Democratic gubernatorial  candidates talk guns, education, and the economy in Wyoming forum

By Benjamin Brewster ; 26 February, 2018

          WYOMING, Mich. — Gun violence was the hot topic of discussion Saturday, as the four leading candidates for the state’s Democratic gubernatorial nomination participated in a wide-ranging forum in Wyoming, Michigan, near the Grand Rapids city limit. The candidates also discussed labor laws, health care, education and the environment during the event, held at the Teamsters Local 406 and organized by the Michigan’s Third Democratic Congressional District Democrats (CD3 Democrats).

 The forum was attended by four candidates - former state Senate Democratic Leader and current frontrunner Gretchen Whitmer, former Executive Director of the Detroit Health Department Abdul El-Sayed, U of M graduate and former small business owner Shri Thanedar, and Bill Cobbs, ex-global Vice President of the Xerox Corporation. The forum included six questions, submitted by local-residents and selected by CD3 officials, and the candidates were each given two minutes to give their answers.

 Having been held only ten days after a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida left 17 dead, and amidst a nationwide discussion about where gun rights and gun safety collide, the forum’s organizers made gun rights and gun safety one of the events top priorities. Each candidate took their full two minutes to sound off on the issue, and to propose change and action through their respective policies. The exchanges served also to highlight the various similarities and differences existing within the candidate’s current campaigns.

 “I believe wholeheartedly in responsible gun ownership,” said Cobb. “We shouldn’t be giving people the right to have guns, while holding them to a lesser standard than we do in this country for a driver’s license.” He went on to say that, as governor, he would “be much more mindful about the health and welfare of our citizens, and if that means that we have to infringe on somebody’s second amendment rights, then so be it.”       

 Whitmer, however, had a different take on the issue.

“I reject false choices. I reject the idea that you cannot support second amendment interpretations and reasonable gun safety laws... We need to reject [these] false choices, and elect leaders who are going to fight for the children of this state,” she said.

 Another focal point of the forum came when the candidates were asked to give their thoughts on education and the economy. The candidates lamented the direction the state has been taken in by Republican leadership and the Snyder Administration, and made proposals designed to take the state in a more leftward-oriented direction.

 Shri Thanedar drew applause for his proposals regarding education, which included establishing universal Pre-K, outlawing for profit charter schools, putting more money into K-12 programs, and funding and promoting vocational learning opportunities in Michigan’s high schools. He also drew hoots and hollers from the crowd with his pledge to “bring an entrepreneurial culture here to Michigan, so if our kids go to college, they stay here in Michigan and create jobs and employment opportunities for others, I will make sure that their college debts are forgiven over time.”

 El-Sayed too drew cheers and applause with his economic messages, one’s championed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and ones that have resonated with the party’s base nationwide.

 “The vision for Michigan has to change. Instead of investing billions of dollars in big corporations, we have to recognize that the only thing that has ever built a job is a person, with a great education, and the infrastructure that they need to move themselves, their ideas, and their goods and services around. So instead of investing [our money] in corporate welfare, we should invest in a small business-oriented economy. What does that mean? Number one: we have to stand up for workers and pass a $15.00 minimum wage as fast as we can.

 “We also have to start investing in our kids again. People keep asking, ‘Why didn’t Amazon come to Michigan?’ That’s the wrong question. We should be asking why it is that we are not empowering Michiganders to build the Amazons of the future. [Because] when we do that, we thrive.”

 The forum was one of several similar events the candidates have participated in over the past several months. The next forum will be held on Feb. 27 in downtown Detroit. The candidates themselves will face off in the state primary on Aug. 7, and the winner will face the eventual Republican nominee in the general election on Nov. 6.

California shooting highlights complexities, and importance, of veterans issues

By Benjamin Brewster ; 11 March, 2018

         On Friday, March 9th, a 36-year-old decorated Army veteran entered the Pathway Home, a non-profit veterans organization in northern California, and killed three women and himself after an hours long hostage situation. This event, unthinkable and tragic in its own right, should also serve as a reminder as to the troubling state many of our nation's veterans are still in, and of the progress that must be made to ensure that our veterans get the care and treatment they deserve.

Now, before I begin, let me make one thing clear - while this column is openly critical of the VA and the overall state of veterans’ care across the country, it does not seek to suggest that the VA is in any way culpable or responsible for the tragic events that took place in Yountville, California this past weekend. There is absolutely no evidence thus far of any improper or problematic conduct by the VA (or any other entity) in the follow up to this event, and to suggest so at this point in time would be both improper and completely unsubstantiated.

However, the government assistance programs aimed at assisting veterans in our country has been a source of great tumult and scandal for years, as shown by the multiple failures exposed (and in part expanded) under the Obama Administration. This shooting, while in no way tied to these scandals or failings, should remind us of just how sensitive and important veterans’ health issues can be. And, if there’s any way that a tragedy like this could be prevented in the future, we must make sure those necessary safeguards are in effect.

Just two days before the shooting, the VA’s internal watchdog released a report stating that “failed leadership at multiple levels” during the tenure of the current VA Secretary David Shulkin put patients at a Washington VA hospital at risk, according to the Chicago Tribune. Similarly, an Inspector General’s report issued last month exposed $92 million in waste, as well as the fact that VA hospitals placed patients’ sensitive information in 1,300 unsealed boxes, risking completely avoidable breaches in personal security for thousands of patients.

Similarly, according to a Washington Post report, Shulkin is currently entrenched in a power struggle within his department, one which has seen him cancel his morning meetings with Trump aides, stop speaking entirely to some of his officials, and threaten to fire others. He even keeps an armed guard outside his office while he is present there. In addition, the department's internal watchdog recently claimed that he improperly accepted Wimbledon tickets, and then proceeded to use taxpayer funds to pay for his wife’s airfare to the event.

And all this comes as nearly 40,000 U.S. veterans were identified as homeless as of January 2016, and as a U.S. veteran commits suicide every 65 minutes - for a total of 22 per day - in America today, according to “Coming Back with Wes Moore”, a PBS series.

Quite simply, we can and must do better for our nation’s heroes.

So, what should be done? First, President Trump should put the full weight of his office and his authority on Shulkin to get his departments’ affairs in order. If he doesn’t, or if he can’t, fire him and replace him with someone who can. Second, Mr. Trump should make the consolidating of the two currently competing Senate VA bills one of his administration's top priorities, and should mount pressure upon any figure who stands in his way.

A better future for our veterans must be a reality. For all our sakes, let’s make it one.

Disney’s ‘A Wrinkle in Time,’ Reviewed

By Benjamin Brewster ; 9 March, 2018 

            When it was announced in 2010 that Madeleine L’Engle’s childhood defining novel “A Wrinkle in Time” was finally getting the big screen treatment, and that the project itself would be a Disney endeavor, the news was met with equal parts genuine interest and subtle apprehension. The worth of the source material was entirely beyond dispute - as the book’s vivid imagery and spiritual themes have transcended time, thrilling readers young and old just as much in our day as in 1962.

 The question, therefore, lied entirely with Disney. In recent years, as it has become more aggressive and prolific in its film output, Disney has amassed something of a reputation in literary circles for smothering artistic potential under the crushing weight of its own unceasing desire to make their films as safe as possible. Disney films are oftentimes characterized by overly simple, overly aesthetically pleasing characters, and narratives that are overly emotionally wrought. Similarly, they often seem overly interested in forsaking the deep, troubling, interesting questions good films raise, and instead seem content with settling for simple, emotionally uplifting ones that can drastically limit a film’s scope, ambition, and overall potential as a work of art.

 Some films have managed to escape this fate (“Black Panther,” for example). Has “A Wrinkle in Time” managed this feat?

 The answer, for the most part, is no - not really. Firstly, the film is directed by Ava DuVernay, a budding auteur whose previous works, the Oscar nominated “Selma” and “13,” have shown her to be at once wildly talented and deeply political. In “Wrinkle,” DuVernay turns her unapologetically political eye to the empowerment of young girls, particularly young black girls. This approach, while unquestionably well intentioned and potentially promising, unfortunately dominates the picture, much to the expense of the many other themes and narratives that made the book so special. Notice how the dystopian nature of Camazotz is only briefly mentioned as opposed to indepthly explored, notice how Calvin is demoted from nuanced character to Meg’s simple, silver-tongued companion, or how the fight the children wage against the “IT”, the true bread and butter of the novel, is fractured and for the most part shelved completely in favor of individual scenes that better serve the simplistic good versus evil narrative being presented.

 These are more than just the simple omissions necessary when making the jump from the written word to the silver screen - they amount to a conscious effort to remake the story in Disney and DuVernay’s image, an approach that, in the end, works against the film itself.

 Similarly, the filmmaker’s apparent notion that they could simply set aside some of L’Engle’s personal touch and magic, and instead CGI, green screen, and otherwise special effects their way to equivalent heights of majesty and wonder is quite simply a hopelessly misguided one - and the films suffers greatly for it.

 “A Wrinkle in Time” is not a bad film, per say. After the cringe element in the film’s first act wore off, and as L’Engle’s adventure started to truly unfold, my interest was piqued, and it did offer some genuinely entertaining scenes and reasonably pleasing moments.

 However, with DuVernay’s direction, a near-perfect book informing its plot, and a $100 million war chest behind it, this film really fails to achieve its potential, and instead settles for an empowering nature any competent filmmaker could reap from L’Engle’s masterpiece. See it - but don’t be surprised when it leaves you wanting more than it has to offer.