, their policies aren’t all that different. They only vary in extremes.

I digress. “Why?” people always cry as I tell them I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be an effective president. “He wants to bring free education, put all those Wall Street crooks in jail: he’s going to change things! What’s not to love?”

Americans are understandably wary of Hillary Clinton, given her representation of the political establishment they feel no longer serves them. Bernie Sanders is noble in his quest to reform this establishment and, in a perfect world, he’d make a great president. Ideologically, I certainly align with him as much as Clinton, and I always admire a revolutionary.

Why, then, would a Sanders nomination be a disaster?

Sanders backers like to point out that he has held office far longer than Hillary Clinton in terms of years, which is certainly true. But the positions they held were quite different from one another. Sanders has slowly made his way up the ladder, starting out as mayor of Burlington and eventually making his way to the Senate. Over the last two decades, Hillary Clinton has made a career distinct from her husband. She’s been a Senator and has worked in the White House both as First Lady and as Secretary of State.

Ostensibly, the difference between their careers isn’t too drastic. But if one reads between the lines, the gaps begin to widen. Sanders has spent the better part of four decades championing the poor and working hard to fight the “establishment.” Yet his political record actually shows very little to distinguish him from the average left wing politician. Much of his career has been based on rhetoric, as he has continually marketed himself as a unique entity unaligned with either of the major parties. He continues to use this tactic in his presidential campaign, basing it largely on rousing speeches of his self-styled “socialism.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatist. Where Bernie schmoozes and impassions his voters, Clinton works within the system to bring about effective change. As First Lady and as Secretary of State, she has built working relationships with many world leaders ranging from Angela Merkel to Dilma Rousseff. She’s a tireless feminist and has pushed for women’s rights the world over. She has the name, the reputation, and the skillset to be an effective president on the world stage as well as in Washington.

Is she a natural on camera? No. Her smile sometimes reminds me of a china doll. But is she a practical and effective politician? Yes.

“She’s a member of the establishment,” Bernie lovers say. “She’s everything that people are frustrated with.”

Yes, Hillary Clinton is very much a part of the Democratic establishment. She’s been a member of the party for a long time, and is a name people like to jump to when discussing politicians who fail to serve their interests.

But is this really the case? As I said, Clinton is a pragmatist. She works incrementally with an end goal in mind. It’s all well and good for Bernie Sanders to repeat the same mantra for forty years, but such sweeping statements rarely bring about the permanent change they call for, least of all in an environment as inhospitable as the American politics.

Rhetoric needs to be backed by practicality. Once the desire for change is infused into the public consciousness, practical and realistic leaders are needed to make ideas become realities. In doing this even the most effective politicians can struggle.

Look at Barack Obama. Hopes were high in the wake of his 2008 inauguration, as were his approval ratings. Over the next year or two, both plummeted and are only now beginning to rise again.

Despite being a smart politician, Obama was elected for what he represented. He was the first African American to win the presidency, he was going to fix the problems of the Bush era, and he promised to end the wars in the Middle-East. Since 2009, he helped America weather the Great Recession and has repaired much of the diplomatic damage done by George Bush. In addition, he’s pushed for gun control unlike any of his predecessors, laying the groundwork for someone else to finish the job (though notably not Bernie Sanders). By all reasonable measures, Obama has been a relatively successful president.

Despite this, he continues to face criticism. Why? Because his actual term in office did not live up to the hype of his campaign. The sad reality is that idealism very rarely brings about long term changes, particularly in the court of public opinion. While American liberals are “feeling the Bern” now, it’s hardly likely that their blind passion will continue when faced with day to day politics. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, a President Sanders will inevitably face the same fate as President Obama.

“So what?” people say. “Bernie stands for something bigger than one election.”

Really?

To be sure, his campaign started out that way. A year ago, I could almost feel the Bern tickling at my political inclinations simply for hearing a refreshingly different voice. I could almost begin to believe that Bernie Sanders cared more about his ideals than winning an election. Here was a politician who cared about the issues under discussion rather than the politics of a single campaign.

Sadly, though Bernie supporters continue to insist otherwise, he has not been able to maintain this level of integrity. I don’t blame him. Politics is a nasty business, and it’s easy to resort to attack campaigns when the going gets tough. But what does this say about the kind of president he would be, if he can’t even uphold his main selling point throughout the primary season? If his issue oriented idealism can’t even make it through the road to candidacy, how could he ever hope to maintain it in office?

Nobody is denying that this election has shaken up the routine of American politics. For better or for worse, Bernie Sanders has ignited a fire in many hearts, and the need for change has blasted its way into the public consciousness. Now that the fire is lit, it is time for a seasoned and intelligent pragmatist to use the system for the good of those who are, justifiably, frustrated.

What continues to amaze me is the number of women who are so adamantly against Hillary Clinton. People seem to forget how revolutionary it would be to have a female president. If people want rhetoric, here it is: in a world that continues to be incredibly male dominated, putting a woman in the oval office would be an unprecedented step towards true gender equality.

I have to admire Clinton for largely avoiding this kind of rhetoric. If anyone has “stuck to the issues” in this campaign, it’s been her.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones season six and the fate of THAT character

Well, now I’ve finally caught up… it’s time to talk about Game of Thrones! Warning, this review will contain spoilers for season five of the television show, as well as book five in A Song of Ice and Fire, so if you haven’t gotten there yet, don’t read on! There will also be a section with spoilers for the first two episodes of season six, but I’ll flag it before we get there.

The debate over Jon Snow’s fate has raged for months now, as anyone who has been in contact with social media over the past few months knows. Furious arguments have been made for both sides, with Kit Harrington’s haircut and presence on set being used as supposed proof of his still being alive. Generally, I fell into the “dead is dead” camp, to echo D.B. Weiss’ words in the wake of the tragic onscreen death, despite the fact that I am certain he is alive in the books..

I came to this conclusion after a lot of thought, expending far more mental energy than one ought to expend on a fictional character in a fictional world. I knew the death was coming, yet my initial reaction was certainly one of heartbroken denial (why, Ollie, why???); however, I came to revise that prediction after a little bit of back and forth. While Kit Harrington’s presence on set and his refusal to cut a haircut he purportedly hates are certainly compelling evidence, I simply couldn’t bring myself to believe he was still alive.

Fuck you, Ollie.

 Perhaps this was just the pessimist in me. But with the actor and the show runners insisting so fervently to the contrary, how could the character be alive? With all the anticipation of the season, no manner of bringing Jon back to life could possibly live up to the hype. Furthermore, the show is beginning to branch out farther and farther on its own. This season consists entirely of new material that did not originate with George R.R. Martin’s novels. Showrunners David Benieoff and D.B. Weiss have big shoes to fill on this front. Given the relative certainty of Jon’s return, in one form or another, in the novels, killing him permanently on-screen seemed like the best way to boldly distinguish their adaptation as a unique entity.

I was open to the possibility of my being wrong, but expecting to be proved right. As far as I could tell, this was the smartest direction for the show to take.

Sunday night, we found out the truth…

SPOILERS AHEAD. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ THEM!!!!!

Seriously, stop reading.

Now.

Look, I’ll even leave you a massive gap in the page.

What happens from now on is your own doing.

Apparently I was wrong, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, I leapt for joy like everyone else as Kit Harrington took that frantic gasp and became more than just an on-set cadaver. Yet I had very good reasons for believing he would remain dead, and thought it would be the best thing, artistically, for the show, despite the pain.

I let out an exclamation of joy, just like everyone else.
But was this really a good idea?

To the credit of the writers, they seeded the idea of resurrection as far back as season three with Thoros of Myr’s resurrection of Beric Dondarrion. That Melisandre witnesses this, not to mention continued references to her otherworldly powers, mean that the eventual manner of Jon’s resurrection is not out of place in the show.

My worry is that just because they can do something does not mean they should. On some levels, this decision feels like a bit of a cop out. As I said, Jon’s death would have been an effective way for the show to distinguish itself from the books moving forwards. I think they might have missed an excellent opportunity, and I can’t help but wonder if, perhaps, they simply capitulated to common demand. The show’s writers had an opportunity to include the ultimate red herring while enforcing the brutality of their world.

That said, I do think the manner in which the resurrection was handled was pretty good. I can’t wait to see where they go with Jon, how the process changes him. How will he wrestle back control of the Night’s Watch and fight off the impending march of the White Walkers? People have often complained that Jon is not an interesting character, too close to the archetypal fantasy hero. While I have to agree with this, I have never thought it a bad thing. It is grounding for the viewer to have a character who is intrinsically good in a world with so much ambiguity. Jon’s coming of age story is relatable, and he provides someone we can constantly root for even as Tyrion, Arya, and Daenerys dabble in shades of grey.

Also he has great hair.

Basically, the writer inside me says the showrunners made a mistake while the fanboy inside me is crying tears of joy.

As for the rest of the season, I’m interested to see where Melisandre goes from here. What effects do all these events have on her? If Arya’s storyline stays true to the books, it’s sure to be a fun one. Where will Sansa go from here? Whose head will Robert Strong crush next? Can the writers salvage the Dornish clusterfuck they’ve set in motion?

I’m excited to see where this season goes. Do I think that reviving Jon Snow was the best decision? No. Do I think the writers can pull it off? I hope so. I’ll be sure to share some more of my thoughts as the season progresses, so stay tuned!

As always, thanks for reading J

Toppling Televisions and Falling Furniture: More Dangerous than Refugees

In the years since 9/11, Americans have been statistically as likely to be crushed to death by falling furniture as they are to be killed in terrorist attacks, yet we do not see constant news coverage on the subject of toppling televisions and falling furniture. There is a paranoia surrounding the threat of terrorism that other far more pressing issues do not receive.

Consider the horrendous attacks on Paris in November of last year. A total of 130 people were killed, sparking fear and paranoia, specifically involving the flood of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa. However, a Eurostat study suggests that nearly three times as many people die of cancer each day. While cancer certainly garners more public attention than falling televisions, it fails to rouse the same extreme level of paranoia as terrorism.

This stems, largely, from media coverage. Terrorist attacks are large scale events, specifically engineered to garner attention and inspire fear (hence the name). In the age of the internet and twenty-four hour news services, media outlets play right into the hands of the attackers, stoking the fires of fear with constant replays of panicked crowds, plumes of smoke, and, ironically, public officials urging people to remain calm.

For news organizations in the 21^st century, terrorism has become a commodity, paid for in the public’s fear. ISIS, the so called Islamic State, has dominated the news for the past two years, with the recent wave of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa comprising the latest act in the ongoing saga. The common fear originating from this coverage is that extremists are hiding among the refugees flooding across the European continent, waiting to obliterate us freedom-loving westerners. In Canada, people oppose providing asylum to refugees out of the belief that there is no way to screen these terrorists from the actual refugees.

This fear is understandable, given the media’s constant juxtaposition of images of war-torn Iraq and Syria with images of refugee camps in southern Europe. Without any other context, it is natural that the general population is afraid.

However, upon examination, this fear is rather absurd. Not only is Canada, of all places, hardly a major target for Jihadist extremism, the actual likelihood of any “terrorist” making it through the entrance process is negligible. The refugees being settled in Canada are not the young men that groups like ISIS tend to radicalize. The people being settled in Canada are families, women and children who are, arguably, the most innocent in the conflict. In addition, these individuals are forced to go through rigorous screening processes by the Canadian government and the United Nations camps from which they are being selected.

But what about Europe?

Certainly, Europe’s geographic location allows for easier access from the Middle-East, while the EU’s porous nature allows for easier travel within the continent. But the likelihood of terrorists entering the continent with the flow of refugees remains low to the point where it is practically nonexistent. Consider the fact that the suspects in the two major terror attacks to have occurred in Europe over the past year – first Paris, then Brussels – were exclusively born-and-raised Europeans. Are critics of resettlement efforts arguing that legitimate migrants and refugees should be left in horrific conditions because of Europe’s inability to contain the radicalization of its own citizens?

Many would argue that such conclusions are harsh and unfair. Those same people often argue that the west should not devote its attention to outside aid until internal problems (such as poverty) have been dealt with. Simply put, many opponents of resettlement argue that the refugee crisis is “not their problem.”

Unfortunately, this is blatantly untrue. For centuries, the west has meddled in the affairs of other countries and regions. Though the United States is arguably the greatest perpetrator of this meddling in the modern era, they have simply inherited a role previously held by imperial Europe. The rise of the Islamic State and other radical groups – and the resulting refugee crisis – can be traced directly to US-led mission to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. To be sure, the west cannot be blamed entirely for the turbulence in the region; many of its causes are deep rooted and ancient, resulting from a centuries of division. But for westerners to entirely wash their hands of blame is immature and dangerous.

Over the past year, the west has become increasingly closed to measures that might help resolve the increasingly dire refugee crisis. The fear created by attacks such as those in Paris and Brussels only serves to heighten this reluctance to act. Indeed, this fear results in mistreatment and closed mindedness towards those who are in genuine need of help.

Due to a recent agreement, the EU now holds the power to deport illegal migrants from Greece back over the border to Turkey in exchange for the resettlement of refugees residing in Turkey. In short, one refugee will be settled in Europe for every one that is kicked.

Aside from the fact that this deal unashamedly uses human lives as bartering chips, it simply does not offer Europe a realistic solution to the problem. Indeed, it fails to even function as it is supposed to. Just days after its implementation, there were reports that the deal had resulted in the wrongful deportation of several refugees seeking asylum in Greece. The quick failure of the deal would be comedic if the situation were not so dire.

The United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has called Syria the “most dangerous place to be a child;” the current situation in the Middle-East has resulted in the “biggest refugee and migration crisis since the Second World War.” The issue cannot be ignored. It is selfishness of the highest order that people in the west – both in North America and Europe – can argue for inaction. It is not melodramatic to suggest that this is “the world’s” problem, as it were; the west, including Canada, must take responsibility for the situation by acknowledging our role in the solution.

The fear of terrorist attacks continues to be a major holdback for many western citizens. This fear is misplaced, particularly given the homegrown nature of most terrorist cells. The statistical risk of terrorism is smaller than countless activities we do every day, while the horror faced by those seeking refuge is an everyday reality.

The Internal Monologue of a Frustrated Lifeguard

You. Yes, you, with the bottled blonde hair and the fake breasts. I’m sure that your new husband has something profoundly interesting to say, though you do seem paying more attention to his bare pecs than his words, and I understand that parenting 24 hours a day is hard. You’re seizing the time with your new meat while little Timmy is distracted by Frisbees and water guns, taking what moments of respite you can. I respect that, and I wish you whatever rest you can get.

However, I feel the need to inform you that little Timmy is, in fact, drowning.

Now, please don’t look at me like that. I know you’re trying to teach him independence. “That’s how they did it in my day,” you’re thinking. Difficulty what growing up is all about. Challenge builds character. Toss him in the deep end, let him figure the rest out, and he’ll be all the better for it.

Unfortunately, I can’t let that happen. While I’m all for challenging kids in their learning, there are limits. You see, at no point as he is learning to swim should little Timmy be thrashing about in the water like a seizure victim, screaming bloody murder like a death metal rocker. This behaviour does not mean he is learning to swim. Rather, it means he is drowning.

I see your expression has not changed. Very well. If the threat of your child dying in his sleep due to residual inhaled water in the lungs, perhaps I can appeal to your pragmatic side. You see, we are reaching a point where I am legally and ethically obliged to intervene. Not only do I wish to avoid the hassle of laundering my shirt, I imagine neither you nor I have any desire to spend time completing the paperwork involved with these sort of incidents. Your time, and mine, is valuable, best served on more useful activities. Please, don’t waste it.

Still the look of disgruntled disdain. I’m impressed at your ability to sneer so well with your head that far up your own ass. Can you not see the terror on little Timmy’s face?

No?

Fine, we’ll do it your way.

I suppose I could do with a swim.