X Ox Have an idea for a story? M opinions@theotherpress.ca Affiliated candidates versus non-affiliated candidates » Three reasons why running under a political party increases the chance of being elected EG Manilag Staff Writer ¢€ Tf you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together” In a political sense, this African proverb tells us that working together helps us achieve the common good, which is the ultimate end purpose of democracy. Although, in practice, working together does not necessarily lead to democracy for many practical reasons. One of which is that it undermines other ideas that could be useful; this usually happens because most parties already have structured agendas ready to be enacted by their chosen candidate, who will later display those agendas to the political community, if elected. This isa common strategy that more often than not leads to long term success. Most democratic societies only have two successful competing as Animal Protection Party Bloc Québécois CFF - Canada's Fourth Front Christian Heritage Party Communist Conservative Green Party Independent Liberal Libertarian ML National Citizens Alliance Nationalist NDOP-New Democratic Party No Affiliation Parti Rhinocéros Party PC Party People's Party Pour I'Indépendance du Québec Radical Marijuana Stop Climate Change UPC WcP Total: political parties that have been dominating the political spheres, usually liberals versus conservatives. Standing against them independently is simply not plausible compared to joining them; this statement is in direct reference to another old proverb: “If you can't beat them, join them.” Here, I propose three reasons why it is better to run under a political party: established names and recognition, organizational assistance and political backing. According to Elections Canada’s website, those who ran with no affiliation during the 2019 Federal Election gained roughly 1766 votes overall, in comparison, the two leading parties -the Liberal party and the Conservative party- almost garnered 70 percent of the total voters; a whopping total of 12,071,612 (5,915,950 for the liberals and 6,155,662 for the conservatives). Running under a political name is far better than running under no party. Furthermore, running under a political party guarantees your popularity, especially if it’s one of the two most popular parties. With all the connections they have, it’s pretty impossible to be unknown—this is quite the opposite for independent candidates. Running under a political party does not necessarily mean your ideas will be compromised, more likely it will help you grow intellectually and socially. The group can give you a wider perspective on the issues and solutions that you will need to address; thus widening your horizons and helping you to see those areas in politics collectively and effectively— usually through debates. In short, running under a political party will help you grow intellectually and socially. Although this seems a bit mainstream, ¢ Necessary intolerance e A shadow that stains the American mind ¢ The selective recognition of women by women ..and more this thought is one of the main reasons why voters stick to party lines: to back their favoured political party leader. When one has decided who their president or prime minister is, one would likely commit his or her vote to the rest of the chosen candidate’s party members. This notion is consistent with Max Weber’s term, charismatic authority, that is, authority based on personal qualities. An example of said authority would be Prime Minister Trudeau’s unique charisma and popularity during the 2015 Federal Election that greatly helped him and his party win a substantial 184 seats, forming a majority government. A political party leader’s popularity will often be reflected or gifted to their party members, making their campaigns much easier and effective; the more popular the leader, the more chances of being elected. fa rears a cts) bes] elle mel bin 0 0.0 % 4,407 0.0 % 32 95% 1,376,135 7.7% {i 0 0.0 % 700 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 18,816 0.1% | 0 0.0 % 4,248 0.0 % 121 35.8% [ 6,155,662 344.4% [a 3 0.9% | 1,162,361 ha | 1 0.3% | 71,854 04% | 157 44.4% (i 5,915,950 33.1% (a a 0.0 % 8,281 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 4,492 0.0 % a 0.0 % 507 0.0 % a 0.0 % 284 0.0 % : 24 7.1% { 2,849,214 15.9% { 5 0 0.0 % 1,766 0.0 % 5 0 0.0 % 9,567 0.0 % 3 o 0.0 % 1,556 0.0 % g a 0.0 % 292,703 1.6 % § 0 0.0 % 3,792 0.0 % s a 0.0 % 852 0.0 % : 0 0.0 % 296 0.0 % : a 0.0 % 612 0.0 % : 0 0.0 % 6,209 0.0 % 3 KE] el ele) : issue 22// vol 46 opinions // no. 15 Necessary intolerance » Looking for progressive representation, don’t look to the house of mouse Craig Allan Staff Writer his month, the Walt Disney Company has found itself in trouble in various fields of representation. The first comes in their new movie Onward which features the Disney/Pixar collaborators’ first openly gay character, and the second comes in their live action remake of Mulan in which they have recontextualized a character from the animated film due to a feeling that the character was not appropriate in the #MeToo era. Both these moves were meant to show that Disney is embracing the western world’s move towards tolerance and sensitivity to social issues but come off as a hollow way for them to show that tolerance but not upset their multinational endeavours. The first comes with Onward. In the film, two characters are stopped on a road by a police officer. To ward off the police who stand to ruin the quest of the two leads, elf’s Ian and Barley use an imitation spell to disguise themselves as their centaur step-father Colt Bronco to trick the officers. When the officers become wise to them, they come up with a story that Bronco is scared in feeling that he may not bea good enough step father for lan and Barley, to which one of the female officers, Specter, says “It’s not easy being a new parent- my girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out.” This is not the first time that Disney has had a gay character in one of their movies, as back in 2017's live action remake of Beauty and the Beast, the character of Le Fou was portrayed as homosexual by actor Josh Gad, including overtly fawning for Gaston, and dancing with an effeminate man at the end of the movie. The problem is not with Disney having gay characters in their movies, but the amount of time and detail these characters have on screen. Much like in Beauty and the Beast, Onward’s gay character is so minimal that the lines or actions of the character can be removed from the production for any market so as not to upset less-tolerant nations and avoid full-on bans. Case in point, Onward, has been banned in four Middle Eastern countries, and in Russia the line was altered to take out the word “girlfriend” and replace it with “partner”. Their fear of upsetting the international market may not be the only reason for the masking of gay characters in their productions, as they have also recently announced that their television adaptation of the movie Love, Simon, called Love, Victor which centered on a gay teenager has been moved from their family friendly Disney+ service to Hulu where edgier fare resides. While their unfavourable use of gay characters is bad, their removal of a character from the upcoming Mulan movie is worse for a different reason. The 1998 animated version of the movie contained a character named Li Shang who was Mulan’s commanding officer. When it is revealed that Mulan’s is a woman fighting under the pseudonym of Ping, Shang does not treat Mulan any differently, and respects her as a warrior. In the 2020 live action version, the character has been split into two separate characters. When asked why, producer Jason Reed said “Particularly in the time of the #MeToo movement, having a commanding officer that is also the sexual love interest was very uncomfortable and we didn't think it was appropriate.” The move has led to a social media backlash, with many pointing out that Shang is a good role model for a male-female dynamic in a movie, and that it seems counter- intuitive to say that a strong female character can’t also have love, even if the character of affection is above her in status. Many out there may desire Disney and other major studios to include more representation for people of different Illustration by Craig Allan sexual orientations, but with so much money being put into these productions, studios are likely less willing to take a chance on gay characters, or controversial character portrayals triggering audience members. If audiences today are looking for representation, the monolithic productions of Disney Corporation should not be where one looks first. They are best to try smaller, more independent productions that are going to be less dependent on the world market to make a profit. A Douglas Perspective Banita Sangha, a second-year business student agrees with this sentiment, saying “We shouldn't look [to] movies” for acceptable forms of tolerance, and that we should focus on more “real life examples” such as documentaries.” A shadow that stains the American mind » How a long and enduring boogeyman barred Bernie Sanders from the presidency RESTRICTE Matthew Fraser Opinions Editor E“. culture has its own legends and stories to pass on to its new generation. Black Pete in Belgium, Sinterklaas from Myra, China’s koi fish that worked hard and became a dragon. In opposition to these light-hearted children's stories, every country has a boogeyman to scare the bad ones back to good behaviour. If you have seen the John Wick series you are now familiar with Baba Yaga, Russia's very own boogeyman, and not five years ago a movie came out about Krampus, Santa’s evil child-eating counterpart. America took her sweet time developing a boogeyman; what could be really scary in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Well, after (kind of) accepting the old foe of black people, a terrible scourge descended on them from the Northeast. It was dressed in Red. It was born in Germany but grew to terrible heights in Russia before creeping into China where it lurks to this day. It fancied a vacation and moved to Cuba and from there it spread south and haunted the lower Americas; it set its ghastly foot in California and scared many a mother half to death. Americas boogeyman is Communism and its dear brother Socialism.Enter Bernie Sanders. Kindly, kooky, Jewish and a raging socialist if Fox is to be believed. Sanders has inspired everyone from Mike Pence to Kid Rock to spit in rancid fury that Socialism has invaded America and is here to take your everything. He has prompted Nancy Pelosi to state that he is just too radical to be taken seriously or trusted. He huffed and he puffed against Hillary Clinton and conjured a champion in AOC and her squad. He has reaffirmed to the angry reactionary right that the kids really aren't alright and that good ol’ fashion pride in America is dying a dog's death. Never mind that he doesn’t want to collectivize every firm and give workers sole and total control over the means of production. Forgot that he isn’t trying to nationalize any and every bank, business, or institution in order to engage the true meaning of wealth redistribution. It’s not without note that he honeymooned in Russia and openly supported Fidel Castro before his death. Over time he clarified and added context to his previous support, stating that he was referring to the education and healthcare advancements Cuba had made. Still, he is unforgivable for praising a controversial authoritarian world leader on camera (while not being named Donald Trump). Without a doubt, Sanders is a socialist because he wants to make healthcare so cheap its actually free and drop the paywalls that nourish post-secondary institutions. No good God-fearing American would walk out of church and wish free healthcare on any of their neighbors, especially not during a global pandemic. For this and only this reason Bernie Sanders cannot—and most likely— will not be the democratic presidential candidate. He is just too close to the evil that keeps older white America awake and trembling. It’s not that he has bragged about pussy grabbing or the ability to get away with murder at New York's busiest intersection. It's not that he orchestrated a bill that put millions of blacks and Latinos in prison to rot or at best leave 20 years later as felons. It’s certainly not because he believes it’s wrong for him to be ina room unattended with a woman that isn’t his wife. No! Mr. Sanders is unelectable because he is the new wizened, frizzy haired, Larry-David-lookalike face of communism. He is the great evil that reared its head in the ‘6os reincarnated to oppose the American right to go bankrupt over a broken leg; he is the devil that menaces the $600+ ambulance ride. The villain threatening for-profit education where professors somehow still manage to be broke. All this before we even mention his dastardly plan to raise minimum wage! If you, kindly reader, were to abandon your single-payer healthcare just long enough to peer over the 49° parallel you would gaze upon an oasis where the plot of Breaking Bad (a science teacher selling meth to pay for cancer treatment) is a distinct possibility. You would see a land where the plot of John Q could happen any day of the week and twice on Fridays (the father of a boy with an enlarged heart holds an entire hospital ransom because the insurance he’s paid into won't pay out). A recent article read that Bernie Sanders had done more for socialism than socialism had done for him. In all honesty it's not clear what great revitalization Socialism got from Sanders, but it is clear that hatred for socialism cost Sanders a job in the big house.