Ironheart and the Betrayal of Storytelling


Riri Williams, Ironheart, stands beside her armor modeled after Iron Man, a symbol of the genius and potential that Marvel’s adaptation failed to honor.

When Marvel introduced Riri Williams in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, she felt like a revelation. A young Black genius, bold and quick-witted, standing confidently beside Shuri and Wakanda’s leaders, she radiated promise. Audiences believed she was destined to inherit the mantle of brilliance that Tony Stark left behind.

The Disney Plus series Ironheart undid all of that. Rather than elevating Riri’s genius, the show stripped her down and leaned on clichés. Instead of building an earned character arc, Marvel forced one, and when audiences rejected it, Disney did not admit the problem was storytelling. It turned on its own fans, deflecting fair criticism as misogyny or racism. That response only deepened the sense of betrayal.

What made Ironheart sting was not representation but its absence of authentic narrative. Riri’s journey was reactive rather than inventive, her brilliance muted to the point where she seemed less capable than in Black Panther 2. Her supporting cast was too thin to provide depth, leaving Dominique Thorne to carry scenes without the balance that seasoned actors could have offered. This was the opposite of what Marvel did with Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, where young talent was elevated by veterans like Robert Downey Jr. and Michael Keaton. In Ironheart, there was no gravitas to steady her.

The most glaring missed opportunity was the arc itself. In the comics, Riri is mentored by Tony Stark’s AI, a natural continuation of Iron Man’s legacy and a relationship that challenges her intellect. That arc was abandoned in favor of an AI woman who felt more like a nagging caricature than a mentor. It was meant to look progressive, but it flattened Riri even further. Instead of sharpening her genius through real tests, the show reduced her to tropes and sidelined the one connection that could have tethered her to Marvel’s larger story.

What took its place was a parade of stereotypes. The single mother household. The absent father. The drive-by shooting that killed her stepfather. Drugs and street crime. Poverty. Black and Latino men both hyperviolent and emasculated. Struggle as the entire identity. These were not fresh interpretations of culture. They were shortcut stereotype boxes checked by writers who did not seem to understand the communities they were trying to represent.

Audiences are tired of this. They want aspiration and intelligence, not clichés. The success of Black Panther proved that. That film grossed more than $1.3 billion worldwide because it was rooted in authenticity and celebrated Black excellence. It trusted viewers to embrace complexity. Ironheart, by contrast, felt like it was written on autopilot, with representation treated as the main plot line coupled with bad writing.

The reception told the story. Ironheart failed to enter the top ten streaming shows at launch, averaging fewer than 90 million minutes per episode. Nielsen reported just 526 million minutes viewed in its debut week a fraction of Marvel’s earlier dominance. Viewers who began often did not finish. Critics offered cautious praise, but audiences were blunt. Rotten Tomatoes’ audience score fell into the mid-50s. IMDb scored it a dismal 3.7 out of 10. By every measure, this was the weakest Marvel Studios project to date.

Instead of listening, Disney dismissed its fans. Criticism was waved away as misogyny or racism. But this is dishonest. Marvel fans embraced Black Panther, Into the Spider-Verse, and Miles Morales because those stories were intelligent and authentic. They reject Ironheart because it was shallow. Viewers are not bigoted for noticing lazy storytelling. They are discerning enough to know when a studio has lost its way.

Riri Williams deserved better. She deserved a story that celebrated her genius and connected her to Iron Man’s legacy in a way that felt earned. She deserved writing that matched the promise we glimpsed in Wakanda. What we got instead was a hollow series that leaned on stereotypes, dulled its lead, and insulted its audience.

Marvel once thrived because it told stories with depth and intelligence, trusting its fans to embrace complexity. Ironheart showed what happens when that trust is broken. We are not rejecting representation. We are rejecting lazy representation. If Disney refuses to admit that the real problem is storytelling, it will not just be one show that fails. It will be the entire brand.

Disney did not fail Riri Williams. It failed to believe her brilliance was enough.

Zeus Network Exposed: The True Creators and the CEO Who Cut Them Out


DeStorm Power, King Bach and Amanda Cerny, the original creators of Zeus Network.

Zeus Network launched in 2018 as a creator driven platform dreamed up by DeStorm Power, King Bach and Amanda Cerny working alongside Lemuel Plummer. DeStorm was the first to believe in the vision so much that he invested one hundred thirty five thousand dollars of his own money to make it happen. He even came up with the name Zeus after being inspired by Nike. King Bach brought his thirty million plus followers from Vine and Instagram as built in hype for day one. Amanda used her brand partnerships know how to land sponsorship deals and bring in real revenue when most startups were still figuring out how to sell ads. Together they handled content production promotion and funding while Plummer kept the network running behind the scenes  .

Once Zeus picked up steam Plummer cut the founders out of the financial picture. They say he locked them out of company accounts erased their names on contracts and denied them the earnings they had a right to. Instead he allegedly reported to the IRS that the original partners made millions in profits. DeStorm, King Bach and Amanda have received K1 tax documents showing those figures and they are forced to pay taxes on money they never saw  . That alone is the heart of their lawsuit. How can you justify billing someone for income that never landed in their bank account?

This is not the only time Zeus has faced legal action over shady deals. In 2020 singer Omarion sued Zeus and Plummer for two hundred thousand dollars for breach of contract and fraud after the network aired his Millennium Tour Live Concert without paying the agreed revenue share  . More recently Paramount Global’s Viacom filed suit accusing Zeus of ripping off Wild ’N Out with Bad Vs Wild and intentionally inducing Nick Cannon to breach his contract  . Even reality star Chrisean Rock says Zeus still owes her money for Crazy In Love and claims Diddy confronted Plummer over the unpaid checks  .

When you look at the roster of lawsuits it shows a pattern of profit first and fairness nowhere. DeStorm Power, King Bach and Amanda Cerny built the network with their talent hustle and cash. Now they are in court fighting to reclaim the fruits of their labor and clear their names from inflated IRS documents. Their case is about more than unpaid equity. It is a fight for creator rights and a warning to anyone thinking they can build a brand and be cut out of the story.

At the end of the day Zeus may keep churning out viral reality shows but the real story is in these court filings. The people who actually created the platform are the ones left holding the bag. If the court sides with the original founders it will send a message that ideas earned through sweat deserve more than a line item on a tax form. It will remind every creator that building a business with your own hands means protecting your stake and standing up when someone tries to rewrite history

What Happened to America First? Early Policies Say Anything But…


5128-5130 W. Center St. and 5124-5126 W. Center St. Photo by Jeramey Jannene.

MILWAUKEE — From 1st and Center Street west to Sherman Boulevard, abandoned buildings sit like open wounds on both sides of the street, remnants of factories, stores like Family Dollar, and once-thriving Black-owned businesses that used to anchor Milwaukee’s north side. For residents here, the phrase “America First” hits different. It’s not just a slogan. It’s a question.

What happened to America First?

When Donald J. Trump returned to the White House in January, he promised a revival of the economic nationalism that swept him into power in 2016. He talked about lifting up working-class Americans, restoring pride, and rebuilding the nation from the inside out. But early policies out of Washington tell a different story, a story where billions are sent overseas, while communities like this one are left to decay.

Foreign Priorities, Local Consequences

In the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, more than $22 billion has gone to foreign military aid, including a $3.8 billion annual commitment to Israel until 2028, and billions more to Ukraine. Meanwhile, federal programs that fund youth service, veteran reintegration, and inner-city job development are facing the axe.

The Corporation for National and Community Service , the agency behind AmeriCorps, is on the chopping block with $400 Million already cut from the budget in April. In Milwaukee, where City Year corps members help stabilize struggling schools, the impact will be immediate. “These cuts aren’t abstract,” said Vanessa Brown, a local educator and Marquette University graduate. “They take away people, resources, and hope.”

A Tale of Two Budgets

Supporters of the Trump administration say the military spending is about protecting American interests abroad. But on Milwaukee’s North Side, where gun violence, underfunded schools, and housing insecurity dominate daily life, the disconnect feels personal.

“You can walk five blocks and count ten boarded-up or burned down houses,” said Art Jones, a university professor and youth mentor. “But we’ve got money to build houses in Ukraine? Explain that to the kids sleeping in a shelter tonight.”

The Promise of Jobs, Still Waiting

Despite the tough talk on trade and manufacturing, many local plants never reopened after the last recession. Tariffs might have protected certain industries on paper, but they didn’t bring back the jobs and probably never will. What they did do, critics argue, is hike prices on everyday goods , from construction materials to car parts , squeezing small business owners and working families alike.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” said Renee Evans, who owns a small contracting firm near Burleigh. “We were promised revitalization projects. What we got was new empty buildings and shuttered storefronts.”

The Border and the Backlash

While the administration has doubled down on mass deportations and immigration crackdowns, there’s been no meaningful investment in immigration courts or visa reform, creating longer delays and more confusion for legal immigrants, employers, and even military families. It’s a harsh policy with little planning, and local economies like Milwaukee’s which is reliant on immigrant labor in many work sectors is feeling the strain.

Is “America First” Just a Slogan Now?

For many here, the question isn’t whether America First has failed, it’s whether it was ever real to begin with. The country’s resources still seem to flow upward and outward, not inward to the communities that were promised revitalization.

“If this is America First,” said Kaleb Tatum, shaking his head outside a shuttered youth center on North Avenue, “we must not be part of America.”

The Nakba of 2025: A New Chapter in a 77-Year Displacement

Displaced Palestinians from the Nakba of 1948 (top) and displaced Palestinians in Gaza in 2025 (bottom). Seventy-seven years apart.

By N. Knight

February 2025

GAZA CITY — Seventy-seven years after the Nakba of 1948, in which Zionist paramilitary groups (later forming the Israeli Defense Forces) forcibly displaced more than 750,000 Palestinians during the creation of Israel, a new catastrophe is unfolding in Gaza. Then, as now, the mass removal of Palestinians was not just a consequence of war but a calculated effort to reshape the region’s demographics.

The original Nakba, or “catastrophe” in Arabic, saw entire villages erased, families expelled, and a people scattered across the Middle East with no path home. Today, with 1.5 million Palestinians displaced and Gaza reduced to rubble, history is repeating itself. What was once the forced exodus of Palestinian communities into Gaza and neighboring countries is now a campaign to permanently expel them from the land entirely.

And just as in 1948, this displacement has been backed by major world powers.

How the World Redefined a Nation Without Its People

Palestinians were never given a say in their removal. The decision to partition their homeland and create Israel was made by external powers, largely Britain and the United States, without the consent of the people already living there.

The Role of Winston Churchill and the British Mandate

Winston Churchill and Israeli Prime minister David Ben Gurion

Before Israel’s establishment, Palestine was under British rule as part of the League of Nations Mandate, a system intended to prepare nations for self-governance. But rather than supporting Palestinian self-determination, Britain instead paved the way for Zionist settlement under the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine without consulting its Arab inhabitants.

Winston Churchill, as both Colonial Secretary and later as Prime Minister, was a staunch Zionist supporter who saw Jewish settlement as a British imperial interest. He dismissed Palestinian opposition outright, once stating:

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time.”

Under Churchill’s leadership, Britain facilitated Jewish immigration while crushing Palestinian resistance. By the time the British withdrew in 1948, Palestinians were politically powerless, abandoned to Zionist militias who would soon launch the campaign of forced displacement known as the Nakba.

Harry S. Truman’s Immediate Support for Ethnic Displacement

President Harry S. Truman (left) meets with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (right) and Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban (standing) in a gift ceremony in the Oval Office.

As the British withdrew, it was the United States under President Harry S. Truman that cemented Israel’s creation. Against the advice of his own State Department, which warned that recognizing Israel would spark mass displacement and long-term instability, Truman became the first world leader to formally recognize Israel just minutes after its declaration of independence on May 14, 1948.

Truman’s recognition was not just diplomatic. The United States provided Israel with critical financial and military aid, allowing the newly formed state to consolidate its territorial gains and prevent the return of displaced Palestinians.

The United Nations passed Resolution 194, affirming the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. But Truman and his administration did nothing to enforce it. The result was that 750,000 Palestinians became permanent refugees, many of whom fled to the Gaza Strip only to find themselves trapped in a cycle of displacement that continues to this day.

From 1948 to 2025: A Continuing Nakba


Palestinians flee south via Salah al-Din Road, in central Gaza, on the third day of a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on November 26, 2023. © 2023 AP Photo/Hatem Moussa

What is happening now in Gaza follows the same pattern. The Israeli bombardment of Gaza has destroyed entire neighborhoods, killed over 100,000 Palestinians, and displaced 1.5 million people which is twice the number of refugees from 1948. The infrastructure of survival including hospitals, schools, and road, has been systematically wiped out. And now, current United States President Donald Trump has proposed ensuring that Palestinians never return.

Donald Trump’s plan to permanently expel Gaza’s residents and rebuild the land for Jewish settlers mirrors the policies of 1948, except now, the forced displacement is being openly endorsed as official United States policy. When as a question about Palestinian residents, he suggested they go to Egypt and Jordan, and redevelop Gaza into what he described as the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

A Global Response, and a Question

Internationally, Trump’s proposal has been met with sharp opposition. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt have explicitly rejected the idea, warning that any forced resettlement of Palestinians into their territories would be a violation of sovereignty and a red line for the region. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan called it “a blatant attempt at ethnic cleansing that will not be tolerated by the Arab world.” Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi reaffirmed that Egypt “will not accept the forced displacement of Palestinians into the Sinai.” Both nations have signaled that such a move could undermine diplomatic relations with Israel and the United States.

Yet, despite these warnings, the pattern remains unchanged. A population is being forcibly removed, their land repopulated with another ethnic group, and the world is expected to accept it as the price of geopolitics.

Which raises the question.

If the forced removal of an entire people, the destruction of their homes, and the resettlement of their land with another group is not ethnic cleansing, then what is

And if the world will not act to stop it now, will it ever?

What Emmett Till’s Mother Taught Me About Grief and Justice

On Feb. 26, 2012, my entire life changed in ways that I could never imagine. Within an instant, after the brutal and inhumane killing of my son, …

What Emmett Till’s Mother Taught Me About Grief and Justice

Here’s How Many Jobs U.S. Companies Cut In September

The computer industry was hit hard.

Last month saw a surge in layoffs, primarily due to large-scale employee cuts at companies like Hewlett-Packard.

U.S. companies laid off 58,877 workers in September, according to data released Thursday by Challenger, Gray & Christmas. September layoffs are up 43% from August when about 41,000 workers were let go.

In total, employers have announced 493,431 planned layoffs so far this year, a 36% jump over the same period last year and 2% more than the 2014 total.

“Job cuts have already surpassed last year’s total and are on track to end the year as the highest annual total since 2009, when nearly 1.3 million layoffs were announced at the tail-end of the recession,” said John A. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

The computer industry accounted for the heaviest job cuts in September primarily driven by Hewlett-Packard, which said it would cut 30,000 jobs. The job losses, which were announced in mid-September by CEO Meg Whitman, should save the company $2.7 billion annually and represented about 10% of the company’s workforce, HP said.

Source: Here’s How Many Jobs U.S. Companies Cut In September