Ranking the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Avengers_Age_of_Ultron_SDCC_2014_panel.jpg

By Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

I talk a lot about politics. Sometimes I talk about science, sometimes economics. But usually I stick to discussing topics that tend to be more serious.

That said, sometimes one needs to turn toward more light-hearted topics, at least as a way to prevent insanity. Donald Trump is the U.S. President. The planet is warming, and we aren’t doing nearly enough about it. There are wars all over the globe. We have no shortage of hatred and prejudice directed by almost every possible group of people at almost every other possible group of people. The world isn’t a hellscape everywhere, but we certainly have problems.

If I ignored these issues, I would be guilty of burying my head in the sand. However, since I don’t ignore them (in fact, sometimes I obsess over them), I feel like my sanity is best preserved by enjoying some escapism now and then. And that’s what leads me to the MCU.

I discovered comic books just as I stumbled awkwardly into my teen years. Superheroes in particular appealed to a small, nerdy, timid, unathletic kid. After spending a day in school feeling outcast, being picked on, and failing to be picked for any teams, going home and imagining myself as a physical marvel was a delightful way to occupy my thoughts. Comics were an amazing source of imaginative kindling, stoking the fires of my mind. Much of my fiction writing has centered around people with extraordinary abilities, certainly influenced by my love of comics from my youth. I happily consumed comic book-based movies along with comics (not to mention novels based on those comics), though comic book movies were almost always pretty bad when I was young. Even the best early examples of the genre – like the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films, and the first Michael Keaton Batman – were mostly just “good for a comic book movie,” rather than actually good movies.

Then came 2000, and the first X-Men movie. It was arguably the first example of a comic book-based film that could actually stand on its own as a solid film. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but it was generally thoughtful, reasonably complex, often witty, and well-acted. It was followed by a much-better sequel, as well as two very good Spider-Man films. DC got in on the action with an excellent reboot of Batman in 2005, and by then, comic book movies had been established as potentially legitimately good films. Well, sometimes. There was always Daredevil, and Elektra, and Catwoman, and Ghost Rider, and so on… But I digress.

Due to rather complex financial arrangements that other people have discussed in depth, Marvel Studios did not own the rights to make movies for many of its most popular characters until just the past year. Spider-Man is now able to join the Marvel Studios team, but X-Men and the Fantastic Four belonged to 20th Century Fox and Sony, respectively. But Marvel still had plenty to work with, and beginning in 2008, laid the seeds for a much larger cinematic universe. With the initial success of Iron Man that year, 22 total (mostly) interconnected films have been released, with at least a dozen more planned. The Marvel Cinematic Universe also includes three network television series, six Netflix series, and a Hulu series, and a Freeform series, with several Disney+ shows on the way. All of which work together to maintain the same continuity, and for the most part, do a reasonable job.

I dig the television shows, but they are all a different beast from the movies, and should probably be ranked separately, or even by individual season. As one might have guessed, ranking things like this is fun for me. It provides plenty of opportunity for discussion and debate, and allows me to talk about comics and the MCU, which is usually more fun than discussing Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

FEBRUARY 2018 UPDATE: I have now seen Black Panther, and will add it to this ranking. There are now 18 MCU flicks, and by this summer, there will be 20, with Ant-Man and The Wasp, and Avengers: Infinity War. I will probably continue to update my ranking on this page here, for the time being.

MAY 2018 UPDATE: And now I’ve viewed Avengers: Infinity War, and have updated the rankings accordingly.

JULY 2018 UPDATE: Ant Man and The Wasp is now included in the ranking.

APRIL 2019 UPDATE: I’ve now added Captain Marvel to the list. Also, 20th Century Fox has been purchased by Disney, so I guess the X-Men will probably be showing up in the MCU at some point soon.

JUNE 2019 UPDATE: I’ve finally gotten around to adding Avengers Endgame. There will be one more this summer, when Spider-Man: Far From Home is released.

Many sites have already compared and ranked the MCU films, and I will include links below to some of them. In the meantime, here is my highly-subjective list of the current 22 MCU films. Let readers be warned, spoilers lie ahead:

22.) Thor: The Dark World

I enjoyed the first Thor movie, although I had trouble really getting into its strange mix of magic and gods (aliens?). The sequel, which felt more like obligatory time-killing than a necessary continuation of a character arc, still has the hokey fantasy aspect I didn’t much enjoy, but now includes legitimate boredom. The first half is dull and dour and has a lame villain, wasting an excellent actor. The movie does pick up after it brings Loki into the mix, and the second half alone is almost enough to bring it up a spot or two.

Thor 2 isn’t a bad movie, but it is the only MCU film where I was seriously bored for more than a few minutes. If a movie about gods, superheroes, and magic hammers is made to be dull and unentertaining, then it has committed the most egregious sin possible for  a superhero flick.

Hits: Loki, some humor and action in the second half.

Misses: Slow first half, not enough Loki, boring villain.

21.) Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 may be the most polarizing of the MCU films. One of the below links actually puts it in at Number 1. Several others rank it near the bottom. To me, it was a series of entertaining segments, but poorly tied together, and beset by some really dumb points. Iron Man 3 didn’t have long periods of extended ennui like Thor 2, which kept Tony Stark ranked above the God of Thunder, but it was also kind of stupid in general.

I didn’t mind that Tony Stark spent so much time without the suit, and I actually enjoyed the sudden agency acquired by Pepper Potts near the end. Comic book movies have historically struggled with providing women with interesting roles where they drive the plot and action and don’t end up playing second fiddle. By her character’s definition, she is second fiddle, but the ending did a good job empowering her character.

Beyond that, the big reveal of the villain didn’t really work for me, even though I appreciate what writers Drew Pearce and Shane Black were going for. The powers provided by the Extremis virus were poorly-defined and kind of goofy. The movie itself was oddly paced, and shifted pace too frequently for me. I found it entertaining, but kind of a mess.

Hits: Good character work with Stark and the kid, Pepper saves the day!

Misses: Disjointed, messy, confusing. Poorly-handled twist with the villain.

20.) Iron Man 2

Six months or so after the events of Iron Man, billionaire inventor and industrialist Tony Stark is succumbing to alcohol abuse, and poor health from the arc reactor implanted in his chest, the US government is breathing down his neck regarding his rather cavalier attitude toward wielding advanced weapons technology, and a rival industrialist is attempting to undermine him and steal his secrets. And then a crazy Russian scientist shows up, and everything comes together, blows apart, and kind of becomes a mess for awhile.

I actually kind of like this movie, despite its low ranking on my list (and everyone else’s). I enjoyed the early stuff, with Tony enjoying his new life as a fully-out and public Iron Man, but internally collapsing from radiation poisoning and alcoholism. Yeah, the early fight with Rhodey was unnecessary, and the three villains of Congress, Justin Hammer, and Ivan Vanko are all a bit underwhelming, but the movie is filled with fun moments. The final showdown is pretty brief, and the first fight with Vanko on the racetrack is a bit silly. Scarlett Johansson’s first turn as the Black Widow is mostly wasted. And the secret to Tony’s cure is incredibly contrived. It really isn’t a good movie. But every time I’ve seen it, I end up feeling entertained. The action (when it happens) is fun to watch. And there really is some good character work there, with Tony’s gradual fall and sort-of rebirth. It’s not nearly as good as the movie that preceded it. And it feels like it’s sort of just sitting there, filling time until The Avengers. But I was never bored.

Oh, and special mention to Mickey Rourke, who turns in a bizarre, yet fun appearance as one of the villains. Yeah, his accent is goofy, and his motivations are strained. And it feels like Jon Favreau didn’t direct Rourke so much as just filmed him walking around, being himself. But that made for a scene-theft every time the camera was pointed his way.

Hits: Good character work (as always) by Robert Downey Jr. Fun action sequences.

Misses: Weak villains, underutilized Black Widow, goofy deus ex machina cure for Tony.

19.) Thor

Thor Odinson, the scion of the alien/godly/mystical realm of Asgard, pisses off his dad with his hubris and immaturity, and is forced to redeem himself without his magic hammer, lost among strangers on the primitive planet known as Earth. There, he gets involved with a human scientist, and has to save both his world and Earth from the machinations of his evil brother Loki. Following along so far? For some, they may already be skeptical. This is certainly “high concept.”

Thor is not a bad movie. It’s probably the first on this list that can qualify as at least “pretty good.” Maybe a B- or C+. It’s got some impressive and creative visuals, and the Asgard scenes contain a sense of vastness befitting a realm of demigods. The fish-out-of-water themes are played well (and often hilariously). It’s got impressive pedigree – directed by Kenneth Branagh and co-starring Anthony Hopkins as Odin! It also introduces the best MCU villain by far, Thor’s brother Loki.

It’s also undeniably one of the silliest concepts in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And that’s saying something, considering it exists in a realm with talking raccoons, a ridiculous number of blue and green aliens, unfrozen supersoldiers, and sentient AI. Thor’s escapism is certainly fun, but as a fan of pure science fiction, it’s not quite my cup of tea. It blurs the line between sci-fi and fantasy, and does it competently, albeit a bit sloppily. The third act is a bit of a letdown, and the movie doesn’t flow as smoothly as some of the other entries on this list.

Chris Hemsworth is perfectly cast as the titular character, and Tom Hiddleston steals every scene as the devious Loki. The movie serves as a solid introduction for what will become mostly a supporting character in the franchise. Not perfect, but it’s the lowest ranked film on this list that I think of as “good.”

Hits: Gorgeous scenery, epic scope, solid humor, the best MCU villain, Anthony Hopkins.

Misses: A bit slow once on Earth, hokey concept, disappointing climax, feels like a chapter in a larger saga rather than a film standing well on its own.

18.) Thor: Ragnarok

Look, Marvel managed to make a (fairly) good Thor movie! The third installment in the franchise-within-a-franchise accomplishes this feat by being the first one to not just understand, but to fully embrace the fact that even for the science fiction/fantasy hybrid that it is – the Marvel take on Thor is a ridiculous concept.

Throughout the larger MCU continuity, particularly the television series Agents of SHIELD, there has been some effort made to establish that Thor and his fellow Asgardians aren’t really gods as much as they are super advanced aliens. Aliens that live for thousands of years, have physical (and sometimes mystical) abilities far beyond those of humans, and… yeah, frequently refer to themselves as gods.

It’s weird.

While nobody would argue that Ant Man or the Hulk are particularly grounded in reality, they have been long established as fitting within the rather loose rules and laws of the Marvel quasi-scientific canon. Thor and his ilk bend that quite a bit. However, Thor Ragnarok goes out of its way to acknowledge the absurdities in the character and his background, and finally let loose and have some fun with it.

Chris Hemsworth is a talented comic actor, and plays his role in a relaxed and wry manner – moreso than we’ve seen previously. As strange situation after strange situation is thrown his way, Thor takes everything in stride, accepting that he inhabits a weird universe.

The plot is straightforward, but well-executed. Thor’s father, Odin, seemingly dies while in quasi-exile on Earth. This – for somewhat strained reasons – causes Thor’s long-lost (maybe half?) sister to reappear. In the tradition of… well, every supervillain ever, Hela embarks on a mission of conquest – specifically back to Asgard. She kicks everyone’s ass, destroys Thor’s hammer, and in the ensuing fight, he finds himself eventually taken prisoner on a faraway world. Naturally, he runs into his old pal Bruce Banner, who has been stuck in his Hulk form for over a year now.

The team-up and eventual rematch are predictable, but fun. The final confrontation isn’t as excessive and bloated as some Marvel flicks, and there’s constant humor throughout… so much so that it almost reduces the impact of some of the more consequential aspects to the plot.

It’s got energy, it’s funny, it’s light – almost too light, but it has a heavy enough villain to keep it from turning into farce. It meanders a bit, especially toward the middle third, but it ends up a fairly satisfying entry into the series.

Hits: Seriously funny dialogue, a good primary villain, pretty epic action.

Misses: Still a silly concept, almost too reliant on comedy, script could be tighter.

17.) Doctor Strange

Stop me if you’ve heard this one. Arrogant wealthy genius is injured, forced to become a superhero to survive, then gradually learns how to be a better person, all while mastering his new powers. Nope, this isn’t Iron Man. But the formula is pretty much the same.

The redemption story of the snarky genius thrown into adversity is familiar. If this entry had occurred earlier in the MCU, it may have appeared fresher. On the other hand, Doctor Strange introduces filmgoers to an entirely new aspect of the Marvel universe. Most of the characters introduced up to this point in the MCU had a certain scientific underpinning, far-fetched though they may have been. Doctor Strange largely dispenses with that and jumps into pure mysticism.

The acting is solid, the characters are reasonably interesting, the plot isn’t too convoluted (though some of the dialogue is), and while the finale does suffer from some of the standard bloat that most comic book films have, it also ends with a clever confrontation with the villain, who scores countless “victories,” before realizing he’s being outwitted by a lowly human.

There are some issues. Tilda Swinton’s character was originally a Fu Manchuesque “wise Asian” stereotype in the comics – and a more faithful rendition of the original character would have been problematic in its own right. Nonetheless, when we discuss issues of representation in media, and persistent issues of whitewashing that occur even today, it seems like a glaring problem to cast a Caucasian woman in the role of an Asian man. Of course, this is made maybe a little better (and a little worse) by the fact that Swinton absolutely nails the role, and steals the movie whenever she’s on screen. Insulation through skill.

That issue aside, it is a visually stunning film that almost demands to be seen on the largest possible screen. While quite CGI-heavy, it’s done in a way that doesn’t feel cheap or distracting. The plot is pretty familiar, but with new details. It’s a good movie, but not one that elevates over some of the other films in the franchise.

Hits: Jaw-dropping special effects, smoothly-executed plot, interesting concepts.

Misses: Glaring whitewashing issue, familiar plot, so-so villain.

16.) The Incredible Hulk

This one will probably cause the most disagreement among Marvel fans. I personally consider this one to be pretty underrated. If it hadn’t been released within a couple months of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, I believe it would have made more of an impact. It certainly isn’t as good as either movie, but the second attempt to portray the Hulk on the big screen gets most things right.

So, this film is unique in that it’s definitely part of the larger universe, but also includes a handful of nods to the painfully misunderstood Ang Lee-helmed Hulk. It’s not quite a sequel, but it’s not a pure reboot, either. And it’s a bit disconnected from the main bulk of the MCU films, although Tony Stark makes an appearance at the end, helping tie the first two films of the franchise together.

The story follows Bruce Banner (now played by Ed Norton), as he’s hiding from the US government in Brazil, and attempting to figure out a cure for his condition. The opening 20 minutes or so follows Bruce as he works in a factory, learns Portuguese, flirts with a coworker, clashes with other coworkers, learns jiu jitsu, and practices meditation. It’s a relatively low key opening that I think is quite effective in establishing who Bruce is and what he’s trying to accomplish. Quiet setups like this allow us to care more about the character (are you listening, Zack Snyder?)

Eventually, the military finds him (with a nifty foot chase through a favela), leading to the first Hulk-out of the movie (and Bruce’s first in months). He finds his way back to the States, with the military tracking him. He borderline stalks his ex, Betty (who is now dating Leonard Samson), and tries to meet with a fellow scientist Samuel Sterns for help with a cure. General Thaddeus Ross recruits a British-Russian military officer named Emil Blonsky, juices him with super-soldier serum, and sends him out to confront and capture Banner. All these names make for great fan service, and the actors mostly do them justice, particularly William Hurt as Ross, and Tim Blake Nelson in a slighty off-kilter performance as Dr. Sterns (or Mr. Blue). Liv Tyler comes across as being half-asleep portraying Betty, and doesn’t get much to do.

Blonsky is nearly killed, then ends up being treated with what transformed Banner, and becomes a dark, twisted version of the Hulk. The big final fight in Harlem of all places is done quite well, and finally gives a live-action version of the Hulk a truly worthy opponent.

I know this film is considered one of the lower points of the MCU, and even I can admit its not among the best, but I truly believe it’s underappreciated. Reasonably thoughtful dialogue, good acting from most of the cast, a solid look into the torture that Bruce goes through with his transformations, and a worthy (while admittedly undermotivated) villain. It’s not the tour de force that Iron Man turned out to be, but it really was quite good. The production was apparently troubled, and star Ed Norton feuded with Marvel before finally quitting the character, being replaced by one of the original contenders, Mark Ruffalo. Interestingly, the studio wanted David Duchovny in the title role, which would have been… interesting.

Hits: Good action, solid acting and pathos, well-paced

Misses: Betty is wasted, the movie feels shoehorned into the MCU

15.) Ant Man

Stop me if you heard this one. Roguish troublemaker gets in a jam, uses an advanced high-tech suit to get out of said jam, fights corporate takeover from the eventual main villain. Film ends with vastly-more-qualified sidekick gazing wistfully at high-tech suit, vowing to be part of the action next time. Nope, this isn’t Iron Man. Just like Doctor Strange wasn’t, either.

Along with Guardians of the Galaxy and Doctor Strange, Marvel seems to be using this movie as a way to test their limits. Yes, bigger name characters could anchor a film, but what about a relatively obscure Silver Age Avenger with the power to… get really small?

Sure, why not?

For the most part it works. Paul Rudd is charming and charismatic as Scott Lang, an ex-con lured into a job as Ant-Man, a superhero with a high-tech suit that enables rapid mass change. It was previously worn by Hank Pym, a billionaire industrialist wearily played by Michael Douglas. Evangeline Lilly is excellent as Pym’s daughter, who is tasked (rather thanklessly) with training Scott to become Ant Man, when she clearly (and quite reasonably) believes she would be better suited to that role. Corey Stoll is just okay as Darren Cross, basically playing the Jeff Bridges role from Iron Man, but without near the menace or gravitas. Michael Pena, T.I., and David Dastmalchian are Scott’s old burglary crew, meeting back up to help him out. Pena in particular provides much of the comic relief of the film. He occasionally nears cartoonishness, but doesn’t quite go that far most of the time. His contributions, along with a clever script and Mr. Rudd, help provide a more light-hearted tone than we have seen in most of these entries. As a result, the movie feels a bit less consequential, but Rudd, Lilly, and Douglas all do an admirable job keeping it grounded. Well, as grounded as a movie about shrinking superheroes can get.

Hits: Paul Rudd, fun set pieces, good sense of humor.

Misses: Fairly weak villain, feels almost too breezy.

14.) Captain America: The First Avenger

The first time I saw this movie, I enjoyed it, but left feeling a bit underwhelmed. However, after repeat viewing, especially after having seen Cap portrayed in four (kind of six) other MCU flicks, I think it looks better.

This is a fairly straight-forward origin story, and almost entirely takes place during World War II. Chris Evans is Steve Rogers, a small, frail kid from Brooklyn with a good heart and an unwavering code of honor and morals. He wants nothing more than to serve his country and fight the Nazis, to the point of lying to pass the physical exams. His best friend Bucky is already in the Army, and serving with distinction. Bucky is everything Steve wants to be; a big, athletic, charismatic ladies man. In his desperation to join, Steve agrees to an experimental procedure, in order to be able to enlist. Despite skepticism from military leaders, Steve’s selflessness and leadership potential make him the best choice to undergo a treatment to make him a “Super-Soldier.” Predictably, bad guys intervene, and disrupt the proceedings while Steve undergoes a transformation to make him the physical pinnacle of human potential. Steve’s transformation is successful, but the formula is lost, and since Steve is the only super soldier, he’s deemed kind of useless. So he spends a large chunk of the movie as a mascot for the Army, touring with the USO, and promoting war bonds as “Captain America,” a largely unfulfilling performance role.

That part of the movie is interesting to me. Turning Steve into the ultimate physical badass, then frustrating him by making him a figurehead at best helped demonstrate not just the importance of teamwork during war, but helped the character progress in a less-predictable way.

How does one make a basically ideal person interesting? Someone with completely honest and pure motives needs to have his ideals challenged, and to have his sense of duty blocked – by circumstance, or conflict, or both. And for the most part, Captain America does a good job of this.

Eventually, Steve gets his chance to see real action, where he naturally thrives, leading a group of veteran soldiers into battle in Europe, meeting (and then losing) Bucky, discovering the first man to undergo a less-successful version of his super-soldier treatment, and eventually sacrificing himself to save the day. There are clear tie-ins with the larger MCU, and a solid coda where Steve discovers that he’s still alive – but it’s now 2011.

When I first saw the movie, I thought there wasn’t enough development of his skills as a soldier and combatant, and we didn’t get to see enough action with Steve as Captain America. And even now, I do feel like that aspect was under-developed. But the more I consider how the Army utilized him, and how Steve’s moral compass was frustrated by his predicament, the more I found myself liking the choices made.

As an origin story, as a period piece, as a war movie, as a morality tale, the movie works. It’s not perfect, and its not deep, but its a good story with a good lead, and a very good supporting cast, particularly Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, who would go to her own (highly underrated) MCU series.

Hits: Great cast, good WWII atmosphere, works as both standalone film and a piece of a larger whole.

Misses: Villain is so-so (typical for MCU), not enough time spent as Cap

13.) Ant Man and The Wasp

For years, conventional cinematic wisdom held that sequels were inevitably inferior to their predecessors. While notable exceptions existed (Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek II), they were notable due to their rarity.

So, it’s been interesting to see that within the various sub-franchises in the larger MCU, sequels tend to be better than the first installments. At least, some of them.

Ant Man and the Wasp fits this trend well. Its predecessor was a fairly light-hearted adventure story, with less intense themes compared with some of the other installments in the MCU canon. This installment enjoys much of the same jokey tone as the first one… but the dark points are a little darker and the stakes feel just a bit higher. Also, Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne (the Wasp), is freed up to be the badass only hinted at the first time around.

It starts off with former Ant-Man Scott Lang nearing the end of his house arrest – a punishment induced by his role in assisting Captain America two years earlier during the events of Captain America: Civil War. Part of his punishment includes being forbidden to contact his former mentor Hank Pym, who, along with his daughter (and now the Wasp), is a fugitive in his own right.

But a strange dream/vision hits Scott, and he believes he has connected with Janet van Dyne, Hank’s wife believed lost in the “quantum realm” during a semi-botched mission decades earlier. This vision prompts him to contact Hank, who ends up dragging Scott into his own mission to try to rescue his possibly-stranded wife.

Scott has to dodge his parole officer, remain in the good graces of his ex-wife and her husband, and once again suit up as Ant Man, despite being in the doghouse of both Hank and Hope. Meanwhile, his sidekicks from the first one are back, still in largely broad comedic form. Now, they have a fledgling security business they’re on the verge of losing, and a plot arc that intertwines well with the larger plot.

Further complicating matters are a former colleague of Hank’s (Laurence Fishburne, classing up the place), and a mystery villain with the ability to phase in and out of matter. Walt Goggins is charming and smarmy as a crooked businessman after Hank’s tech.

The movie is essentially a race to find Janet, while dodging cops, crooks, old cronies, and a new super-powered character. It’s fast-paced, the action scenes are inventive and entertaining as hell, and Evangeline Lilly in particular gets a chance to really shine, after being relegated to a disgruntled background role the last time around.

Some of the tone shifts feel abrupt, transitioning from humor to pathos too quickly. And there are some odd plot holes that seem to be acknowledged and then immediately shoved aside (just how does one survive for 25 years in a subatomic world, not to mention remain sane through the process?).

But those quibbles aside, Ant Man and the Wasp made for a solid and fun summer action movie. It made for a welcome change of pace from the relentlessly dark Infinity War (while tying in with that film). Like the first one, the humor is generally clever while occasionally skirting the “too broad” line. The action is exciting, and makes superb use of shrinking/growing – even if the physics behind the transformations is a little murky.

Hits: Exciting, creative, often hilarious.

Misses: Some glaring plot holes, jarring tone shifts.

12.) Captain Marvel

Captain Marvel was faced with unreasonably high expectations well before it was released. The fact that it’s the first MCU film with a female lead in a climate where bigoted internet trolls delight in trashing films for the temerity of not exclusively featuring white men, created a steep hill to climb. So, like Black Panther (and Wonder Woman over in the DCEU) before it, Captain Marvel needed to be legitimately great, or at least very good, in order to satisfy a large segment of moviegoers.

Does it succeed?

Yeah. Mostly. It’s pretty solid. Captain Marvel isn’t as good as either Black Panther or Wonder Woman, but it tells a decent origin story, has some fun moments, some really good performances, some nice fan service, and is visually stunning. The women’s empowerment aspect that has received so much attention is actually fairly subtle, but it is there. It’s there in a way that also serves the story. The movie is about a woman, there are references to everyday societal sexism, and the strongest and most important relationship in the film is between two women (and a girl). And those aspects are certainly important. But if that’s all one is watching for – as either a supporter or detractor, then one is missing quite a bit.

The basic gist – Vers is a member of the Kree military. The Kree, if you haven’t been watching any of these other movies, will likely be gibberish to you, but then why did you get this far in the first place? But in case you want to know, they’re an interstellar power with a lot of enemies, including a shapeshifting species called the Skrulls. She’s not one of them, doesn’t have any memories more than a few years back, and has vaguely defined super powers that she’s gradually learning to wield. Then a mission takes her to a backwater planet called Earth, where everyone looks kind of like her, and she runs into some government authorities who end up helping her along the way. Of course, it turns out she’s actually returned home, and she’s really a human Air Force pilot named Carol Danvers.

I’d recommend viewing the movie to get more detail than that. It’s fun watching a digitally de-aged Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg play younger versions of Nick Fury and Phil Coulson. Jude Law is decent as her Kree mentor, Ben Mendelsohn works well under a ton of prosthetics as the Skrull leader, and Lashana Lynch is arguably the best part of the movie as Vers/Carol’s former best friend Maria. Well, the cat is pretty great, too. The film has some clunky pacing at times, and many of the notes have been done approximately 21 times before. I wouldn’t call the movie stale, but there’s an inherent risk of repetition in a franchise with nearly two dozen entries. And Annette Bening feels wasted as Vers/Carol’s sort of mentor. There’s potential there, but it feels like she’s only given enough to do to advance the plot.

There has been quite a bit of criticism about the lead character’s relative emotional blankness. While there’s a ring of truth in the observation, it’s also fair to note that the whole point of the character (at first) is that she’s had 3/4 of her life’s memories suppressed. Of course she’s a bit of a blank slate – she can only remember five or six years back! It’s that search for what happened before that enables her arc. And for the most part, it works.

Hits: Well constructed character arc, great supporting performances, spectacular visuals

Misses: The screenplay could be a bit tighter, a few wasted characters

11.) Spider-Man: Homecoming

The second reboot of Spider-Man in just a decade, Spider-Man: Homecoming avoids some of the pitfalls suffered by the Andrew Garfield reboot by not rehashing the origin story we all know so well. In this film, Peter Parker is still a teenager, but he’s now part of a larger universe, and he’s already been in action for a while. At least for a few months, anyway. He’s young (obviously), impatient, and a bit reckless. Played with considerable likeability and amusing naivete by Tom Holland, Peter feels like he’s being held back by his superhero mentor and benefactor, Tony Stark. And he’s not wrong. The movie does a great job showing the frustration and impatience of a teenager with great power and a still-developing sense of responsibility.

Moreso than the prior Spider-Man films, this captures the lives of teenagers in a (mostly) realistic and often quite funny way. The classic Spider-Man problems of finding balance with his personal life, his school life, and his superhero life are done well, and Michael Keaton is terrific as a reasonably believable and sympathetic villain.

Spider-Man: Homecoming ties in well with the larger MCU, but is also clearly meant to stand on its own, existing just a bit separately from the bulk of the larger continuity. It’s fun, energetic, witty, and has an engaging cast. The pacing is a bit inconsistent, and there’s a feeling that a good ten minutes could be trimmed from the runtime. Overall, it’s a solid outing, and is probably now my second favorite Spider-Man film (after Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2).

Hits: Likable cast, good humor, one of the better villains

Misses: Could stand tighter pacing

10.) Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2

I waffled on where to place the two Guardians films. They are both fun, action-oriented science fiction films with an underlying theme of family. I could very well change my mind the next time I see this one and place it above the original, but for now, GOTG2 goes here.

Despite being a big-budget blockbuster with massive space battles and huge setpieces, it almost feels like a smaller film. Mixed in with the action are long discussions of family and belonging. There’s quite a bit of good character development, and the chemistry developed in the first one continues to improve.

Guardians 2 isn’t paced quite as well as its predecessor, and I generally enjoyed the team origin story a little better than their continuing adventure, but this is a very solid film that actually improved upon the characterization of the first one. Kurt Russell’s Ego and Michael Rooker’s Yondu were served particularly well by the story.

Hits: Excellent character stuff, good dialogue, laudable commitment to themes of family

Misses: Inconsistent pacing, sometimes tries too hard to make us laugh

9.) The Avengers: Age of Ultron

There is a scene halfway through Age of Ultron where the movie slows down, and we are treated to an extended sequence on Hawkeye’s (Jeremy Renner) hidden farm, where the Avengers regroup and lick their wounds. It acts as a sudden departure in tone from where the movie had been, but the shift works. We get to see development from pretty much every character on the team, which in turn allows us to better appreciate and empathize with them. We become invested in their outcomes, because we are given a sense of who they are. So then later events, including death and major trauma, become more impactful. And that is the big difference between the MCU and Zack Snyder’s DCEU. Concentrating on the humanity of these demigods pays off later, rather than leaping from scene to scene, searching for the next iconic moment to film in slow motion.

There are plenty of excellent character moments scattered throughout the film, that not only help keep most members of the massive cast growing as characters, but also make us care what happens to them. Of course, the biggest trauma ends up happening to one of the least developed main characters. And that ties into the biggest problem with the film – too much is happening. There are too many characters, too many scenes, too much plot development shoehorned into one movie. Much of that is necessary, as the Avengers movies tend to be used as the payoff to all the development of the prior series (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and so on). Joss Whedon had a thankless job in many ways, trying to create a successful followup to one of the greatest superhero films ever, and trying to tie together a million plot threads and character arcs. It’s no surprise that making this movie basically broke him.

And despite all of that, to my eyes, this movie works. Despite the huge cast, most of the characters had plenty to do. The quieter moments were all pretty much perfect. The individual setpieces were often spectacular. And despite some critical complaints, I thought James Spader’s Ultron was a damn good villain. Yeah, his motivation could have been fleshed out a bit more, but he proved to be a challenge for our heroes, and was portrayed with both menace and humor.

Age of Ultron was a bit sloppier than the first Avengers, and bit overstuffed. But so much of it worked. Great character work abounded. And it was frequently a visual joy to watch.

Hits: Character development, action scenes, clever introduction to Vision

Misses: Too much going on to keep the plot moving smoothly

8.) Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians of the Galaxy was an example of Marvel taking a risk, throwing an out-of-left-field idea out there and seeing if it would work. And by and large, it worked better than anyone could have expected. Officially based on a relatively obscure comic from the ’70s, Guardians is what happens when a studio tries to make an Avengers and Star Wars mash up, mixes in a great ’70s pop soundtrack, throws in far more humor than almost any other recent comic book adaptation, shakes it up, and sees what happens.

The main characters all receive compelling backstories, the action is exciting, and the plot moves along quite nicely. The dialogue suffers from a bit too much technobabble, and there are a few points where they seemed to try too hard to squeeze in a joke (or several). And in the recent Marvel tradition, the villains are rather underdeveloped. We know they want power, and one of them wants to kill her sister… but we aren’t really given much reason to care. But overall, this was not just a fun surprise – it was a shock to see such goofy, obscure source material work so well on the big screen. Guardians of the Galaxy showed what could happen when Marvel decided to take a risk. They swung for the fences, and hit the ball all the way to Xandar.

Hits: Great lead characters, spectacular visuals, great soundtrack

Misses: Yet another set of weak villains, Star Trek Voyager levels of expository technobabble

7.) Captain America: Civil War

Captain America: Civil War is officially the third Captain America movie, but it could arguably be considered the third Avengers movie, too. Loosely based on the “Civil War” plotline from the comics, it acts as a followup to basically every big event that occurred in the MCU up to that point. Consequences are a major theme of this film. Some science fiction and action movies have failed to demonstrate the effects of huge battles that lay waste to cities. In those films, collateral damage is often merely used as eye candy, not as a reason to discuss issues of control and fallibility.

In Civil War, the effects of the previous films is what gets the plot moving. A fight with a former SHIELD agent in Africa kills a building full of innocents. The US government (along with the UN), bring up the reasonable point that these massively powerful people are largely unregulated and unsupervised, and in several cases, untrained. Perhaps some supervision would be wise, they argue.

The film does a good job presenting the pro-superhero-regulation argument fairly and thoughtfully – but this movie is still about Captain America and why he thinks answering to the United Nations is bullshit.

Personally, I still think Iron Man has a better argument, but Cap is cooler… which is weird to say. But he is. And this whole movie – while presenting thoughtful moral dilemmas – is really about the airport scene. About 2/3 of the way through, a massive fight between every member of the Avengers (minus the two who could single-handedly turn the course of the fight) completely takes over the film. And what a battle it is. Every character gets something to do. There’s humor, pathos, and amazing action. It may feel a bit like fan fiction – but it’s really GOOD fan fiction.

Hits: One of the best movie fight scenes ever, a legitimate discussion of superhero collateral damage (you listening DC?)

Misses: There are a lot of characters here, and some are underdeveloped

6.) The Avengers

The Avengers was the culmination of what was known as “Phase One” of the MCU. Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America set it up, and The Avengers tied it all together.

And it was a near-masterpiece.

A mysterious… cube thing called the Tesseract is… well, not quite a Macguffin, but also not really the point. But it does help get the ball rolling as Thor’s asshole brother Loki agrees to steal it from Earth in exchange for an alien army that he’ll use to invade Earth.

Bear with me here, it still turns out great.

Nick Fury, director of SHIELD, puts together all of the most powerful people he can find into a team to fight Loki and his soon-to-arrive army. And that’s pretty much it. The final 40 minutes or so involve the invasion and the team finally putting their squabbles aside to repel it. Joss Whedon wrote and directed it, and it’s definitely the Buffy creator at the absolute peak of his powers. The dialogue is sharp and clever, and the plot manages to work despite a weak opening 20 minutes and a blue sky beam finale. It puts together the characters developed (rather unevenly) in prior installments in a way that makes sense.

And that final action sequence – yeah, it’s heavy on excessive collateral damage, it’s full of easily dispatched, disposable infantry, and again, it ends in a blue sky beam… but great dialogue, solid directing, and well-developed characters enable it all to work.

The Avengers could easily have been a mess, but instead, it’s one of the best superhero films ever made.

Hits: Action, humor, characterization, dialogue, Loki!

Misses: Tropey ending

5.) Iron Man

This is where it all began. Tony Stark snarked his way into the public imagination, and made the idea of a “cinematic universe” feasible. Everything that happened since only happened because this movie was both a critical and commercial success.

Robert Downey Jr is perfectly cast as Tony Stark, a youngish gazillionaire industrialist celebrity who is a Bill Gates with sex appeal merged with Howard Hughes, minus 90% of the emotional issues. He’s all wit and ego and brilliance. He happily parties, drinks, schmoozes with celebrities and the military, and, oh yes, builds weapons for that military. While demonstrating his newest toy in Afghanistan, Stark is captured by a fairly generic terrorist organization. He’s badly injured, and forced to recreate his new weapon for the group, while trying not to die in a cave.

The original comic had pretty much the same origin story, except it was in Vietnam. Updated times, same old story. Anyway, Tony decides to use his brilliant mind to do something different. He builds a suit of armor powered by a miniaturized fusion reactor (basically), and fights his way to freedom.

Seeing his weapons used by terrorists in bloody conflicts halfway around the world causes an epiphany. Tony decides to rebuild his suit of armor, this time sleeker and shinier, and uses it to do good – primarily by ridding the world of his weapons. At the same time, as the official head of his company, he has decided to change its focus away from weapons, which doesn’t sit too well with his number two man, a surprisingly menacing Jeff Bridges.

Bridges plays Obadiah Stane (I love these names), who figures out what Tony is doing with his spare time, and ends up stealing the reactor that’s keeping Tony alive from those wounds incurred back in Afghanistan. He builds his own suit of armor, and we get the inevitable final confrontation.

I’ve seen some rankings where Iron Man is acknowledged as the MCU OG, but then demoted, arguing it doesn’t hold up all that well anymore. I can’t get behind that. I think this flick is still one of the very best superhero films ever made. The dialogue is still sharp, the plot is well-executed, the villain is underrated, and Robert Downey Jr owns every inch of the screen for every second he’s on it. This film was released around the same time as The Dark Knight, and while it’s very different in tone and style, I think it’s just as well-made, and probably more entertaining.

Hits: RDJ, great villain, great character arc for Stark, well-written

Misses: Not much… maybe the terrorists come a bit too close to stereotype for comfort.

4.) Avengers: Infinity War

Well, here we have it… the culmination of 19 films stretched over 10 years, with dozens of characters and plot threads that eventually wound their way to this point. A movie like this can only be pulled off if the world building and character development leading up to it has been executed thoughtfully and carefully. We need to care about these characters, and about the world(s) they inhabit. And then, if that hurdle has been cleared, the movie itself needs to be able to tie up these ends in a worthwhile manner.

I can say that the first step has definitely been accomplished, especially in the larger sense. The fact that these movies warrant rankings and retrospectives is proof that the world has been developed successfully.

As for the second requirement – I can say that Infinity War does succeed, but with a few caveats. Most of the film’s flaws are structural and almost impossible to avoid. The MCU has already had three good-sized crossover events, but this one was the film to tie all of the other elements together, including characters and threads introduced in the other big crossovers. Melding these threads in a satisfactory manner without neglecting certain characters and ideas was next to impossible. Indeed, a handful of characters don’t even make the film (Ant Man, Wasp, Hawkeye, Valkyrie), and a few others don’t have much to do. Thor, Doctor Strange, and Iron Man seem to have the most going on, with strong support from Spider-Man, Star-Lord, Nebula, Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Gamora.  Everyone else is just there for a few lines and some punching. So distribution is uneven, but some of that may have been intentional.

Part of the problem is that this movie was set up as the first part of a two-parter, and much of its success rides on the success of the sequel. We’ve seen plenty of situations where that sort of gamble failed – would we have looked at Matrix Reloaded more kindly if Matrix Revolutions wasn’t such a mess?  Of course, Infinity War is a far stronger movie than either of The Matrix sequels, but it’s still difficult to gauge on its own without knowing what happens next – since it is directly tied to a sequel. As it currently stands, it feels incomplete as a standalone movie, which is the primary reason it doesn’t vault to number 1 on my list. That said, it speaks highly of the positive aspects of the film that it still deserves consideration for the best of the MCU. Indeed, I struggled exactly where to place it, considering all spots from 1 through 5. If it weren’t set up as a cliffhanger reliant on another film to resolve the plot, then it may have even been better than 1 and 2 on my list.

As for the good stuff – there’s plenty. As I mentioned, it does ably tie together dozens of threads and ideas. It creates interesting team-ups between characters who’ve seldom or never interacted before. And it gives us the backstory to what may be the most complex and interesting villain in the MCU. Certainly the most formidable. Early in the film, the single most powerful character – the Hulk – goes toe to toe with Josh Brolin’s Thanos – and is beaten to a pulp in seconds. This helps set the tone early that this threat is a serious one. From then on, it becomes a race between Thanos and the heroes of Earth (and a few other planets) to prevent Thanos from acquiring plot devices – er, Infinity Stones – from earlier films, and obtaining his true goal. We gain insight into his backstory with Gamora and Nebula from the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and while his side is never presented as “the good” side, his motivations come from an understandable place. It’s the conflict between the pragmatism of Thanos and the “we don’t trade lives” mentality of the painfully noble Steve Rogers that really makes this film.

The very best MCU films had a moral or philosophical debate at their core. They were “about” something deeper than strong people punching each other. Black Panther contained musings about race and class, as well as debates about isolationism, imperialism, and glasnost. Avengers: Age of Ultron discussed hubris and scientific overreach. Captain America: Civil War debated the need for government oversight and public accountability. Captain America: The Winter Soldier argued over the excesses of the national security state. The conclusions were not always clear, and the debates were sometimes unsubtle, but the discussions were definitely there.

That’s where Infinity War joins the best of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This Vox article summarized the debate quite well, but in short, it’s Kant versus Bentham. The Kantian ethos of unwavering moral principles versus utilitarianism. Thanos has seized on the idea that sacrificing half the population of the universe will end up improving the quality of life for everyone else. The heroes of the story obviously oppose this idea, but the “leader” of at least one segment of the Avengers – Captain America – goes to the opposite end of the spectrum – no lives shall be sacrificed, even for the greater good. I have the feeling he’s not counting himself in this equation, which may be a major plot point with Avengers 4 – but that’s another discussion. Infinity War doesn’t discuss the philosophy in such explicit terms, but the ideas are there. And it’s quite fascinating.

Avengers: Infinity War handles a nearly impossible task about as well as it can. It shoehorns in almost every character that matters, it has the most impressive villain in the series, it sets up the inevitable sequel, and it’s forced to neglect some of the other major characters in the process. It manages to be the bleakest Marvel film to date, but with plenty of humor and wit woven throughout the pain. Its structural limitations prevent it from being the number 1 on this list, but everything else is so good that its still close.

Hits: Best MCU villain yet, real emotional and physical stakes, epic scope, dazzling action

Misses: Necessary short-shrift for some characters, feels incomplete.

3.) Black Panther

Believe the hype. This is a damn good movie. Black Panther was released with enormous expectations, and by and large, it delivers. Most of the film takes place just weeks after the events of Captain America: Civil War, but there are also flashbacks to 1992, and to thousands of years ago, during an inventive animated opening sequence.

Black Panther manages to juggle so many concepts – race relations (in the United States, but also in Africa, and around the globe), international politics, imperialism, technological advancement, vengeance, justice, and honor. But it is also a superhero movie that has to fit within a larger universe. And then, it’s also an introduction to Wakanda – a nation that the prior MCU films hinted at and referenced, but we now get to see in its full glory.

Following up on the events of Civil War,  T’Challa, son of T’Chaka, the recently-assassinated King of Wakanda, returns home to take the mantle of leadership, There’s so much to cover here, that in this short capsule I cannot properly do it justice. But there are debates at home, where Wakanda has been in self-imposed isolation from the world, enjoying social and technological advancement decades ahead of the rest of the world (maybe save for Stark and SHIELD, but that’s a whole different discussion). T’Challa wants to use their advancements to help the other nations around the globe. Others in Wakanda want to remain isolated, and still more want to give the imperialists and colonizers around the world a taste of their own medicine. It’s thoughtful, nuanced debate, and it continues when the villain, Erik “Killmonger” Stevens shows up. He’s T’Challa’s cousin, raised in California, trained as a special forces soldier, and brought up to believe that people of African descent around the world should directly benefit from Wakandan technology, and use it… well, it ends up being for conquest, although justified in terms of liberation. His origin and beliefs are complex and sympathetic, and his mission is highly personal, which are the essential ingredients for a great villain. As far as he’s concerned, he’s the hero. It also helps that Michael B. Jordan does an excellent job with the role, making for a fun contrast with the serene and wise-beyond-his years air of Chadwick Boseman, in the title role.

I also shouldn’t fail to mention the group of women who make these adventures possible. Lupita Nyong’o as Nakia, a Wakandan spy (and T’Challa’s ex), Danai Gurira as Okoye, the head of the Wakandan elite security forces, and Letitia Wright as Shuri, who is basically Q from the Bond movies and Tony Stark rolled into one – she designs the technologies that help make Wakanda such a paradise, and also happens to be T’Challa’s younger sister. Angela Bassett also plays a key role as Ramonda, T’Challa’s mother. All are interesting, well-developed characters that are important to the story. Not one is there to be saved by the male heroes, and indeed, the reverse happens more than once.

I had some trouble deciding exactly where to place this. It is truly an excellent movie even without the deeper themes… but those deeper themes are what elevates it above most other Marvel fare – even some of the really good ones. I ended up placing it just above Iron Man, because while they both involved a scion of technological advancement coming to terms with the role of that advancement in the larger world – Black Panther went deeper.

It’s not a flawless film, but sort of like the only MCU film I ranked above it (and the one below), the nitpicks were just that – nitpicks. Minor issues only. The pacing was a little rough during the final third, and some of the action sequences suffered from the same quasi-weightlessness that has bedeviled CGI action for years. Also, the big reveal at the Jabari mountain felt a little too easy. But other than those minor quibbles, this was about as good as it could possibly be.

Hits: Excellent direction, superb performances, more nuanced themes than most superhero movies, gorgeous scenery, one of the two or three best MCU villains ever.

Misses: Very little. Slightly bloated final act, odd physics in some action scenes.

2.) Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Here we go. The number one movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe… until I had to demote it in May 2019. You’ll see why in the next one, but for now, this is still one of the best.

Where “Captain America: The First Avenger was a period piece and war movie, “Winter Soldier” is a spy movie mixed with a heavy dose of political thriller. It’s smart, thoughtful, and exciting. It continues Steve Rogers’ character arc, and continues the feat the first installment pulled off – making a nearly ideal person interesting.

It’s been over a year since the events of The Avengers, and about three years since he became Unfrozen Super Soldier. Captain America is now an agent of SHIELD, commanding teams around the world, kicking ass, taking names, and slowly feeling more and more disillusioned with being a part of the modern national security state. He works with Natasha Romanoff, who is the Black Widow from Iron Man 2 and The Avengers. She develops well as a character here, both on her own merits, and in her friendship with Steve. She’s more jaded than he is, but her outlook is rubbing off on him. And she is clearly charmed by his honesty and decency. Also joining the team is Sam Wilson, a former paratrooper who has access to a winged jet pack that has all sorts of fancy toys on it… basically he’s Iron Man without the armor.

Then the plot gets going. SHIELD falls apart from within, while Cap tracks a mysterious operative with a metal arm who seems to be as fast and strong as Cap himself. Nick Fury is apparently assassinated after a fun car chase through Washington DC. The coup within SHIELD is a long time coming, it seems, and Fury’s boss is behind it. Robert Redford is excellent as Alexander Pearce, a government bureaucrat who’s been a bad guy all along.

Eventually, Cap is able to connect the upheaval at SHIELD with the metal armed operative, who turns out to be his brainwashed best friend, Bucky. A slightly convoluted scheme involving a new kind of helicarrier is put into motion, and it’s tremendously exciting watching Steve, Natasha, and Sam work together to try to foil it. The movie moves right along, and doesn’t feel like there’s much fat on it, despite its 136 minute runtime. There are some rather convenient moments for our heroes, and the takeover of SHIELD was never set up by prior films, but otherwise, this is superbly crafted film. It’s serious, dark, and cynical, but with enough humor to keep it from becoming bleak.

Hits: Chris Evans is excellent, the action is fast, but filmed clearly – not too many Bourne-style quick cuts. Compelling villains, good chemistry between the leads, and a mature tone for a comic book movie.

Misses: Not much. The SHIELD collapse kind of came out of nowhere, and the Strucker reveal was a bit far-fetched, but otherwise, there was little wrong here.

1.) Avengers: Endgame

I struggled more with where to place this one than any other film on this list. I struggled an embarrassingly long time considering these aren’t exactly issues of war and peace. I’m just one nerd obsessively ranking comic book movies. It’s not that deep. Well, until it is that deep. After viewing the 21 movies that led up to this one, it’s pretty easy to become emotionally invested in many of these characters. And how this movie handled that investment is (mostly) why it takes the top spot.

Okay, so this one picks up just a few weeks after the events of Avengers: Infinity War. Thanos managed to obtain all of the Infinity Stones, snapped his fingers, and eliminated 50% of all life in the universe. And he left the survivors to pick up the pieces. Captain Marvel shows up, having answered Nick Fury’s cosmic page from the after credits sequence of Infinity War. She helps spur the remaining Avengers on to finding Thanos, taking the Infinity Stones back, and undoing The Snap. Except that when they find Thanos, he’s destroyed the stones so they can never be used again. His demise shortly after is decidedly unsatisfying – which is the point. There’s no undoing what Thanos did, and the survivors just have to live with it.

All this happens quite early in the film. Afterward, we catch up with the remaining Avengers… five years later. Yeah, they went all-in on The Snap. Half of life in the universe is gone, and everyone has to live with the consequences of that. It’s clear for anyone paying attention that at least most of the “snapped” heroes will return, but it’s a credit to screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely that they can subvert audience expectations and not make resolution easy.

We spend a great deal of time with the survivors, letting them deal with the aftermath of a world-shaking event. Eventually, Ant-Man appears, having spent a couple hours (from his point of view) in the Quantum Realm, completely missing out on the events of Infinity War. He shocks the remaining Avengers with his return, but they quickly figure out that his stint in the Quantum Realm (amazing how terms like that can be made to seem almost not ridiculous) can provide a road map to practical time travel. They figure they can travel back in time to prevent Thanos from using the Infinity Stones, or at least using the stones to undo The Snap. They take their idea to Tony Stark, who probably had the best post-Snap life. He now has a young daughter and a relatively idyllic family life with Pepper Potts. He’s not so keen on helping his former teammates undo the last five years, which have worked out well for him. So they go to Bruce Banner, who has also forged a pretty solid life for himself, figuring out how to integrate his mind and humanity into the body of the Hulk. He’s more willing to help, but can’t quite figure out how to use Ant Man’s tech to time travel on his own. Tony has an epiphany of sorts, and ends up helping after all. The team (mostly) gets back together, and we enjoy a fun sci-fi caper they amusingly dub “the time heist.”

The team splits up, using the Quantum Realm to travel back to different points in time – mostly corresponding with events from past MCU films. We see the events of The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Thor 2, but from new perspectives. It’s all immensely inventive, entertaining, and also somewhat heartbreaking at times. Eventually the team gets their hands on past versions of the Stones, and brings them back to 2024. In the course of this, Black Widow loses her life, and the 2014 version of Thanos catches wind of their plot. He brings his army to Earth, where they have a final showdown against the Avengers, who have managed to Snap the missing back to life – albeit five years after they disappeared.

What transpires next is arguably the most exciting half hour in the entire MCU canon. Pretty much everyone gets a big moment, Thanos is defeated, the good guys return (mostly), and Tony Stark sacrifices himself in the best possible way.

This film is number one on my list because it manages to tie 21 movies together in a way that satisfies 90% of the possible character arcs, leaves open further adventures for many of them, and provides a deeply satisfying end to Iron Man and Captain America – one via heroic death, and for the latter – a second chance at the life he always wanted.

Despite the three hour (!) runtime, Endgame never feels slow or bloated. Some characters do get short shrift, but this was meant to be a sendoff for the original six Avengers, and only one of them feels slighted by the results. I still think it would have been more fitting to kill off Hawkeye instead of Black Widow. The tragedy of his post-Snap life, and the return of his family at the end would have been made more impactful by his death. And truthfully, it feels like Nat always deserved better. It would have been nice to see her relatively obscure toiling throughout the series finally rewarded in the end.

The time travel itself gets a bit convoluted, and while there are some attempts at waving away the inherent issues with potential paradoxes and alternate timelines; it’s best not to focus too much on the details. The whole thing unravels if one tugs too hard on the threads. It’s not quite as messy as the Terminator franchise or the first two seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise, but it really is best not to dwell overly long on it.

This movie ranks number one for me in spite of the resolution of Hawkeye and Black Widow, and even with the awkward time-travel problems. Even with those issues, it managed to tie together an enormous, decade long franchise that spanned something like 50 hours of film. It was full of fan service, but none of it felt cheap. They had earned it. Remember when I praised the farmhouse scenes of Age of Ultron, because they helped us care more about these characters? Well, that made the payoff of Endgame all the richer. And I will also mention that I actually cheered a little – as did the whole theater – when Captain America picked up Thor’s hammer. It was a moment of badass triumph – but it was also a nod to an earlier film, and an acknowledgement that Steve was worthy. And so were the fans for sticking it out. Thor’s “I knew it!” as Steve bashes Thanos with Mjolnir alone is worth a top five spot for me.

Avengers: Endgame only works because of the work of the prior films in the franchise. It may not be the absolute best film by itself, but as a finale for the first decade of the MCU, it ties everything together with more emotional and visceral heft than I could have hoped. In a vacuum it may not quite be number one, but as the endgame – ahem – of these films, it rises to the top.

Hits: An emotionally satisfying conclusion to a massive series of plots and characters, the best action sequence in the entire series, thoughtful consequences, and well-earned fan service.

Misses: Black Widow’s arc ended in disappointing fashion, and the time travel never completely makes sense.

So there you have it. Until  Spider-Man: Far From Home is released later year, this is it for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I’m sure there will be many who don’t agree with me… indeed, my list varies from several of these others. But I know what I like, and I believe I’ve supported my positions.

Now, I suppose I should get back to the real world. Well, maybe after I watch Winter Soldier one more time…

https://www.cnet.com/news/avengers-endgame-and-every-mcu-movie-ranked-marvel/

https://film.avclub.com/as-endgame-looms-we-rank-the-previous-21-movies-of-the-1834158288

https://ew.com/movies/marvel-ranking-avengers-era-movies/

http://collider.com/marvel-cinematic-universe-movies-ranked-from-worst-to-best/

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/g13441903/all-marvel-cinematic-universe-movies-ranked/

https://screenrant.com/marvel-movies-mcu-ranked-best-worst/

Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies Ranked — From Worst to Best

https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/5/18526278/marvel-cinematic-universe-mcu-movies-avengers-infinity-saga-ranked-list

 

Advertisements
Posted in Entertainment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Guess Women Are People?

Normally, when I’m asked for my opinion on the topic of abortion, I usually just respond with something along the lines of “My opinion is irrelevant, because I can’t have one. I don’t get a say. I’m not capable of getting pregnant.

Something like that.

Generally, that feels like the right answer. The problem is that it’s an easy, privileged stance to take. Abortion laws will never affect me directly. I can afford to sit out the argument. And I will admit, I frequently use that rationale specifically in order to avoid an argument.

I don’t relish confrontation on topics that elicit strong emotions. I will still engage in confrontation if I feel it’s necessary, but I try to avoid it when possible.

The thing is, it really isn’t possible anymore. Not if I value basic human decency.

In the past few months, several states have begun debating and passing laws that restrict, or even ban abortion outright.

  • Ohio, which has already dabbled in gradually more draconian restrictions on women’s bodily autonomy, passed a law in April that forbids abortions after a fetal “heartbeat” is detected, which usually occurs around the five or six week mark. This is well before many women even know they’re pregnant. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. This law gained quite a bit of attention due to the plight of an eleven-year-old child in Ohio who was raped repeatedly and impregnated by an adult man, but would be prohibited from seeking an abortion under this state law.
  • The governor of Georgia recently signed a similar law, although that version does include the rape and incest exceptions.
  • Kentucky and Mississippi passed identical laws in the last few months. Iowa passed their anti-woman law a year ago.
  • Alabama, always innovators, decided to forgo state legislature rules while ramming a near-total abortion ban through. This one makes exceptions only for certain medical situations. Not content with merely oppressing women in need, the law also included provisions that would punish abortion providers with up to 99 years in prison. That part managed to offend the likes of Pat Robertson and Tomi Lahren, two individuals rarely concerned with basic human rights.
  • My home state decided to embarrass itself once more by passing an eight week abortion ban, which will almost certainly be signed by the governor in the very near future.

So, it looks like a bunch of places run by Republicans have decided that now is a really good time to tell women they aren’t legally allowed to make decisions about their own bodies. And it appears the true goal is to spark a legal challenge to one or more of these laws, in order to force them through the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, so we can eventually see a fresh challenge to the precedent set by Roe v. Wade 46 years ago. With the recent additions of anti-abortion hardliners Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the high court, abortion opponents like their odds in the upcoming battle.

That’s what’s been happening. This leads to a few, slightly scattered thoughts of my own:

  • Life begins at conception” has always struck me as a somewhat inane argument. By “life,” what exactly are we referring to? We certainly aren’t talking about human life. When an egg is fertilized, one of several scenarios can occur – only one of which eventually leads to a fully-formed human. At the magic six week “heartbeat” point, the embryo is smaller than a pea, and is visually identical to a similarly-matured chicken embryo.  Humans, it should be noted, eat quite a few chickens. Chickens also have hearts, which doesn’t seem to prevent their consumption. Okay, I’m getting off track here…
  • As noted above, many women have no clue that they’re pregnant after six weeks. The time between periods fluctuates, sometimes pretty widely, and having a period two weeks late without being pregnant is hardly a record.
  • The point of practical fetus viability doesn’t happen until 24 weeks or so into a pregnancy, and even then, it’s a less-than-even proposition until closer to 27 weeks.
  • According to the CDC, 91% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, which ends at 13 weeks. This is still during the “it might only be a chicken” phase of development. Second and third trimester abortions usually occur due to medical emergencies.
  • A six, eight, or even thirteen week old embryo is not a human being. It could become one, given the right circumstances. But that collection of cells is not imbued with some mystic personhood that grants it autonomy over the human person it happens to being growing in.

The people who describe abortion as “murdering babies” simply don’t have the facts right. Those same people often claim to be motivated by their religious belief, and in the United States, that usually (though not always) means Christianity. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say a thing about abortion. But it does heartily endorse a death penalty for people who… checks notes… commit adultery, curse their parents, let their ox wander free, work on the Sabbath, become a female sorcerer, blaspheme, and engage in fortune telling/astrology.

So, it seems difficult to take Biblical justification seriously on this, or any other modern issue. Of course, the First Amendment also has something to say about religious justification for law, as much as that pains Christian conservatives to hear.

By the way, I’d love to meet a female sorcerer. Sounds badass.

But all this talk is just ignoring the real point. Women in America are people. They are people, and they should enjoy the same right to control their own bodies as men (also people) do. I know this point has been made repeatedly on social media, but its entirely fair to note that the same anti-woman fanatics passing these barbaric laws would throw massive tantrums if someone seriously proposed a law requiring the men who impregnated these women to become the (eventual) child’s legal guardian.

This isn’t about protecting “life,” or unborn children. These laws, and this attempt at reshaping Constitutional precedent, is about asserting control over women. Oh, I’m sure there are those who are sincerely and single-mindedly focused on imaginary dead children, but regardless of motivation, the net effect is the same. 51ish percent of the population will likely soon have fewer rights than the minority. Naturally, some of the lawmakers pushing to limit women’s personal autonomy are happy for the existence of abortion when its personally convenient. But that blatant hypocrisy should enrage everyone even further.

It’s not that I’m “pro-choice.” Labels like that tend to dumb down the conversation. Self-described “pro-life” people are often fine with capital punishment, and many don’t seem to care about public support for needy children after the moment of birth. The label itself is stupid.

What I consider myself is “feminist,” if a label is required. Whatever it is that might be growing inside a woman isn’t mine to control. It doesn’t belong to the state. It doesn’t belong to anyone who isn’t her. It’s part of that individual woman, until the point that it isn’t anymore.

Why is it so hard for some people to recognize the value of the person that’s carrying the amorphous blob of cells that they prefer to cherish? Why does the unformed embryo deserve more rights than the adult human woman?

It’s already horrifying to think about forcing raped children to give birth to the product of that rape. It’s a travesty to think that a woman who is unprepared for a child, emotionally, financially, or in any other way, would be forced to carry that child to birth when she… simply can’t.

This is patriarchal authoritarianism.

Using religion to justify it doesn’t make it better.

Okay, so now here I’m bringing it back to myself. Please forgive the self indulgence.

I have long believed that abortion shouldn’t be a point of political debate. After Roe v. Wade, it should have been settled on the political front, and then should have become a private healthcare concern. When people have tried to get me to talk about the topic, I lean into that perspective. “It’s not my decision, I have no say.”

My avoidance of this debate was my idea of prudence. But it wasn’t that. It was cowardice. I wanted to be able to express my general support for women without taking a real stand.

I still believe I shouldn’t have a say. But that assumes a far more just society than the one we live in now.

I’m a straight, white, middle-class, cisgender male between the age of 30 and 40. Other than not being wealthy, I pretty much enjoy the ultimate level of privilege in American society. If I truly care about the rights about everyone else, it behooves me to not just speak up, but to implore other similarly privileged people to use that privilege they have for something constructive.

My fellow men, we need to start pushing back against this. If we care at all about the rights of the other half of our planet, we need to do what we can to fight this oppression. Our sisters on this planet have just as much right to enjoy life and liberty as we do. Don’t stand on the sideline. Fight with them. Protest. Contact your Congressperson. Vote for pro-equality candidates. Donate to NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Make it socially unacceptable to oppress people who don’t enjoy our privileges. Confront misogyny wherever you see it.

While you’re at it, please confront all other forms of bigotry, too. It’s important to approach this in an intersectional way.

My fellow men, we simply cannot allow the worst of us to oppress women. If we care at all about them, we have to use the advantages we have hoarded for ourselves to make the world more equal. Don’t let some ignorant asshole state legislators push women’s rights back fifty years.

Fight for women. We don’t deserve them if we don’t fight.

Posted in Civil Rights, Politics, Quick post, Rant, Social Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sticks and Stones

“I’d like to punch him in his face.”

“Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

“Part of the problem is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.”

“I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will.”

“The audience hit back. That’s what we need a little bit more of.”

“If you do (hurt him), I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.”

“Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees.”

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don’t know.”

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice.'”

“Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!”

Those gems all came from the current American President. And many of these quotes occurred before 63 million Americans decided he was the best possible choice to become President.

Donald Trump has explicitly encouraged and condoned violence by and from his supporters. This is indisputable. Sarah Sanders can deny it all she wants, but in this age of instant communication and 24 hour news – there’s video footage of pretty much every moment where Trump exhorts others to commit violence against his political opponents. He also sometimes expresses an urge to commit said violence himself. Regarding that part, it’s fair to note that his reaction to the rare moments he’s faced a physical threat have been, we’ll say… less-than-valiant, casting some doubt on his professed bravado.

The President doesn’t like it when he’s asked to take responsibility for his words. He recently complained that President Obama wasn’t blamed for causing the church shooting in Charleston. Never mind the obvious point that the Charleston shooting was an attack on African Americans by a white supremacist – which is unlikely to be something done by a supporter of the first black American President. Also never mind the next most obvious point that Barack Obama never encouraged his supporters to commit acts of violence. The real problem is that Trump doesn’t seem to connect the dots between his rhetoric and the crimes committed in the name of his lies and conspiracies. With his complaint that Obama wasn’t asked the same questions, he makes it appear that he thinks this is just about political points and not about the effect words can have.

Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand the power of his position, or comprehend that when one is President, words mean more than just entertainment for adoring crowds. One can be irresponsible with speech. Trump clearly doesn’t get this.

When he tells his supporters he’ll help them if they assault a protester – then he assumes a degree of responsibility if they carry out that act. In the emotional and hyperbolic world of politics, words can be far more powerful than mere rhetoric. They can inspire, they can dismay, they can delight, they can terrify. And they can incite.

But it’s more complicated than that. A president’s words can also cultivate attitudes. They don’t have to be directives in order to inspire action. And they certainly don’t have to be truthful to convince.

When President Obama stood in front of a crowd and really got going – he could stir emotions. Yeah, he might piss off a detractor or two, but when he was on – the man could lift up the hearts of those who listened. He conveyed a sense of optimism and belonging that meant a great deal to many people. He understood the power of words – and largely used it for good.

It’s hard to say if Trump really grasps the power of his words – but he has to know that he has the ability to motivate a crowd. He just doesn’t seem to comprehend the consequences.

Where Obama sought to raise people up – Trump gleefully brings them down. He taunts. He teases. He lies. He mocks. He frequently lapses into incoherence.

And even when he isn’t directly telling people to hurt others, he’s telling them who they should hate and fear.

Possibly more insidious than the literal incitement is the indirect stuff – the rhetoric he uses to anger his supporters. He lies incessantly, but to the true believers, the fact checkers are the real liars.

Trump has been a dedicated student of the Newt Gingrich playbook. He doesn’t just tell people his political opponents are wrong or misguided or even dishonest.

Instead, he says members of the Democratic Party are treasonous and un-American.

He tells his supporters that the “Democrat Party” is an actual threat to the nation; “They are not just extreme, they are frankly dangerous, and they are crazy.”

He claims the Democratic Party is “the party of crime,” and is “anti-police.”

In one particular speech in Iowa, Trump described the opposition party as “unhinged,” “an angry mob,” “wacko,” “too extreme,” and “too dangerous to govern.” He also claimed the party would destroy individual businesses, coddle violent gangs, and throw the nation into chaos.

It’s not just his political opposition. He says the mainstream media is the “enemy of the people.” This seems to be a response to journalists doing their jobs, and holding him accountable for his words and actions. He even used that particular phrase just days after CNN offices suffered an attempted letter bomb attack. He blamed the media for violence committed against them.

It’s quite possible Trump doesn’t understand what he’s saying. It’s possible that he doesn’t realize how serious accusations of treason and insanity really are. It’s also possible he knows perfectly well that accusing his mainstream partners in governance of attempting to literally destroy the nation they’ve been tasked with running has major ramifications. He obviously understands that his supporters take this stuff to heart. Whether he thinks it actually leads to violence is less certain. But he knows this creates anger and fear. And that’s exactly what has fueled his entire political career.

But wait, there’s more!

He’s not just telling Americans that the largest mainstream political party in the United States is made up of a bunch of psychotic radicals bent on destroying the American dream.

He’s also telling Americans that outsiders from other countries are ready to invade the States, rape, steal, spread disease, and murder innocent Americans. He started his presidential run telling voters that people from Mexico who enter the US are rapists bringing drugs and crime. He talked about what a drain immigrants are on the economy. And he’s only continued from there. He has a habit of punching down, demonizing those who are in the most distress and who need the most help.

So when a “caravan” of refugees from Central America were slowly making their way up the length of Mexico on foot, desperately hoping to reach the American border so they could (legally) request asylum – Trump was all over it.

Never mind the fact that groups like the caravan have made this pilgrimage many times over the years, including during Trump’s watch. And never mind the well-established statistics that show immigrants (irrespective of documentation status) commit fewer crimes than their native-born counterparts and tend to pay more in taxes than they receive in services.

What’s important is that Trump was telling us this ragtag group of maybe three or four thousand impoverished, malnourished refugees fleeing oppression was a dangerous swarm intent on crashing through American borders and changing our way of life.

“I would like to provide an update to the American people regarding the crisis on our southern border and crisis it is. People are rushing our border.”

Well, no. No, they weren’t. This specific group was more than a month away at the soonest (when he was yelling the loudest), and it was estimated that only around 20% were even going to make it to the border. And when some of them did eventually arrive, it was at a legal entry point, and they ended up being attacked from the American side.

Guess what, though?

Telling Americans they’re under threat of invasion – even when this is easily debunked – works. It seriously works to inspire dangerous and emotional responses. As of the midterm election week, several hundred civilian vigilantes acting like a quasi-militia were making their way to the border. In their eyes, they were a private border patrol. Local landowners generally don’t care for them. The real Border Patrol usually considers them a nuisance at best and harmful at worst.

But they were acting on what they considered to be a call to arms from Donald Trump. And yeah, they were most definitely armed. Who knows what would have happened if the caravan had arrived at the same place these groups were congregating. Adding armed, mostly-untrained, and unregulated civilians to the situation is pretty much never a recipe for a positive outcome. Remember the Minutemen of the Bush era? While they eventually fizzled out, there was plenty of violence and abuse from that militia group, including a couple murders. There’s little reason to think this would end up being any better.

Words often lead to actions. Emotional words designed to terrify often lead to terrified actions. Which means violence. As mentioned above, it doesn’t have to be a directive in order to inspire violence. Sometimes the words just need to help fan the flames of fear.

As Trump rants about the incoming invasion, his administration’s propaganda arm, FOX News (and assorted right-wing media such as Breitbart) repeats and amplifies his claims. Other people with prominent voices repeat this bullshit. Television, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, AM radio – the game of hysterical telephone continues and grows. And some people decide the situation is dire enough that they need to act.

Cesar Sayoc, a rabid Trump supporter, rage-filled conspiracy-theory believer, and small-time grifter, sent at least 16 pipe bombs through the mail at Democratic politicians and liberal political figures. No fatalities occurred, and he was caught fairly easily. He’s currently being indicted on 30 counts – which will likely put him in prison for the rest of his life. And his actions were inspired by the kind of conspiracy theories people like Trump have peddled for years. He appeared to have been a massive fan of Trump and his policies. Trump himself seemed either unwilling, or unable to acknowledge his part in this.

Robert Bowers killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. His motive appeared to be a mixture of general anti-Semitism and more specific anger at Jewish support for refugees. He blamed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) for assisting the migrant caravan, or as he saw them, “invaders” sent to “kill our people.” Bowers himself was not a fan of Trump because he believed Trump was too moderate, and was “a globalist.” But the kind of fear mongering that Trump both encouraged and partook in certainly affected Bowers and his worldview. He believed he was committing this act of terrorism to save what he saw as “his people.”

Gregory Bush attempted to gain access to a black church in Kentucky. When he failed to do that, he walked into a nearby Kroger grocery store, and shot and killed two black people. He intentionally didn’t fire on an armed white person who confronted him, telling the man, “whites don’t kill whites.” He appeared to hold right wing political views and at least some degree of racism. The Justice Department agreed that his crime was motivated by racial hatred, and charged him with hate crimes alongside his other charges.

Three men were caught attempting to bomb an apartment complex in Garden City, Kansas, where a large number of Somali immigrants lived. Their motivation was primarily based around an extreme Islamophobia, and they wished for Muslims to be completely removed and barred from the United States. During their trial, their lawyer explicitly blamed Trump’s rhetoric as the final impetus behind their attempted actions.

Of course, not every violent incident can be directly tied to fear-mongering rhetoric from Trump or from his enablers. And plenty of violence – including right-wing inspired violence – occurred well before Donald Trump became President.

But that doesn’t mean what he says is helping. In fact, right-wing violence has gotten noticeably worse.

The FBI reported that hate crimes increased 17% in 2017, with a particularly large jump of 37% against Jewish people, and an increase of 24% against Latinos. It should be noted that the FBI’s analysis of hate crimes likely underreports the total number of such crimes, and the true number could be far higher.

It’s also been reported that the “safe spaces” of college campuses have been anything but for Jewish students, as blatantly anti-Semitic harassment has shot up at colleges around the country.

And breakdowns of domestic terrorism have shown that right-wing-motivated terror made up two-thirds of the total incidents in the US in 2017. Much of the long-term analysis has shown right-wing terror to have picked up in response to the Obama presidency, but it has apparently accelerated under Trump.

And of course, without specific confessions or manifestos from perpetrators, it’s not possible to entirely link Donald Trump’s exhortations of violence to individual acts. Not all of them, anyway.

But we can say the circumstantial evidence is strong that Trump’s words and actions have encouraged an uptick in political violence. And the constant repetition of his positions from his supporters in the media and in government make things worse. Right wing politicians and media figures spent weeks telling their supporters that Central American refugees were a legitimate threat to their safety. And in Pittsburgh, Robert Bowers treated these claims seriously – in particular feeding off the constant anti-Semitic dog whistling that accompanied much of the doomsaying.

Just a decade and a half ago, the claims that immigrants and refugees represented a threat to national security, health, and safety were mostly relegated to the confines of the extreme right, especially online. Websites like Stormfront and Infowars peddled this hateful nonsense. The strongly conservative Republican president of that time went out of his way to utilize inclusive rhetoric when discussing immigration. He scolded those who capitalized on anti-Islamic bigotry in the wake of 9/11. It’s true that his policies didn’t always match his lofty phrasing – but George W Bush did put some effort into discouraging anger and violence.

Times changed quickly.

A significant percentage of Republican politicians now run explicitly bigoted and xenophobic campaigns. And while their success has been mixed, the success of Trump has emboldened the bigots. Expect to see more of the same in 2020.

As the nation evolves, so does the backlash. Americans are increasingly aware of the history of racism and bigotry that helped shape the US, and many are aware of how lingering attitudes and systemic bias continues to negatively affect non-whites, LGBTQ citizens, and women. But the realization has also hit those who aren’t ready or willing to evolve. Plenty of people are uncomfortable with change, and feel defensive about losing status as the default ethnicity/gender/orientation. And when those people find themselves with a spokesperson in the White House, they find what might be the ultimate validation.

It’s not just Trump. The Republican Party largely backs him up. When Trump throws around George Soros conspiracy theories, major figures within the party echo him. People like Kevin McCarthy and Ron DeSantis jumped on that bandwagon, and managed to ride it to victory. And his most vocal critics in the party are officially retiring, giving Trump a tighter hold on the GOP, and even less accountability than before the 2018 election.

Lies and fear-mongering aren’t new to American politics. And while politically-inspired violence has been relatively rare – it isn’t new, either. But there has been a change. Leaders on the national level are choosing their words less carefully. We have a president who threatens to jail political opponents, and directly encourages his supporters to act violently. And when violence does occur, he blames the victims.

And it’s not getting better. He recently bullied the news networks into airing an Oval Office address where he – once again – lied to the American public about the dangers of undocumented immigrants moving across the US-Mexico border.  He’s still stoking fear, because it’s the only tactic he knows. Lying about immigrants is how he started his campaign for president, and he’ll probably be doing it on his last day in office.

The Democratic Party has recently won back control of the House of Representatives. The President is barely capable of doing anything competently. And the Democrats have several potential candidates who could defeat Trump in 2020, if Robert Mueller doesn’t help push him out sooner. Hope isn’t lost. But there’s still anger in the air. And people are susceptible to acting irrationally when angry. I would hope the better angels of our nature prevail, and we resist giving into our fears. And maybe, on a nation-wide scale, that hope might be eventually justified. But it only takes one person, or a few, to make things catastrophically worse for everyone. We can’t allow our leaders and representatives to encourage them.

Posted in Civil Rights, foreign policy, Governance, immigration, Law Enforcement, Media, Politics, Social Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Explain Taxes and Influence Republicans

Bear with me here. I need to talk about something really exciting. Hold on to your seats as we dive into the exciting world of… marginal tax rates!

Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I regret to inform any reader that this really is going to be about taxes. More specifically, this is about what appears to be a common misunderstanding about taxes in America.

But before I really dive in, let me give some background.

It starts with an interview.

Newly elected United States Representative (and all-around badass) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was interviewed on 60 Minutes last weekend. The interview was pretty wide-ranging, but there was one point in particular that seemed to get a lot of attention.

Representative Ocasio-Cortez explained that programs she championed could be funded by an increase in the top marginal income tax rate. This is not a new idea, of course. Just a few years ago, President Obama pushed a modest increase in the top marginal rate to 39% from the Bush era (which has been subsequently dropped to to 37% under Trump).

But what Ocasio-Cortez proposed was far more dramatic. Instead of a restoration of the Obama-era rate, or even a moderate increase over that number, she suggested 70%.

This notion was immediately attacked. Naturally.

Seventy percent? How dare you demand hardworking Americans pay a majority of their income in taxes! That’s just leftist fantasy, according to Louisiana Congressman (and white supremacist party-goer) Steve Scalise.

Right-wing gadfly and government drowner Grover Norquist equated a 70% top marginal rate to slavery.

Others have made similar comments. Many – mostly on the right – are aghast at such a lofty number. Does this silly girl (yeah, many have gone there) not know anything?

Well, yeah, seems like she does.

There appears to be two misconceptions that I’ve seen regarding income tax rates in America.

Let me preface this with the aside that I’ve heard these particular misunderstandings for years, well before a certain freshman Congresswoman decided to actually speak up about what really isn’t a radical idea.

The first misunderstanding is that this is a weird, radical, extreme left wing notion.

Well, no. The top marginal rate on the highest incomes was raised to over 90% during World War II, and that leftist crazy Dwight Eisenhower saw fit to keep the rate at that level throughout his presidency.

In the early 60s, John Kennedy managed to get the top rate lowered – all the way down to 70%. It was reduced to around 50% under Jimmy Carter, and then under Reagan, the rate dropped all the way into the high 20s.

Since then, it’s gone up and down, but never north of 40%. Meanwhile, government revenues have declined, and the gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown at an enormous rate.

And for the most part, the economy boomed during the era of seventy-to-ninety percent. Inequality was lower than now, and the middle class grew. Tax rates on the super-wealthy were not holding America back.

Several legitimately brilliant economists have come to the conclusion that the optimal top rate is much higher than what we currently have. Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez calculated that a 73% rate would bring in the highest possible revenue without reaching the point where the wealthy become disincentivized from trying to earn more. Saez also collaborated with Thomas Piketty and Stefanie Stantcheva, and came up with a potential top optimal range between 71 and 83 percent, depending on certain scenarios. Benjamin Lockwood went with a range of 70 to 90 percent.

The Laffer Curve isn’t entirely wrong. There likely is a point where the top rate becomes so high that it ends up resulting in decreased revenue. But that rate is far higher than what Arthur Laffer claimed, and his conclusion (cut rates on the rich!) has been proven dead wrong by… well, reality.

There’s more than enough theoretical and historical evidence to show that a serious bump in the top tax rate will be good for the majority of taxpayers, and the economy as a whole.

This isn’t a crazy concept.

The second misconception is one that both the aforementioned Scalise and Norquist appear to have made – and one that I’ve seen for ages, often from people like Scalise who should know better.

The top marginal rate is not the same as the effective rate. A rich person paying a 70% tax rate would not be paying that much overall, because with a progressive income tax, people only pay the specific rate for the amount of money they earn in each income bracket.

I love spreadsheets. Yeah, I’m weird. But I think many would agree that this may be best explained visually. I would imagine my last paragraph made any reader’s eyes glaze over. So check this out:

Under the current American tax scheme, at the federal income tax level, there are seven income brackets, each with a different percentage rate. It looks more or less like this:

Bracket Lower Upper Percent
1 0 9,525 10%
2 9,526 38,700 12%
3 38,701 82,500 22%
4 82,501 157,500 24%
5 157,501 200,000 32%
6 200,001 500,000 35%
7 500,001 unlimited 37%

Imagine a guy who makes good money, but isn’t necessarily stinking rich. We’ll say he brings in $250,000 in pre-tax income in a year. We’ll call him Rich. You know, because he’s kind of… ah, forget it.

Anyway, Rich is taxed at 10 percent for the first $9,525 of his income, 12% for the next $21,974, and so on. So his taxes for the year can be broken down thusly:

Bracket Total Tax
1 952.50
2 3,501.00
3 9,635.78
4 17,999.76
5 13,599.68
6 17,499.65
Total 63,188.37

Rich’s final bracket is the 35 percent bracket – but he’s not actually paying 35 percent on all his income. His final percentage, when all is calculated, comes to 25.28%. It’s not all that complicated. It took me 5 minutes with Excel to put this together. The number of tax brackets and the individual rates have never been the reason for the complexity of the US tax code. Any time a political figure announces a tax plan with fewer brackets as a way to simplify the code is completely missing the real problem. Doing that is like clipping your toenails as a way to lose weight. It will technically do something, but it won’t be significant.

Anyway, a bracket with a higher top rate will also not lead Rich to necessarily pay an enormous amount more. At least, not in a way that’s going to ruin his life.

Proposed progressive changes to the income tax have often added more brackets, and increased the rates on the higher levels. Often, the brackets at the bottom manage to see a decrease, too. A 70 percent top rate could actually mean a middle and lower class tax cut, depending on how it’s done.

I’m not a tax policy expert. I can barely budget my own expenses. I couldn’t tell anyone what the optimal rates within a new, more progressive bracket should be. But in a hypothetical world where we elect a progressive president and a Democratic Senate in 2020, Ocasio-Cortez becomes Speaker of the House by 2026 (when she’s gearing up for her 2028 presidential run), we could see real change to taxes in America. In a potential compromise situation, where we add a few brackets and lower the rate on the first five, someone like Rich might even enjoy a slight tax cut. For example:

Bracket Lower Upper Percent
1 0 12,000 8%
2 12,001 45,000 10%
3 45,001 90,000 18%
4 90,001 150,000 22%
5 150,001 200,000 30%
6 200,001 500,000 38%
7 500,001 1,000,000 42%
8 1,000,001 5,000,000 45%
9 5,000,001 10,000,000 55%
10 10,000,001 unlimited 65%

In this scenario, we have a top marginal rate of 65 percent. And Rich’s top bracket has seen an increase from 35 to 38 percent. But Rich is actually saving a little money. The lower rates bring his total rate from 25 down to around 23%:

Bracket Total Tax
1 960.00
2 3,299.90
3 8,099.82
4 13,199.78
5 14,999.70
6 18,999.62
Total 59,558.82

Good for Rich.

But in this same scenario, we’re going to introduce Rich’s boss, Gilded. Call him Gil for short. Now, Gil owns the company. He’s bringing in 12.5 million bucks a year. He’s doing very well for himself. Under our current tax system, his effective rate isn’t much different from the top marginal rate, because most of his income is in the top bracket (over $500,001). He’s paying 36.7% of his income in federal taxes. Well, he probably isn’t, but that’s another issue entirely.

Bracket Total Tax
1 952.50
2 3,501.00
3 9,635.78
4 17,999.76
5 13,599.68
6 104,999.65
7 4,439,999.63
Total 4,590,688.00

Right now, Gil is officially forking over around four and a half million dollars to the Feds, out of his original twelve and a half. Under the hypothetical progressive changes I  presented above, he’s suddenly set to pay quite a bit more.

Bracket Total Tax
1 960.00
2 3,299.90
3 8,099.82
4 13,199.78
5 14,999.70
6 113,999.62
7 209,999.58
8 1,799,999.55
9 2,749,999.45
10 1,624,999.35
Total 6,539,556.75

That big top bracket doesn’t start until the 10 millionth dollar earned. As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described it, the tippy-top. So, for a guy making 12.5 million, the bracket doesn’t do that much. But we’ve filled in the gap some below that, so Gil is definitely paying his share. His top marginal rate is 65 percent, and he ends up with an effective overall rate of 52 percent. That’s another two million bucks that go to the government, and will ideally be redistributed to those who could use it.

And Gil still has 6 million bucks in his pocket after federal income taxes. Even after state, local, and payroll taxes, Gil is still probably 5 million richer at the end of the year than he was at the start. Don’t feel bad for Gil. And his employee Rich ended up saving four grand!

As for the super-wealthy – the kind that see hundreds of millions of dollars a year (or more), they aren’t going to suddenly become poor. Actually, most of the super rich aren’t earning their money from W-2s. Federal income tax will matter less than corporate taxes and capital gains taxes – which is another topic worth discussing.

But in the meantime, for anyone who managed to stay awake through all of this, I hope it helped explain how graduated income taxes work. A seventy percent tax doesn’t actually mean someone is paying that much in overall taxes. And for those who end up paying close to that, their wealth renders the impact pretty much moot.

Don’t believe the outrage. Don’t believe the exaggerations. A higher top marginal rate isn’t a radical idea. And it’s not going to hurt the economy.

Posted in Budgets, Economics, Governance, Media, Myths and misconceptions, Politics, Quick post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Real Voter Fraud Looks Like

A little over two years ago, I wrote a piece discussing voter fraud in America. More specifically, I explained that voter fraud is, more or less, fake news.

This was written in the context of Donald Trump, late in his presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton, attempting to cast doubt on the fairness of a potential loss – which at that point in late October still seemed a likely bet.

I explained how Republicans commissioned multiple studies over the past 20 or so years, trying to prove that voter fraud was a serious problem that required serious restrictions. And every single study eventually showed that voter fraud was more rare than lightning strikes and shark attacks.

Well, two years later, in the 9th Congressional District of North Carolina, running along the southern edge of the state up against the border of South Carolina, there’s some reason to think we might actually be seeing a real case of massive voter fraud. Well, more accurately in this case, election fraud. The kind on a scale that can –  and may have – altered an election.

And in this case, the culprit appears to be Republicans. Yes, those same paragons of virtue who gnash their collective fangs endlessly at the notion of millions of undocumented immigrants lining up to vote, somehow undetected. Those noble souls seem to have benefited from some sort of electoral trickery.

A shock you say? How could this be? It’s not like any Republicans have ever been hypocritical before.

Anyway, we don’t yet have all the details, but what is known looks suspicious.

On November 7, nearly a full day after polls closed, Republican Mark Harris appeared to narrowly edge Democrat Dan McCready by just over 1,800 votes out of 281,889 votes officially cast. McCready conceded the election, and both candidates agreed to work together for the future of the district, and mouthed a few other bipartisan platitudes.

It seemed that it was just one close race out of many, overshadowed by the historic implications of the 2018 midterms. There was more talk about the House majority shifting to the Democrats than one Republican-leaning district in North Carolina remaining in the hands of the GOP.

But then, in the aftermath of the larger election, stories started leaking out of the district. In the weeks leading up to the election, multiple people in Bladen and Robeson counties near the South Carolina border reported people knocking on their doors and requesting their absentee ballots. Many of these people had received absentee ballots in the mail that they never requested. The ballots were often collected without having been filled out.

The fact that there were so many absentee ballots was unusual. In six out of eight counties in the district, less than three percent of the ballots cast were of the absentee variety. But in Bladen County, more than seven percent of the ballots were absentee. And to reiterate – this was one of the two counties where people reported strange visitors offering to turn in their absentee ballots for them.

And it gets worse. Throughout the district, in each county, absentee ballots trended noticeably more Democratic than the in-person votes. 24 points more Democratic, to be precise. But not in Bladen County. There, the absentee ballots were eight points more Republican than the rest of the votes. Based on the number of votes Harris received in Bladen County alone – he would have to have received the vote of every single registered Republican, every independent, and a sizable number of Democrats. This is in a district that ended up virtually 50-50. It should also be noted that Bladen County had by far the most requested absentee ballots that ended up being unreturned – even more than more populous counties.

At this point, it should be pretty clear why this stinks. The numbers stick out like a sore thumb. It’s possible of course, that this could be county-related. Bladen County encountered similar absentee ballot shenanigans in the Republican primary in 2018, as well as the 2016 general election. That could mean an issue with the county that doesn’t necessarily require fraud.

But it IS highly unusual. Certainly enough to warrant further investigation.

Now, it’s not entirely clear that these issues swung the election, even if it can be proven to be a matter of fraud. Over the course of the counting, that initial 1,800 vote gap was whittled down to just 905 votes between Harris and McCready. But the total number of absentee ballots accepted in Bladen County numbered just 684, and 258 of those officially went to McCready. So, in Bladen County alone, even if there was actual fraud from the absentee ballots, it would not have meant the “real” tally automatically indicates a McCready win.

However, as always, there’s still more to the story. In Robeson County, nearly 1,200 requested absentee ballots were never returned. Some of that is normal, but it is an awfully large total number, and it could indicate some sort of ballot destruction.

Between the two counties at the heart of this controversy, some 1,364 total absentee ballots were cast, and 1,673 more were requested and not returned. 3,037 total ballots against a 905 vote gap. So it is conceivable that absentee ballot trickery in two counties was indeed enough to throw a tight election.

Leslie McCrae Dowless, a contractor on the Harris campaign, appears to have been the architect of the requests for additional absentee ballots in Bladen County. Back in 2016, Dowless himself spent quite a bit of energy alleging voter fraud in his own race for soil and water commissioner – a charge he never proved, or which he even provided evidence. His questionable behavior raised some eyebrows two years ago, and it seems he can’t quite quit shady electoral practices. In recent days, a woman named Ginger Eason has claimed that Dowless paid her to pick up absentee ballots – which she said she had no idea was an illegal act. Since then, a second woman has come forward with an identical story.

The election itself has not been certified, and McCready has withdrawn his concession. The state elections board has a hearing scheduled on December 21st, and they could eventually recommend the district hold a new election. There are a few things not yet known. We don’t know just how much the Harris campaign knew about what Dowless appeared to be doing. We don’t know what happened to the unreturned ballots. We don’t know if other counties in the district were affected by any of this. It’s possible the state elections board could have some of that information by the 21st. It’s also possible they won’t need it.

So, I’ve thrown a lot of information out here. It’s all kind of ugly and suspicious. It certainly looks like potential fraud. But here’s the thing – this isn’t remotely what the Republican Party has been railing about since Newt Gingrich ran roughshod through the Capitol Building. Harsh and restrictive ID laws would have done nothing to prevent this incident from occurring. Of course, that hasn’t stopped the Republicans from doubling down on more ID laws in response to what may be their own fraud. Indeed, North Carolina in particular has been a test ground for explicitly racist anti-voter laws pushed by the GOP.  And, it should also be noted that while they have been crying voter fraud, what they appear to have committed is more accurately described as election fraud.

So, the Republican Party has pushed the “voter fraud is real and scary” lie on Americans for years, and when it finally looks like a form of election fraud might have happened on a large scale for real – um, looks like they’re the ones who did it. And as a response, they manage to lie about it, and then try to spin it as vindication at the same damn time.

I know, I know, calling the party of Mitch McConnell a bunch of lying hypocrites is beyond redundant. They’re hypocrisy-proof. This is the party that shut down the government over deficit spending (during a time when deficit spending was actually a good idea), and then proceeded to blow all budgeting out of the water as soon as they took power (and it was then a worse idea). This is the party that spent an entire year refusing to participate in the lengthy process of putting together the Affordable Care Act, all the while screaming that it was being “rushed through Congress.” For a year. And then, as soon as they ran everything, they spent a couple days slamming through a massive overhaul of the tax system without allowing the minority party a chance to read the whole thing. They tried the same thing when attempting to repeal the very ACA that they refused to work on.

So yeah, even that was probably a waste of a paragraph. We know the Republican Party doesn’t take anything about governing seriously. As long as people they disagree with have trouble participating in the voting and governing process, nothing else really matters.

There’s a whole other piece I want to work on about how the Republican Party has basically perfected the art of minority rule, and manage to run most of the federal and state governments while losing most of the votes (although 2018 cut into that a bit). That’s gonna be a long one, and I’ve already likely exhausted the patience of any reader by now. But I do want to say that a big part of how the GOP manages to control so much despite having lost 6 of the last 7 presidential popular votes is exactly what I’m talking about here. Not necessarily election fraud, as it’s still is a rare occurrence. But, by scaring the right people in the right places, they can pass laws which disproportionately affect poor people and people of color. They can play dirty tricks to keep their political opponents from participating in the system. And they can do more or less what they accuse their opponents of doing. Yeah, there’s more to it than that. As always.

But hey, it sure looks from here that a Republican operative managed to commit election fraud on a scale that his party has falsely claimed is a widespread occurrence. It remains to be seen whether it swung the election, or whether it will be overturned.

But we can say this; the GOP is really good at one thing. They’re absolute masters of warning us what they’re going to end up doing. Runaway spending, capitulation toward hostile foreign powers, corruption, extreme partisanship, and now voter fraud.

It might be projection. But we can treat it as a warning.

Posted in Governance, Law Enforcement, Media, Myths and misconceptions, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hiking Report – Battle Ax Mountain

After scaling South Sister at the end of August, I noted that I wasn’t sure I would be able to do another higher-altitude hike before the weather turned cold.

Well, I still felt like I had another hike in me. And the weather hasn’t been that bad yet. I had a couple relatively close hikes in mind. One in particular, Olallie Butte, looked promising. At 7,200 feet, it’s the highest point between Mount Hood and Mount Jefferson, it has a decent trail that goes all the way to the summit, and it isn’t that far away.

Then, I started reading up on it. Apparently, some years ago, a treaty was settled between the US government and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, and the Reservation took over part of the Willamette National Forest. That part included two thirds of the Olallie Butte trail, including the summit.

People do still hike that trail, but all signage has been removed, and the Reservation seems to discourage it. Attempting to ask Warm Springs officials what the official policy is goes nowhere. So while I haven’t heard of any issues climbing it, I also felt somewhat uncomfortable doing so when the people in charge of the land clearly didn’t encourage hikers. Especially since I was planning on taking pictures and writing about the experience.

Maybe next year, if I can get a firm okay from a reservation official, I might head out there. But in the meantime, I’d rather avoid being that guy. So, I looked elsewhere.

I really wasn’t looking for anything strenuous, but I was hoping for some good vistas. While perusing OregonHikers, I was excited to run across Battle Ax, a 5,558 ft shield volcano standing at the south end of the Bull of the Woods Wilderness, about 20 miles northwest of Mount Jefferson. It’s only about two hours away from Portland, and apparently has amazing views of the Cascades from the top. Sounded perfect. There were some warnings about the quality of the final six mile stretch of gravel road leading to the trailhead, but I figured if my car could handle the obstacle course leading to the Bluff Mountain-Silver Star hike, this should be fine.

I initially eyed Sunday, October 7, but the weather was cloudy and cool… not so great if I wanted vistas. So I waited a little longer.

Last weekend, I found myself with a free Saturday, clear skies, and highs predicted in the fifties Fahrenheit.

Perfect.

I woke up at 5 AM two Saturdays ago (the 13th), grabbed my pre-packed bag, layered up for the 36 degree (2°C) start, and headed out into the dark.

At about 7:45 am, I turned onto FR 4697, and started rattling uphill. Yeah… the road was bad. My Acura coupe is not an off-road vehicle. But going slow, easing around rocks and washouts, and taking steep points at angles kept me from doing any damage.

It felt like it took forever, but there was nobody else on the road, so I wasn’t annoying some dude in a Jeep stuck behind me.

After nearly 7 miles and maybe 35 minutes, I finally reached the “trailhead,” which was just a slightly wider piece of road a couple hundred feet beyond a fork. The left side went down to Elk Lake and a campground. The right side had the parking area and a rapidly deteriorating (seriously) road. Technically, there was parking farther down, too, but I was pushing my luck as it was.

IMG_20181013_152641_035

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

I parked, grabbed my pack, and started down the road. After about a third of a mile, a steep and narrow trail veered up into the woods to my right. It was marked with a fairly small sign, though they did include another tiny sign just a few feet further up the path.

A small permit station stood just beyond the second sign, but it was in some disrepair, and no longer contained any permits. I figured I was okay without one.

IMG_20181013_163032_114

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The trail veered through the woods, moving inexorably upwards. It wasn’t quite as steep as some of the other hikes I managed this year, but the terrain felt pretty similar. After the first half mile or so, it felt like I could have been on Dog Mountain, or Saddle Mountain, or almost anywhere else in the region.

IMG_20181013_164020_970

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

About 20 minutes in, I finally got my first glimpse of Mount Jefferson through a gap in the trees. As it was backlit by the rising sun, few details were visible, but the outline was impressive.

IMG_20181013_182119_821

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

It didn’t take long for me to start warming up. I unzipped my jacket and removed my gloves within the first half hour. It may still have been under 40 degrees, but it felt warmer.

Maybe the trail was steeper than I realized.

IMG_20181013_182306_955

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Parts of the early section of trail were made of a mulch-like material that was quite forgiving on the joints. Thus far, it was the easiest hike I attempted this year.

The ground was damp in parts, and I passed a sizable tarn after the first couple of switchbacks.

IMG_20181013_183111_353

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The path leveled near the tarn, and then quickly steepened just past it.

IMG_20181013_183202_706

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

In a particularly marshy area, massive trees loomed imposingly over me.

IMG_20181013_183312_391

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Autumn colors brightened the underbrush.

IMG_20181013_183529_582

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

There was a noticeable layer of frost on sections of the trail.

IMG_20181013_183658_871

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

This was odd, in part because the temperature was a bit above freezing – and rising. Also odd because other sections before and after were damp, muddy, and occasionally covered in actual running water.

In fact, there were a handful of segments I encountered about an hour into the hike that made me think I had stepped off the trail and into a stream or creek.

Water poured down parts of the trail, causing me to backtrack briefly. It appeared to be a creekbed, but further exploration indicated I was still on the trail, albeit a mildly flooded section.

It wasn’t quite like parts of Mount Defiance or South Sister – where the tail disappeared altogether. But the trail did become far less clear at points.

IMG_20181013_183818_909

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

By 9:00, I was coming across a lot of early autumn color – mostly in the underbrush.

IMG_20181013_185023_747

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Many of these photos don’t do the color justice.

IMG_20181013_185330_061

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At one point, I got a nice view of Olallie Butte.

IMG_20181013_185656_835

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The foliage continued to do its thing.

IMG_20181013_185846_451

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Around 9:20, I came across a footbridge between two tarns.

IMG_20181013_190100_020

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_190248_515

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Just beyond was a marshy field, a hybrid of tarn and meadow.

IMG_20181013_192201_332

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The path gradually became rockier.

IMG_20181013_192505_493

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At 9:40, I came up to a big talus slope. There was a trail worn into it, but it was sketchy at points.

IMG_20181013_192715_134

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

As I made my way across the boulders, a sizable rock gave way beneath my foot. I caught myself before sliding off the edge of the trail, banging my knee into another rock.

“Idiot,” I cursed to myself. “In Latin, Jehovah begins with an ‘I’!”

I pulled myself back up, and made my way across, my good-natured grumbling giving way to a partial recitation of the greatest movie of 1989.

Despite my self-amused reverie, I indulged a glance back up from where I came. I could see the bulk of Battle Ax receding from view.

IMG_20181013_193635_725

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

I understood that the trail would soon double back, and head toward the summit. However, it was slightly discouraging to realize that I had to continue away from my destination before I could actually conquer it.

IMG_20181013_193753_885

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Another great view of the outline of Mount Jefferson, still mostly backlit.

IMG_20181013_194137_264

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At 9:52, I reached a four-way trail junction. A campsite lay directly ahead, and paths leading off into the Bull of the Woods Wilderness veered to the left and right.

A sharp left, basically going backwards, led upward, back toward the mountain. After a short break for a snack, I made my way up the trail.

IMG_20181013_194436_903

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

It wasn’t long before I was passing back across the big talus field – this time from higher up.

IMG_20181013_194548_358

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

As I made my way back toward Battle Ax, the views improved. Here is Mount Jefferson on the left, and I believe Three Fingered Jack on the right.

IMG_20181013_195111_652

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Interesting rock formations appeared on the slopes.

IMG_20181013_195607_859

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The trail got steeper, and began switching back.

IMG_20181013_195721_632

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The path moved to the right side of a ridge, and became fairly strenuous.

IMG_20181013_200313_126

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At 10:35, after a bunch of switchbacks, there was an outcropping facing north-ish. Mount Hood finally became visible, in all its picturesque glory.

IMG_20181013_200448_584

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At this point, the switchbacks ended, and I found myself heading mostly south, along the final summit ridge. I was at least 5,400 feet now, and for a while, I could see the summit not far off.

IMG_20181013_200647_420

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_201034_589

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

As I hoped, the views were spectacular. To the right and below was the bulk of Mount Beachie. Back north, Mount Hood continued to loom impressively behind me.

IMG_20181013_202406_800

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_201304_404

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At 1050, I had to pick my way around a sizable rock formation, and found myself on the summit. The bare supports of what used to be a lookout tour were all that remained of a human presence at the top.

IMG_20181013_202455_421

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Well, that, and an Army Corps of Engineers marker.

IMG_20181013_215722_588

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

All around me, the views were gorgeous. The sun illuminated Mount Jefferson in greater detail as it ascended in the sky.

IMG_20181013_214226_213

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

To the southeast, the Three Sisters peaked over the horizon. On the right, the South Sister waived at me. Or maybe I did the waving.

Yeah, I really enjoyed that climb.

IMG_20181013_214834_590

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Here’s a sharper, albeit more distant shot of the Sisters, with Three Fingered Jack on the left.

IMG_20181013_214706_399

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

And waaaaay off in the distance, Mount Adams stood silent watch over the Cascades.

IMG_20181013_215834_341

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

My obligatory summit selfie.

IMG_20181013_215606_259

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

One last view of Mount Hood to the north.

IMG_20181013_215213_231

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

After 30 minutes on the summit, a bunch of photos, and some lunch, I got one last nice shot of Jefferson, with Elk Lake peaking out from behind a rocky outcropping.

IMG_20181013_220338_000

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

As I hit the trail to head back down and complete the loop, I could see a stocky black Lab with an elaborate harness and pack strapped around its torso. A short distance behind was a single hiker. The Lab greeted me with enthusiasm, and received well-deserved pats for her effort. The hiker who belonged to her chatted briefly with me. Then I was on my way. They would be the only people (as dogs are people too) I would come across during the entire hike.

The trail down was a series of moderately steep switchbacks, initially quite exposed. Excellent views of Jefferson continued for a while.

IMG_20181013_220453_786

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

I also had some great views of Mount Beachie as I eased down from the summit.

IMG_20181013_221254_515

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Beachie could be hiked about as quickly as Battle Ax, and the trails for each met back up at a saddle near the road. If I gave myself more time, I might have considered a twofer.

IMG_20181013_221924_787

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

One more good view of Elk Lake appeared. The photo doesn’t show it, but I could see the wind pushing small waves across the surface of the lake.

IMG_20181013_222142_348

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

I managed to get a final decent glimpse of the distant Three Sisters before they disappeared below the horizon. Another shot at the South Sister will be a must next year, but I’m hoping to make attempts on the other two by 2020 or 2021. I need to work on route-finding and technical climbing.

And make a few climbing friends.

IMG_20181013_231224_970

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

I started descending into denser forest, but I had one last really good glimpse of Mount Jefferson, now seen in greater detail with the sun basically directly overhead.

IMG_20181013_231344_091

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The rest of the descent was pretty easy.

IMG_20181013_222650_836

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_231606_131

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_231707_244

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_233311_900

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

Around a quarter past 12, I reached the Beachie Saddle. It was a big wide open area that looked like a parking spot. I had the option to make a run up Mount Beachie here, or make a left and head back to the car.

I was tired, and had two hours to drive to get home, so I elected to be lame. Maybe next year…

IMG_20181013_233459_097

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

The final stretch of road started off decently, but eventually became impassable for vehicles.

IMG_20181013_233610_537

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

IMG_20181013_233748_274

Hunter Breckenridge – 2018

At 12:30, I reached the passable part of the road, and at 12:40 I was back at my car.

This was the shortest, emptiest, and quietest hike of the year for me. Just under 1,800 feet of elevation gain (and then subsequent loss), about 6 total miles, one hiker, and one friendly dog, in just over four hours and twenty minutes.

While not particularly challenging, I recommend Battle Ax for the solitude and the spectacular vistas. I will likely be back in the future.

Posted in Adventure, Series | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Scary Time for Young Men

On the South Lawn of the White House, Donald Trump briefly stopped for reporters as he headed out to an event. Commenting on the current situation with his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, the president at one point said, “It’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of.”

This awkward sentence fit nicely with other comments Donald Trump has made, with him arguing that false allegations could “ruin a man’s life.” Other people who support Trump’s nominee have made similar statements.

It’s instructive that there’s far more concern in certain circles for the men in these situations. It’s a scary time for men. Men’s lives could be ruined. Men could be fired from their jobs. Men’s families could suffer.

The problem here is beyond obvious. And yet, the President of the United States himself tells the world that not only is he concerned for men, but “women are doing great.”

So, I have to ask a few questions about what these poor men are going through:

  • Are men forced to look over their shoulder at all times while out in public?
  • Do men have to cross the street when a lone man walks up the sidewalk toward them?
  • Do men have to Wolverine claw their keys as they move through a parking lot?
  • Do men have to plot out walking routes away from construction sites, bars, dark areas, bus stops, alleys, parking lots, stairwells, elevators, subway entrances, doorways, garages, abandoned buildings, and any place where multiple men might be gathering?
  • Do men have to switch up their jogging routes to deter stalkers?
  • Do men have to avoid using headphones while jogging outside, just to make it harder for men to sneak up on them?
  • Do men have to avoid eye contact with men in public to avoid being immediately harassed?
  • Do men worry about being screamed at and cursed when they ignore or decline unwanted advances from men?
  • Do men receive constant sexual comments and photos from men on dating websites?
  • Do men have to zealously guard their drink at a party or bar, to reduce the risk of being drugged?
  • Are men forced to weigh whether or not the risk of harassment and doxxing is worth expressing an opinion on the internet?
  • Do men worry about being paid significantly less than half of their coworkers?
  • Are men frequently forced to make the calculation of how much sexual harassment to tolerate in order to keep a decent job?
  • Do men have to make the calculation of whether or not its worth coming forward about being assaulted, because rape culture is so entrenched in American society that even the President worries more about the accused than the victim?
  • Do men have to make the calculation of whether or not its worth coming forward about being assaulted, because only 6 in every 1000 sexual predators is actually sent to jail?
  • Oh yeah, and do men live in constant fear of not just being accused of rape, but of being raped?

Oh wait, I’m sorry, I was thinking about women.

It is fair to note that the answer to some of the above questions is most definitely… sometimes for some men. It’s certainly true that a culture of systemic misogyny also makes it harder for men to speak out against harassment.

But the answer to the above questions is a huge YES for most women.

Sure, Mr. President, women have it great now…

…compared with 1612, 1830, or even 1950.

But they deal with a hell of a lot more then men do, especially from men like the president.

The fact that there are functioning adults who initially responded to the Kavanaugh allegations with concern for the well-being of Kavanaugh, and not Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, is THE direct answer to that universal question, “why didn’t she come forward sooner?”

But since every other person seems to be so worried about the chance Kavanaugh is the real victim here, let me deal with one specific point.

I plan to discuss this in greater depth in the future, but to quickly get this bullshit out of the way:

False accusations of sexual assault and harassment are rare.

Really rare.

There have been numerous studies done over the years, of varying degrees of quality and scientific rigor. Incomplete police statistics, the tendency for victims to not report the crimes against them, and societal pressures all make it difficult to precisely gauge the frequency of false accusations. But the best data puts the range between 2 and 10 percent. Which means (depending on the situation), if someone says they were assaulted – without knowing anything about them or their attacker – the odds that they are telling the truth is between 90 and 98 percent.

If cold statistics are the only thing that one cares about, then it still leads to the conclusion… BELIEVE WOMEN.

Yeah, it’s a slogan.

And yes, like all slogans, it lacks nuance.

And yes, if one is accused of sexual assault, then there is a LEGAL presumption of evidence. The court system requires that the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

But Brett Kavanaugh isn’t on trial.

Whatever crime he may have committed against Dr. Blasey Ford occurred years ago. Fair or not, no court is going to charge him.

He isn’t defending himself from being imprisoned. He’s been nominated for a job which would likely give him the power to help strip millions of American women of the right to control their own reproductive decisions. He will likely cast deciding votes in cases that determine the constitutionality of laws that impact… well, everyone. Due to his political positions and the current ideological tilt of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh would wield enormous power – if confirmed.

So yes, in this case, it’s reasonable to consider the very credible claims of someone who knows him, and his friends, and has been backed up by people who knew them both. I would hope the standard for Supreme Court Justice includes “not likely to have sexually assaulted someone.”

Even ignoring the statistical probability that she’s telling the truth about Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegations deserve consideration because of the potential gravity of his confirmation. Quite a bit will likely change if the Senate decides Dr. Ford isn’t sufficiently credible – or even if she is, but her allegation isn’t enough for them.

And if Judge Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed, he will still go back to his job on the US Court of Appeals. And he won’t go to jail. His life – not ruined.

And Dr. Blasey Ford will still have been assaulted.

Yeah.

Backtracking a bit here…

Do the accused deserve to have a chance to tell their side of the story?

Absolutely.

That includes Kavanaugh, even if his issue isn’t officially a criminal one.

But listening to a woman tell her story of abuse, and considering it as well, doesn’t mean that the accused is suddenly being unfairly railroaded. It doesn’t mean it’s a scary time for young men. It means that a woman’s voice is actually being heard, which is a far-too-rare occurrence.

All credible accusations deserve credible investigations.

Worrying more about the very slim chance of a false accusation than of the very common problem of sexual violence is proof that women don’t have it as good as the president thinks.

And it’s another answer to the question, “why didn’t she report sooner?”

If the public response is, “what about his career?” when a man is accused of assaulting someone – we know we still value men over women.

Not all men (hashtag!) are misogynists.

But toxic masculinity is still a dominant force in our culture.

It’s not a scary time for men.

But it is scary that men being forced to face the consequences of their actions is considered scary.

The line between justice and perceived oppression depends a great deal on who has the power, and who is fighting for a fair share of that power.

I will admit that I’m scared.

I’m scared when I debate on Facebook with women who call Dr. Ford a lying bitch. I worry for the possibility of progress when the person tasked with leading the most powerful nation in human history has very likely assaulted nearly two dozen women, but publicly proclaims his concern for men.

We still have a lot of work to do before we can rest.

And I haven’t even addressed racial or wealth inequality today.

Posted in Civil Rights, Politics, Social Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment