Omar God!

Antisemitism’s a complicated form of bigotry. I say that because, more than others, it relies on complete, and lacking, power and influence. Jews, according to Antisemitism, are both super wealthy and incredibly poor. They control everything, and they control nothing. They’re part of the system, yet they’re also outsiders. Even minorities, who paint Jews as “white privilege”, still can’t comprehend white privilege rejecting Jewishness regularly.

Antisemitism also mutates to meet the flavour of the day: 1000 years ago, Jews were “Christ killers”. 500 years ago, they were “greedy merchants”. 100 years ago, they were “outsiders”. Less than 100 years ago, they were “parasites out to corrupt the Aryan race”. And now, they’re “colonialists in a foreign land”, except they’re referred to as “Zionists”.

This past month, a bill was introduced in American politics to combat the influence of BDS. I don’t think you need me to repeat my stance on BDS, but the bill was passed almost unanimously. It went through The GOP ranks without question, and only 6 Democrats were opposed in The Senate to it. Considering that Democrats and Republicans are known enemies, this is huge!

The bill has also seen its share of Antisemitic backlash. In particular, AIPAC, a committee whose purpose is to improve Israeli standings in The US, has been slammed as being “the puppet-master”. That alone would be cause for concern, AIPAC isn’t as influential as people claim, but what bothers me is how American critics have been handling this bill. In particular, one politician is becoming a household name due to her off-colour and tone-deaf remarks: Minnesotan Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. This isn’t the first time Omar’s made questionable comments, but it’s the first time that one has blown up in her face.

A Jewish journalist named of Glenn Greenwald openly commented on the American fascination with Israel, to which Omar, ever shrewd, responded with a “Benjamins” reference. When asked by another Jewish reporter, Batya Ungar-Sargon, to elaborate, Omar responded with “AIPAC!”. Of course, this prompted politicians from both sides of the aisle to express disappointment, but it wasn’t until House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a well-known Democrat, publicly shamed Omar that she recanted. I like her redaction quite a bit, it sounded sincere and was phrased well, but I didn’t realize until later that she opened her mouth again and praised a Jewish activist for defending her initial position.

Politicians gonna politish, amirite?

I’m not a fan of politicians in general, as I find that even the most-sincere of them still have to be kept in-check. They are, after all, working for us, and it’s really easy for them to forget that. So whenever one of them slips up, it’s not unexpected. Especially when their slip-ups cause serious ramifications.

I’m definitely disappointed in Congresswoman Omar. I know she already gets a lot of undue backlash because of her background, backlash that’s completely-unwarranted, but like Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, with whom Omar shares her Muslim faith, I try to focus on her policies and actions. Sadly, the issues of Israel and Antisemitism, already hot-button topics in progressive circles, occasionally surface with Omar and Tlaib anyway, since they’ve made it clear where they stand. Given that Tlaib has used the “dual loyalties” card when it comes to American Jews, I was wondering, half-afraid, when Omar would one-up her.

My issue with this mess is that, despite it never being a good time for Antisemitism, her underlying issue is one I sympathize with. The influence of lobbies in The US can’t be overstated. It’s an influence that even my Grade 12 Ethics teacher, a centre-right libertarian, had openly brought up in high school. Considering the decay of politics in 11 years, no doubt a result of the backlash Obama received for being president, it should be no surprise that the lobby influence in The US has gotten worse. Whether it be The NRA, Wall Street or The Tea Party, lobbies have money to spend, and they’re incredibly strategic in how they spend it.

What does this have to do with AIPAC? In many people’s eyes, AIPAC’s part of the problem. And I sympathize to an extent, I’m not a fan of AIPAC either, but there are several misconceptions that need debunking, too. For one, AIPAC’s a committee. They might have influence in politics, but, as Lahav Harkov has pointed out, they’re legally not allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians. At best, their biggest crime is inviting people to speak at their events, followed by angry letters when these individuals let them down.

Which leads to misconception number two: their foreign influence. Ignoring Sheldon Adelson and George Soros, because they’re not even relevant here, AIPAC isn’t allowed to take foreign money from Israel. They also, on that note, aren’t allowed to give to Israeli causes. Their influence is strictly limited to American affairs. They can express disappointment in how Israel’s perceived, but that’s about it.

Misconception number three, therefore, involves who the real financial backers in Israeli affairs are: Evangelist Christians. That’s not to say wealthy Jews don’t partake somewhat, but most are wealthy Christians who believe it’s their duty to back Israel because “the end of days”. That VICE even did a documentary on this a few years back should be a tip-off, but it bears repeating: Christians, in many ways, care more about Israel than many Jews, which is surprising. I’d add that it’s also impressive, but their motives are pretty misleading.

I say this all because it not only contextualizes the extent of AIPAC’s power, it also re-contextualizes Omar’s initial complaint. Because calling AIPAC a boogeyman is a classic, Antisemitic trope on-par with representing Africans as monkeys. Jews were frequently scapegoated via their financial power in Medieval Europe, and that’s carried to today; after all, why blame the European bourgeoise when Jews, who were often in the courts, could suit the oppressed people perfectly? It’s not as though blood libels and expulsions weren’t partly-motivated by money and influence!

This is why Jews were so mad at Omar: even ignoring her clarified response about lobby interests, which she later crapped on, her claim about AIPAC holding “the Benjamins” leans heavily into that trope. She may not have “intended” it that way, which I find dubious given her education, but it still comes off that way to left-leaning Antisemites. That’s what makes dogwhistles dangerous, as it doesn’t matter the intent. All that matters is the perception.

I probably wouldn’t be so flummoxed if progressives understood this. Yes, the right is awful and Antisemitic too. Yes, their condemnation of Ilhan Omar is hypocritical, especially since Steve King and Donald Trump are represented in The GOP. But no, that doesn’t mean Antisemitism and other forms of bigotry don’t exist in liberal circles. Because they do, and not acknowledging that’s incredibly unhelpful because bigotry isn’t a contest.

I’d be more content, possibly, if Ilhan Omar weren’t an educated Democrat. But she is, and she’s representing the people of Minnesota. If this is how a newly-elected official is going to behave, then I’m not sure I want her in politics. But I don’t know who I’d want to replace her, either, which makes it tough.

Lastly, I urge my fellow progressives to stop and reflect more about this behaviour. I get that Israel’s a difficult topic, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be. But Ilhan Omar’s no saint. And if my Block-List on Twitter includes more liberals than conservatives because of nonsense like this, then what does that say about politics in general?

AHHH, Real Monsters!

In 1876, German composer Richard Wagner introduced the public to Der Ring des Nibelungen, a tale about female Viking warriors called The Valkyries. In it, the sisters of Brünnhilde take dead warriors to the Afterlife, or Valhalla, on a ride set to the opera’s most-famous piece of music, Ritt der Walküren. Despite Wagner later regretting the public affection of his work, his opera, in particular Ritt der Walküren, proved to have long legs, becoming the inspiration for various movies, shows and parodies in the decades that’ve followed. You’ve probably heard this piece of music under its English name, The Ride of the Valkyries, and it’s incredibly easy to hunt down on YouTube. I know I’ve listened to it myself, and I’m unashamed to call it one of my favourite pieces of music.

I mention this because Richard Wagner was a member of The League of Antisemites, an organization started by Wilhelm Marr. Wagner’s disdain for Jews was such an open-secret that Adolf Hitler considered his work an inspiration and would reference it frequently in his speeches. Considering that I’m Jewish, and should oppose all Nazi-inspired art, how can I consider The Ride of the Valkyries one of my favourite pieces of music? The answer, against all better judgement, is simple: it’s well-composed. It’s so well-composed, in fact, that I’d be remiss to discard it despite knowing who Richard Wagner was.

This past year-and-a-half has seen a drastic rethinking of consent and predatory behaviour, thanks to Harvey Weinstein and the influence of Me Too. The way in which we’ve collectively responded to predatory behaviour from influential people has caused a rethinking of the art that these predators have had a hand in. This has also led to discarding said works and re-evaluating their legacies. I’m not one to deny this outright, I’m guilty of it too, but I also think that it’s slightly wrong to engage in this form of erasure.

See, art is, and I hate this word, problematic. It’s problematic because it’s human, and, therefore, prone to the flaws of those making it. But it’s also problematic because it’s often collaborative, and, therefore, the end-result of circumstances the consumer has no control over. That our favourite works of art were created, or partly-created, by awful people isn’t surprising, but expected. And trying to erase the impact that predatory people have had in art removes not only their potentially-positive contributions, but is incredibly-dishonest. If history is anything to go with, bad people should be learned from, not ignored.

I understand that this is hard to do; after all, these people have hurt us. They’ve wronged us. They’ve set a bad precedent by suppressing the talent of individuals whose voices we may never get to know. That’s a tragedy, and it’s only natural to want to erase them. If they had to cheat to get successful, why bother feeding that success?

I’ve been struggling with this dilemma for years. It began when Mel Gibson directed The Passion of the Christ, followed by his DUI and Antisemitic rant a few years later. In the years following that, I’ve consistently struggled with comprehending how talented people can be so awful, as well as how to deal with their legacies. How can I enjoy Chicken Run, one of my favourite animated films, when Gibson voiced Rocky the Rooster? Am I crazy?

In recent years, however, this has only gotten worse as more of my favourite artists have been outed as awful: JK Rowling? She’s a TERF who’s actively pissing on the goodwill of her fans. John Lasseter? He’s a horny creep who made working at Pixar toxic for women. R. Kelly? He may have sung “I Believe I Can Fly”, but his underaged romancing isn’t a secret. And then there’s Vic Mignogna or Todd Haberkorn, VAs who’ve come under fire for their predatory behaviour towards fans.

This is all upsetting, and it’s not going away anytime soon. If anything, it’ll only get worse as more artists are unearthed as awful people. And that’ll also mean that their legacies will be re-examined, which, for many people, victims included, will take the shape of erasure. Sympathetically-motivated erasure, but erasure nonetheless.

Unfortunately, this’ll also downplay history. Like Wagner and The Ride of the Valkyries, the impact of these artists is everywhere: Rowling helped pioneer a renewed interest in children’s literature in the late-90’s and early-2000’s. Lasseter was responsible for significant advances in CGI, even directing the first, fully-computer generated film in 1995. R. Kelly helped make Space Jam big in the late-90’s, and his music is incredibly-memorable still. And Mignogna and Haberkorn have helped shaped anime dubbing in North America with their contributions to voice acting in the Texas and LA scenes.

Even if these are all people not deserving of respect, that doesn’t make their contributions any less-impactful. I know that Rowling, Lasseter, R. Kelly, Mignogna and Haberkorn were all influential in shaping my childhood, teenage-hood and adulthood, even if I now know who they really are. It’s shocking, and it’s frustrating, which is why the only way to fix that is to go back in time and change my tastes in art. But since time machines don’t exist yet, and the ripple effect of changing the past would be negative, I have to live with that not happening.

Besides, we should be using these individuals as people to learn from, not erase. Rowling’s awful? Okay, that should be a wake-up call to aspiring writers. Lasseter’s also awful? Okay, that should be a wake-up call to aspiring animators. R. Kelly’s awful too? Okay, that should be a wake-up call to aspiring musicians. Even Mignogna and Haberkorn being awful, while disappointing and upsetting, should be a wake-up call to aspiring voice actors.

I also don’t think we should be giving posthumous wins to awful people by letting their legacies get to us. Should we downplay their victims’ pain? Of course not! But pretending that they never existed loses the lessons they offer to history, and I think that that’s a crime.

Finally, I’d like to share something personal: when I was about 11 years-old, Teletoon started airing old Warner Bros. shorts through The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show. They were all smart and funny, but one stood-out in particular: “What’s Opera, Doc?”. In it, Bugs Bunny tries outwitting Viking Elmer Fudd and loses, with the entire short set to, you guessed it, Wagner’s famous opera. It was funny, sad, and-most importantly-clever, despite its music. Even after finding out that Wagner was Antisemitic, I was upset because the short had made such a lasting impact. And isn’t that what matters most?

GhostBLEHsters!

I’m not the biggest Ghostbusters fan. I think the first film is overrated, and I have no interest in the sequel or cartoons. I saw the reboot that came out a few years ago, and I thought it was harmlessly-enjoyable. So when Jason Reitman, Ivan Reitman’s son, announced that he was working on an in-continuity sequel for a 2020 release, my initial thought was “I’m tired”. I still hold that now.

Some of you won’t get why I’m writing about something that doesn’t enthral me, but this is part-penance for my thoughts a few years back. Prior to the reboot’s release, I wrote a blog discussing my thoughts on its trailers. They were pretty mediocre, but it bugged me how people were using them as a springboard for both bigotry and white knighting. Looking back, I not only wasn’t fair to an overall decent-yet-forgettable experience, I also underestimated the toxicity of nerd-dom. Keep in mind that this was also following the arrival of Gamergate and before the 2016 election.

So why am I tired? The obvious answer, like with Ready Player One, Avatar, the newer Star Wars films and The MCU, is that people can’t stop giving their unoriginal hot-takes about something not worth it, and it’s draining. Yet, unlike the aforementioned, I don’t care about Ghostbusters as a franchise. The original movie, essentially, was lightning in a bottle and a by-product of 80’s era Reaganomics, full-stop. Trying it again, especially with what we know about Reagan’s legacy, is bound to fail. Yet since the internet refuses to let it die, I guess I can’t either.

Let’s start with the original movie: the film follows three, washed-up scientists, as well as their token, black tag-along, as they conduct illegal and highly-dangerous ghost-hunting. Along the way, they cause insane amounts of property damage, argue with an EPA member and accidentally come face-to-face with an ancient, apocalyptic prophecy. Also, something-something-Zuul-something-something-don’t-cross-the-streams. If it sounds like I’m underselling one of the biggest hits of 1984, I’m not doing it intentionally. The movie, as I said before, doesn’t interest me, even if there’s nothing wrong with it.

What bugs me is how revered it is. Wish-fulfillment fantasies aren’t necessarily evil, I’m a fan of superheroes, but Ghostbusters, like The Matrix, has become an icon of MRA incels. Simply look at the comments on the trailer for the reboot and compare them to the those on the teaser for the newest movie. The levels of toxicity are so high that you’d need to cross the streams to purge them from your mind.

Which begs the question of “why?”. Why’s this a big deal? Why does it matter if we get an in-continuity sequel, especially when the last one wasn’t well-received at the time? Why’s the rebooted film so widely-despised, when there are better targets to direct your bile? And why, all these years later, is talking about the reboot still “asking for trouble” from people who haven’t moved on?

I no longer care if the 2016 film “was awful”, or if it “tanked financially”. It’s a red herring in the overall discourse. Even if it “wasn’t great”, does it really matter when little girls were connecting to it on a personal level? Why should they be robbed of that? Have we really sunk that low?

I’m tired of arguing my way around the hot-takes, and I’m tired of explaining why these hot-takes are irrelevant. Like the internet’s thoughts on Avatar, I’m not interested in why you didn’t like this movie. It’s boring, and, honestly, I’m far more interested in hearing why you liked it instead. Arguing against the grain is far more intriguing to me.

But even outside of that, the 180-flip over the latest film in the franchise, simply because it’s canon, actually tires me out more. Does this mean I want it to fail? Of course not! But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the internet doesn’t deserve it, either. Because I don’t think they do.

I recognize that I’m generalizing ever-so-slightly, and that some people didn’t like the 2016 reboot for legitimate reasons. For that, I apologize. Even ignoring its strengths, the reboot had inconsistent jokes and story-threads that led to an unearned climax in the third-act. If that turned you off, I sympathize. This is also not directed at you.

But for everyone else, know that the levels of ire actually concern me. They concern me because they’re wasteful, and they concern me because they over-romanticize a franchise that peaked qualitatively with its first entry. They also concern me because they re-enforce a toxic stereotype that nerds are “whiney, irredeemable man-children who live in their parents’ basements”. It’s bad enough that real-world issues are already a dumpster fire, I don’t need that in my entertainment as well. But it’s there, and that makes me sad.

Despite anything else I could possibly say, I think it’s time we recognize, collectively, that whether or not a film franchise is worth talking about is subjective and not worth getting mad over. That doesn’t mean there aren’t aspects of filmmaking that can’t be objective, like the quality of craft, but the enjoyability component will vary from-person-to-person. Besides, if critically-panned movies like Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice can retain loyal and passionate fans, some of whom like them for legitimate reasons, then why can’t the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters be the same? And why does the new film “prove” that the aforementioned movie was “trash”?

Something to think about.