Uncategorized

If you don’t know much about Andrew Yang, there might be a good reason for that. Despite being popular enough both in polls and donors to qualify for the next debate, he’s gotten little attention from mainstream media outlets.

According to Real Clear Politics, Yang has been mentioned on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC barely 1,000 times since January. Compare that with more than 63,000 mentions for Biden, 31,600 for Harris, 28,000 for Sanders, and 20,000 mentions of Warren. Even candidates who have by now dropped out of the race due to lack of support like Gillibrand (3,000 mentions) and Hickenlooper (1,450) have gotten more media coverage.

Why isn’t the media taking Yang seriously? Well, to start, he doesn’t have a background in politics. (He’s an entrepreneur and philathropist with a nonprofit dedicated to job creation.) Most outlets are similarly dismissive of Marianne Williamson’s campaign, although she doesn’t have the sort of grassroots support Yang does.

There’s also his unique platform of “human-centered capitalism,” which includes giving every American a “freedom dividend” of $1,000 a month.

To many, that will definitely seem unrealistic or overly simplistic. But it’s not without precedent. Finland just recently ended a two-year experiment with universal basic income. Modesto, California has launched their own experiment, giving $500 a month to a select group of residents. Alaska has had state-wide universal income for years, with the amount fluctuating based on oil prices.

Other candidates, like Pete Buttigieg, have said they’re open to exploring the idea. In her 2017 memoir What Happened, Hillary Clinton revealed that she was considering introducing UBI into her campaign platform. At the time, she and her staff “decided it was exciting but not realistic,” although in the book, she expresses regret for not having “thrown caution to the wind and embraced ‘Alaska for America’ as a long-term goal and figured out the details later.”

So Yang’s plan isn’t that crazy and it could be an incredible trickle-up economic stimulus. It also seems to be a major driving force behind the most troubling part of Yang’s campaign: his huge number of alt-right supporters. Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin, the Daily Stormer’s publisher, are two of his most prominent white nationalist supporters but they are far from the only ones.

Yang has disavowed those particular supporters, saying they are “antithetical to everything I stand for,” but that hasn’t stopped them from being vocal with their support. (He’s also appeared on Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogen’s podcasts this year, so he doesn’t seem to be working too hard to distance himself from those groups.)

So what’s behind the far-right support? For many, it appears that they view Yang as a natural successor to Trump, who ran on a promise that he would improve the lives of (white) Americans by building a border wall and bringing back all their jobs, either from their current overseas locations or by reviving dying industries. Many see Trump as having let them down, but for those who were so focused on what Trump’s election would do for them personally, $1000 might seem like a fine consolation prize. Couple that with a major political outsider with fringe ideas and there’s a sense that Yang’s presence in the race and at the debates is destabilizing to the Democratic Party.

Richard Spencer tweeted earlier this year that “Trumpism was the fantasy that America can be we saved. Yangism is the awareness that it can’t.”

Understanding Yang Gang:

1. The country is doomed
2. The rules don’t matter
3. We might as well get $1,000 a month

— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) March 13, 2019

Yang’s supporters (the #YangGang) are not all white supremacist 8channers, of course (and they’re not all driven by selfishness and nihilism), but they are, in general, Extremely Online.

A New York Times profile from earlier this year writes that Yang’s following “reflects the fractured nature of the modern internet. It has attracted economic wonks, tech-skeptic progressives, right-wing bigots, members of the so-called intellectual dark web and an assortment of half-serious trolls. (At times, watching the Yang Gang at work can feel like the political equivalent of the “Boaty McBoatface” episode — a group of bored internet mischief makers seeing how far they can push a joke.)”

The other thing about the Yang Gang is that they are incredibly devoted. They also express that devotion in very vocal, visible ways–with memes and videos–so the #YangGang’s online presence is hard to ignore.

The mainstream media, on the other hand, hasn’t been paying nearly as much attention to Yang. Yesterday, the Yang Gang got #YangMediaBlackout trending as a way to criticize the lack of media coverage.

#YangMediaBlackout Notice someone missing from this @HuffPost Banner? This is so incredibly unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/ED1JlukJV8

— Econ Major (@RS2BM) August 29, 2019

His name is Andrew Yang. #YangMediaBlackout #GoogleAndrewYang #YangGang pic.twitter.com/8X6H3BN56z

— Basic Income UN (@BasicIncomeUN) August 29, 2019

They’re especially angry at a CNN graphic that chose to feature Beto O’Rourke as a top-polling candidate, leaving off Yang, who has been polling higher than Beto.

The media blackout of Yang is dangerous to our democracy. They’re actively picking favorites and the #YangGang isn’t going to stand for it. #YangMediaBlackout pic.twitter.com/8niO28lKz4

— TeensforYang (@TeensforYang) August 29, 2019

I understand why the big media companies might be confused or put off by Yang. He’s a political outsider with an unusual campaign platform and a large number of alt-right followers, whose numbers are quickly growing. (He’s at 3% in some polls, up from 1% just earlier this month.)

I’m not saying anyone has to support Yang if they don’t connect with his ideas. But all of that sounds a whole lot like another candidate the media didn’t take seriously for far too long and, well, look how that turned out.

(image: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

Ever think of Marvel and think, “Huh, you know how they can be apolitical? By using Captain America, the super-soldier who punches Nazis”? No? Well, good for you! You’d be in the majority. It seems, however, that Marvel is trying to take a neutral stance and thinks that their Nazi-fighting good boy from Brooklyn is the way to do it—truly, a mistake.

In a new comic meant to honor the publisher’s history, Marvel Comics #1000 contained an essay by comics writer Mark Waid that talked about the state of America and what it means for a symbol like Captain America. The problem is that the essay was dropped from the issue, replaced by one less critical of America, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter based on early versions sent to retailers, with the final retail version on sale tomorrow.

(Waid has since told Newsarama, “The only comment I’ll offer is that the abridged version that’s being circulated by news outlets severely mischaracterizes what was actually written,” so we’ll certainly be interested to see the final version of the essay. You can already read the original in full.)

Here’s the thing: Captain America never has been and never will be apolitical. Sorry! Jack Kirby and Joe Simon literally made Captain America as a symbol for resistance against bigotry, racism, and hatred, so … he’s not apolitical in nature. As io9 points out, this isn’t the first time that Marvel has censored a writer to remain an apolitical body.

The situation with the Marvel Comics #1000 essay appears to be another example of Marvel Comics censoring its creators in an attempt to be apolitical, to the detriment of the company and its audience. You may recall EiC Cebulski going on record on the subject almost one year to the day: “We can’t get too deep into the politics,” he said of Marvel storylines.

(This is all also strikingly similar to another recent incident.)

What’s funny about the idea of not going “too deep into the politics” is that Captain America: Civil War is a real movie based on a real comic run that exists and is, if you recall, very political in its themes of security vs. freedom, especially in the 2006-7 timeframe it was released.

What’s interesting about this “apolitical” approach is that it’s happening now, after both Jack Kirby and Stan Lee are dead. These two created these characters with a message, tackling the issues in the world around them through heroes and their approach to a situation. Take away Captain America fighting against the injustice in America, and what do you have? A kid from Brooklyn who wants to punch things.

If you put Captain America in this current political landscape—as you should, because that’s why he was created—he’d hate that Nazis were being “protected” because of their right to free speech, and I’m pretty sure that Steve Rogers would march his American Ass to the White House and have a few words with Donald Trump over how he treats women, people of color, and anyone who isn’t rich and white.

So, while Marvel seems to think an apolitical approach is best, that’s definitely not the case. You have heroes who have political backgrounds who take a stand against injustice, and trying to turn them into something that is “apolitical” is a disservice to the characters and their creators.

(via io9, image: Marvel Entertainment)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

Fans of Disney Parks are some of the most loyal and patient in all of pop culture fandom. But even our patience is wearing thin when it comes to waiting for news of Disney’s much needed update for one of both Disneyland and Walt Disney World’s signature lands—Tomorrowland.

With this most recent D23 Expo, rumors were swirling that we would finally get news of a new Tomorrowland coming to the U.S. theme parks, specifically to Disneyland. But just as we were in 2015 and 2017, fans were left very disappointed as nothing was revealed. Those hoping for the announcement that even just the TRON Lightcycle Power Run coaster would be coming to Anaheim were left with zilch, yet again.

Walt Disney Company

Disneyland in particular desperately needs a new Tomorrowland, one with the same thought put into it as that of the the recently opened Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge. But before we get into how Tomorrowland can and must be fixed, we must explain its complicated history going back to Walt Disney’s era. Because in a way, Tomorrowland has been an issue since day one.

The History of Tomorrowland

Walt Disney Company

Tomorrowland was one of Walt Disney’s original lands when Disneyland opened in 1955. But the Tomorrowland of opening day was far different than what would appear in later years. The other lands from opening day have remained more or less the same aesthetically, as they represent the past. But Tomorrowland is meant to represent the future. And as Yoda once said “always in motion is the future.”

The 1955 Tomorrowland was mostly made up of pavilions showing off future technologies by a variety of corporate sponsors, and things like the House of the Future. By 1959, the Submarine Voyage was added, along with the Tomorrowland Monorail. But just a decade later, the land was already dated and needed an update.

The First “New Tomorrowland”

Walt Disney Company

In 1967, the new Tomorrowland opened. New innovative attractions were added like the dark ride “Journey Through Inner Space,” and the Rocket Jets were given a NASA/Apollo mission-style makeover. Going through the entire land was the People Mover, which allowed guests to wind their way through area at a leisurely pace. The entire land was given a very ’60s design aesthetic, which evoked the art of futurist artist Syd Mead. A decade later, Tomorrowland was given its signature attraction: Space Mountain. This era is considered “peak” Tomorrowland by most fans.

As the ’80s rolled around, a few key new attractions were added to the land, primarily Star Tours, and the 3D movie experience Captain EO. But in the era of Space Shuttles, the rocket jets were hopelessly dated (although still fun). So was the Submarine Voyage, and Mission to Mars. Even by that time, park guests were jokingly referring to the area as “Yesterdayland.”

 Tomorrowland ’98

Walt Disney Company

In 1998, Disney decided it was finally time to give Tomorrowland a proper update. Although ambitious plans for a Tomorrowland 2055 were considered, what fans ultimately got was less than thrilling. Realizing that the land constantly becoming dated was a problem, they sought to solve this issue by evoking Disneyland Paris’ Discoveryland. There, a Jules Verne-esque steampunk vision of the future was in play. This was a good idea on its surface. But instead of knocking down the old Tomorrowland and starting over with that theme, a far less innovative—and likely cheaper—idea was put forward.

Walt Disney Company

A sort of steampunk layover would happen on the existing buildings, along with a new brown and gold paint job. But it was a mismatch from the word go. All the 60s looking buildings simply didn’t go with the new retro-future looking rides like the Astro Orbiter. The old People Mover was replaced with a “high-speed” ride called the Rocket Rods. Captain EO was replaced with a new show called “Honey I Shrunk the Audience,” while the Submarine Voyage was closed, leaving a big empty lagoon. Only Space Mountain and Star Tours remained.

Within a year, there were problems. The Rocket Rods had to close down, because the old People Mover tracks weren’t built for a high speed ride and had begun to crack. Innoventions used the old Carousel of Progress building to show off new tech. But with an Apple store in every mall, this hardly drew in any crowds. And just about everyone hated the brown and gold hued Space Mountain. Tomorrowland ’98 was a cheap and ugly mish-mash, with a lack of a cohesive theme. Eventually, the old color scheme slowly crept back in, and now only a few vestiges of the ’98 re-do remain.

Yesterdayland

Walt Disney Company

Today, Tomorrowland in Disneyland is the park’s biggest eyesore. Magic Kingdom’s is better, but not by much. Tomorrowland seems totally beneath Disney’s impeccable standards of theming. The old People Mover tracks still stand there, rotting away—a constant visual reminder of when the land was thriving.  Similarly, the old Rocket Jets loading area stands empty. Autopia is more outdated than ever. If kids want to experience a cool car themed ride, there’s Cars Land across the way in California Adventure. Innoventions, now Star Wars Launch Bay, feels like a huge waste of real estate. The Finding Nemo update to the Submarine Voyage was an improvement, but not a big enough one.  In modern slang, it’s what one would refer to as a hot mess.

How To Save The Future

Walt Disney Company

For Tomorrowland in Disneyland to thrive, it must let go of the past. Of course, Space Mountain is too iconic and beloved to remove. But everything else has got to go in order for a new and vibrant and actually futuristic land to take shape. Which means that yes, almost the entire land as it now has got to be bulldozed. Things like the People Mover tracks and the old Rocket Jets platform only serve to remind guests of a much greater land that is now gone.

But what to put in its place? The first obvious answer is the Anaheim version of TRON Lightcycle Power Run Coaster. This has been a huge hit in Shanghai Disneyland, and is being constructed for Walt Disney World now. It’s high time one of these was announced for Disneyland as well. Next to Space Mountain, these attractions could anchor the new land. It is a large enough ride to take over the space currently occupied by Innoventions, the Submarine Voyage and Autopia, but it’s worth it.

Walt Disney Company

And as much as I love it, Star Tours has to go, too. If needed, it could always move to Galaxy’s Edge. But both the old Adventure Through Inner Space and Circe Vision buildings from 1967 have served their purpose. Whatever takes their place has to be new and exciting. We know Walt Disney Imagineering has got it in them to create an amazing looking new Tomorrowland. The version we see know in Shanghai Disneyland is a testament to that. There is so much amazing new technology that Imagineering could incorporate to create mind-blowing attractions. And the advancements in LED lighting could make for a land that comes alive at night like never before.

Walt Disney Company

One can’t help but wonder if the 2014 Brad Bird film Tomorrowland had been a hit, if we’d  be celebrating the rebirth of this land right now. But a new Tomorrowland shouldn’t depend on whether its name branded IP clicked or not. Here’s hoping that by the next D23 Expo, Disney finally gives fans what they want. And that Disneyland’s 70th anniversary is celebrated with the all-new world of the future we deserve.

Header Image: Walt Disney Company

The post Why a New Tomorrowland is Long Overdue at Disneyland appeared first on Nerdist.

Although fans have been shipping characters together since the Star Trek franchise began, one popular same-sex relationship almost saw canon representation onscreen. This is the story of Julian Bashir and Elim Garak—the gay relationship on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that never was.

For more than 50 years, the Star Trek franchise has stood as a landmark for diversity when it comes to television. The Original Series saw women in a position of authority, a Japanese helmsman, a sympathetic Russian character during the red scare, and one of the first interracial kisses in television history. Later series like Deep Space Nine and Voyager respectively introduced a black man and a woman as captains—which broke even more new ground.

To many fans, one of the major draws of Star Trek has always been its willingness to champion diversity and boldly go where other shows cowered away. However, in terms of diversity and representation, there is one glaring area in which, until very recently, Star Trek has lacked: sexuality.

Fans have been vocal about the distinct lack of LGBTQ+ representation in Star Trek since as early as The Next Generation. One episode, which would act as an allegory to the AIDS crisis, was notoriously scrapped after producer Rick Berman opposed the concept—not wanting to touch on such a “risqué” idea that could offend the sensibilities of viewing audiences. But it didn’t end there. In fact, it wasn’t until 2017—51 years after Star Trek first began—that Star Trek introduced a canonical romantic relationship between two characters of the same sex.

However, in another world, this might not have been the case.

It all began with the introduction of Elim Garak who, by all accounts, was supposed to be a one-off character. A mysterious Cardassian tailor living aboard Deep Space Nine, Garak was supposed to show up; make conversation with the station’s doctor, Julian Bashir, to help move the plot along; and then bow out—never to be seen again. But when the writers of Deep Space Nine saw actor Andrew Robinson bringing Garak to life, they knew they had the makings of a great character on their hands.

So, thankfully, they decided to keep him around. Over the course of Deep Space Nine’s run, Garak made thirty-three appearances and is generally regarded as one of the most interesting and complex characters that Star Trek has ever produced. However, fans weren’t just drawn to Garak because of his charismatic personality—many viewers seemed to have picked up on a certain chemistry between Garak and the aforementioned Doctor Bashir.

Bashir, the other half of the relationship, was initially planned to be the show’s “ladies’ man.” Constantly chasing after a different woman every week, Bashir was a young, handsome, intelligent doctor with a passion for his work and an inability to understand when he was being rejected. So, when the writers decided to give Bashir the expositional scenes with Garak, I can’t imagine that they could have predicted what would happen next.

Almost immediately, fans picked up on the sparks that flew between Bashir and Garak during their introduction. In Andrew Robinson’s own words, when Garak first sees Bashir, he describes the look on his face as “wanting to eat him.” The tension is palpable. Garak is knowing, mysterious, and seems to be playing with the young doctor. Bashir looks flustered and innocent—unsure of how to respond to the thinly veiled advances from this mysterious Cardassian.

However, the scene ends, and the plot moves forward. But for Garak and Bashir, the story doesn’t end there. The duo begins having daily lunches together, engaging in frequent arguments over literature. To those unfamiliar with Deep Space Nine, this might seem like friendly banter, if not for the fact that a few seasons later, the show goes to the effort of explicitly explaining that for Cardassians, arguing is akin to mating behavior.

Episode after episode of lunch dates and playful banter finally came to a head in the season two episode “The Wire.” In it, Bashir supports Garak through a painful withdrawal and helps him cure a crippling addiction to painkillers. The entirety of the episode is dedicated to the relationship between the two of them, and Bashir spends hours at Garak’s bedside, standing vigil even when Garak is unconscious.

For fans of the relationship, it seemed like things couldn’t get any better. After all, such an emotionally charged episode could only naturally progress into the duo solidifying their relationship, right? Wrong. Mysteriously, after “The Wire” aired, the two began to have fewer and fewer scenes together. Out of the blue, a beautiful young Cardassian woman named Ziyal was written in as a love interest for Garak, and Bashir suddenly struck up a close friendship with Chief Engineer Miles O’Brien.

To some viewers, the characters seemed to have just drifted apart, but over the years, the cast and crew of the show have made it clear that this wasn’t the case. Interviews over the years at various cons have brought to light the fact that executive producer Rick Berman (the same producer who canned the TNG AIDS episode) told Deep Space Nine’s writers to stop giving Garak and Bashir scenes together. Andrew Robinson was reportedly told to “tone down” his portrayal.

In Robinson’s own words during an Amazon.com interview, “I started out playing Garak as someone who doesn’t have a defined sexuality. He’s not gay, he’s not straight, it’s a non-issue for him. Basically, his sexuality is inclusive. But—it’s Star Trek and there were a couple of things working against that. Originally … I loved the man’s absolute fearlessness about presenting himself to an attractive Human being. The fact that the attractive Human being is a man (Bashir) doesn’t make any difference to him. For the most part, the writers supported the character beautifully, but in that area, they just made a choice they didn’t want to go there, and if they don’t want to go there I can’t, because the writing doesn’t support it.”

In the recent Deep Space Nine documentary What We Left Behind, showrunner/executive producer Ira Steven Behr admitted that he felt that Deep Space Nine should have pursued Garak and Bashir’s relationship after “The Wire” and let their narrative run its course. While the pair may not be Star Trek’s first canonical gay relationship, they will always be remembered as the romance that could have been.

(image: CBS)

Lauren Coates is a film and Chicago-based student with a weakness for junk food, a passion for film & television, and a constant yearning to be at Disney World. You can find her on Twitter @laurenjcoates and read more of her work on Culturess.

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—