The fourth and final season of the Amazon Prime alternate history and sci-fi show “The Man in the High Castle” was released Nov. 15. The fourth season continues the show’s penchant for clever historical references and homages, complex characters, incredible production designs and ambiguous tone, all the way to the show’s final scene. This final season has divided viewers and critics but is a satisfying conclusion to an enrapturing series. 

The show is based on the Phillip K. Dick book of the same name, and while it deviates heavily from the source material, it remains faithful to the work in its themes, tone and some major plot points. The show is set in a universe where Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan win the Second World War. I started watching the show when it first came out and was hooked immediately. The show balances many concurrent plots and can be confusing for new viewers. I highly recommend that readers go and watch the first three seasons of “The Man in the High Castle” before reading further, as there will be spoilers for the first three seasons. There will also be hints at spoilers for the new season.

The new season is easily the darkest of the series and starts off immediately where season three left off. Juliana Crane – played by Alexa Davalos – escapes from captivity by traveling to the parallel universe, right as Reichsmarschall John Smith – played by Rufus Sewell – shoots her. While Season 3 ended on an ambiguous note, with viewers unsure if the shot killed Juliana, we learn that she has only been wounded and successfully travels, only to be found by this alternate universe’s version of Smith. The show then jumps to one year later. Trade Minister Tagomi – played by Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa – has recently been assassinated, and Inspector Kido – played by Joel de la Fuente – is tasked with investigating his murder. Smith’s wife, Helen, still reeling from the loss of her son, has taken their daughters and fled the Reich, living in the Neutral Zone. Hawthorne Abendsen, the titular Man in the High Castle, is still in captivity, and Wyatt Prince is leading resistance in the neutral zone.

The new season has left some of its less impactful plotlines by the wayside, many of which were resolved rather well at the end of Season 3. The loss of Tagomi, however, who had been a major character from the first episode, feels like a waste, as many roles he may have played are now pushed onto newer characters, leaving his arch incomplete. 

At the end of Season 3 it is heavily implied that the driving element of the series going forward will be the multi-verse and the Nazi’s portal into the multiverse, Die niebenwelt. Instead, this element of the plot is sidelined to focus more on the elements within the main universe, with the alternate universe and portal acting more as McGuffin’s and tools for character development. This is especially important for Crane, who is in the alternate universe at the season’s beginning, and Smith, who travels there after his alternate self is killed by a Nazi agent. 

Smith’s plotline is easily the most fascinating and satisfying of the series. Rufus Sewell’s performance is superb, and the contrast of the Smith we’ve grown to know over the past seasons and the alternate universe’s version of him gives us new insights into the character’s motivations and emotions, which have long been conflicted and ambiguous to the viewers. His progression from a more one-dimensional antagonist in the first season to a complex and multifaceted character is easily the most well written and performed plotline in the series. Helen Smith’s progression from a side character in the first two seasons to a major character in her own right only makes this plotline more interesting. 

We are also introduced to a new resistance group in the Japanese Pacific States called the Black Communist Rebellion, which is quickly established as a major concern facing the Japanese forces. The BCR is very clearly based on the real-life Black Power movement of the 1960s and is led by a man named Equiano Hampton, a clever reference to 19th century abolitionist Olaudah Equiano, and Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. The BCR quickly establishes itself as one of the best subplots in the series and comes to play a significant role in the finale. 

I don’t want to go into details on the show’s conclusions, but as someone who has watched the show from the beginning, I found the conclusion satisfying. It was difficult to see how the show would end, and I couldn’t see any route to a completely happy ending. I knew that some questions would need to be left unanswered. I found the conclusion to be rather ambiguous, but I was happy that it was not completely definitive. While the multiverse element played a much smaller role than I anticipated, I was happy that they focused more on the alternate history aspects of the show, which were always the most intriguing.

For new viewers, the show will likely be confusing, but in the context of the preceding seasons, it is certainly a satisfying conclusion to a very engaging show. While it is not without its flaws, it is certainly one of the best shows I’ve seen in recent years, and I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys history or science fiction, complex and ambiguous characters and incredible set design.   

When Trump was booed and a banner saying “Impeach Trump” was unfurled at Nationals Park during Game 5 of the World Series, many online decried the action and said we need to keep politics out of sports. Many Americans like to think of politics and sports as being neatly separated. Many stadiums, including Kauffman Stadium, explicitly ban banners and signs that contain political material. But the Nationals fans might be onto something that has been missing from American sports for too long: political fan culture.

I’m sure more than a few people have already rolled their eyes – or even closed this tab – because this idea is almost an anathema to American sports fans. Politics and sports should be separate, just ignore the military flyovers, national anthem before the game and other displays of American nationalism. But I don’t want to discuss these elements as much as I want to discuss fan culture. 

Politics as a part of fandom is really a form of organic fan culture. Team managers and owners typically do not endorse it and often seek to suppress it. Instead, it develops from within the fan base and is reflected in the symbols they embrace, the chants they use and the songs they sing. It also often manifests as protests against team management. Typically it emerges out of the political and social ideas of the fan base or a small part of the fan base. This seldom manifests as support for a party, organization or candidate. Instead, it gravitates toward broader ideological positions and displays of support for causes and movements.

This is especially true for soccer teams. Many soccer teams around the world originated as local clubs for the community, usually centered around public schools or churches, especially among the urban working class. Because the teams’ origins are in the community, fans feel a sense of ownership and have been able to develop the fan culture themselves. Liverpool Football Club in England, Celtic FC in Scotland, FC St. Pauli in Germany, AS Livorno in Italy, AEK Athens in Greece, Hapoel Tel-Aviv in Israel and Boca Juniors in Argentina are generally considered left-wing teams. Chelsea FC in England, SS Lazio in Italy and Beitar Jerusalem in Israel are generally considered right-wing. Other teams are identified with a specific side in a particular political divide, and this often plays into sports rivalries. FC Barcelona is associated with Catalan nationalism and separatism, while Real Madrid is associated with Spanish unionism. 

However, political fan culture is not limited to soccer, although it is most apparent there. The rivalry between the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leaves has a political undercurrent, reflecting the divide between French Canadians and English Canadians and the Quebec sovereigntist and nationalist movements. None of this means that all fans of these teams are politically aligned, and there is certainly a diversity of political thought among fans.

It should be acknowledged that at times political fan culture can stray into the fringes, and in a dark way. SS Lazio has a disturbingly large minority of fascist supporters who wave swastika flags, give Nazi salutes and shout racist and anti-semitic chants during matches. Beitar Jerusalem has been dubbed “Israel’s most racist team,” and fan clubs have been connected to a number of incidents of racist violence. In England, the Chelsea Headhunters are a gang of neo-Nazi Chelsea fans who regularly attack minorities and fans of rival teams. Sports leagues in the United States are no strangers to violence and racism either, but vile conduct is by no means universal to all leagues and teams.

Political fan culture has failed to develop in the United States in comparison to abroad in large part because of the extreme commercialization of sports. While soccer teams abroad grew out of community sports clubs, baseball and football teams were established by businessmen. American sports leagues are first and foremost business ventures, not governing bodies for sports. As a result, fans don’t feel the same level of control over the teams that many soccer fans abroad do. In Germany, fans are required by law to own a controlling share of teams. In the United States, only one professional sports team, the Green Bay Packers, is owned by the fans. This has restricted the development of organic forms of fan culture, with team owners and league officials cultivating it for fans instead. Politics are naturally controversial and bad for business. As a result, leagues and teams seek to stamp out this form of organic fan culture. 

Sadly, this is one problem in the NFL we can’t blame solely on Roger Goodell.

Despite this, things are beginning to change, and we are starting to see political fan culture develop. The growing popularity of Major League Soccer has led to the emergence of fan groups that are explicitly anti-racist, anti-fascist and promote radical inclusivity, like the Fountain City Ultras here in Kansas City. This development has already brought fans into conflict with the League Front Desk. When the MLS updated it code of conduct at the start of this last season, prohibiting political displays, a group of Portland Timbers Fans were banned for three games by the league after waving flags with the three arrows – an anti-fascist symbol. In response, fans from nearly every team in the league launched the #AUnitedFront campaign to oppose the rules and the ban, and fans from rival teams began openly flaunting the MLS rules by waving anti-fascist flags during games. Fans united to stand up to the league and declare they were no longer going to allow the fan culture to be dictated by commercial interests. 

While the recent events at Game 5 could be just a one-off event, the fact that the crowd joined in the chant, rather than simply a few fans who brought the banner, tells me this is part of something bigger. 

“I think this is huge for DC,” a jubilant fan being interviewed by Fox 5 DC said after the National’s victory in Game 7.  “DC needed this. We got some asshole in the f****** White House.” 

I’m hopeful that this is the start of a burgeoning political fan culture in baseball. Maybe next season someone at the K will have a sign saying “Royals Fans Against Racism.” And hopefully, the Royals will also have a better season.

Part two of a two-part series on Medicaid expansion in Kansas and Missouri. Part one can be found here.

Much like Kansas, Missouri is one of the 14 states that has yet to expand its Medicaid program under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. While in Kansas the battle over Medicaid expansion has been a major battle in the state legislature, in Missouri the final decision may come down to the voters.

In Missouri, non-disabled adults are not eligible for Medicaid coverage, and parents are only eligible if they are making up to 22 percent of the federal poverty line. In Kansas, this cap is 38 percent of the federal poverty line. At 18 percent, only Texas and Alabama have a lower cap for Medicaid eligibility than Missouri. 

Under the Affordable Care Act, people making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for subsidized private health insurance plans from the Federal government. Just like in Kansas, this means many people do not make enough money to qualify for subsidized private health plans but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. A single parent making more than $2,892 a year but less than $16,910 a year falls into this gap and is ineligible for either Medicaid or subsidized private insurance. 

It is estimated that with Medicaid expansion in Missouri, which would raise the cap on Medicaid eligibility to those making up to 138 percent of the Federal poverty line and extend eligibility to adults without children, between 219,000 and 327,000 people would gain access to healthcare. 

The issue of Medicaid in Missouri was further complicated in August, when it was revealed approximately 120,000 Missourians were removed from the rolls for Medicaid registration between January 2018 and July 2019, the majority of them children. The reason for this drop in enrollment has led to a contentious partisan debate. 

Democrats have cried foul play and accuse Republican Governor Mike Parsons of standing by while Medicaid recipients are being removed from the program under questionable circumstances. On the other hand, Governor Parsons and Republicans in the State Legislature attributed the drop to an improvement in the state’s economy and better technology enabling auditing of recipients. This, coupled with recent cuts to the program, has made the issue all the more pressing for advocates.

Previous attempts to pass Medicaid Expansion in the Missouri General Assembly have failed to even be debated, and most died in committee. The most recent attempt during the 2019 session did not even receive a hearing.

“An ideological unwillingness of the majority party to consider the legislation which stems from what I believe is their fear that the expansion of Medicaid might result in their loss of a supermajority, if not the loss of the majority outright,” State Representative and William Jewell Alumnus Mark Ellebracht (D-Liberty) said attributing this failure to Republicans. 

With Republican supermajorities in both Houses of the General Assembly, and a Republican Governor, it is unlikely that Medicaid expansion will be passed by legislative means. As a result many advocates have turned to the ballot initiative system, hoping to put the issue before Missouri voters in 2020. 

In September the Healthcare for Missouri coalition launched a petition campaign to get Medicaid expansion on the ballot in 2020. 

“For years, we have worked with the Missouri legislature to expand Medicaid and health care options for our neighbors – but we can no longer wait on politicians to do the right thing,” according to a spokesperson for Missouri Jobs with Justice, one of the organizations involved in the Healthcare for Missouri coalition. 

 To get the issue on the ballot advocates will need to collect more than 170,000 signatures by May 3, 2020, and already have begun collecting signatures across the state. According to Missouri Jobs with Justice, over 16,000 signatures have already been collected from across the state. 

The campaign has also raised over $2.2 million to support its efforts, with large donations being made by the Kansas City-based Health Forward Foundation, BJC HealthCare in St. Louis, the Missouri Hospitals Association and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a liberal non-profit group based in Washington D.C. 

This could prove to be a winning strategy. Previous ballot initiatives on Medicaid expansion have been successful in Maine in 2017, and in Utah, Idaho and Nebraska in 2018. With voters in other solid red states voting in favor of Medicaid expansion, Missouri stands a good chance of following suit next fall. This is further supported by other ballot initiatives in Missouri, such as the failure of Proposition A, and the success of the Clean Missouri ballot initiative and the Minimum wage increase passed by Missouri voters in 2018.

“I am optimistic that the voters of the State of Missouri will do what is in their best interest, as they did on Proposition A and increasing the minimum wage,” Ellebracht said.

While the fate of Medicaid expansion in Kansas is ultimately dependent on the legislature, in Missouri the decision may come down to the voters. Medicaid expansion advocates have a long road ahead of them, and it will remain to be seen if they will collect the 170,000 signatures required by May. While advocates are optimistic, Missouri voters may get the final say on Medicaid expansion.

The Following is Part One in a two-part series on Medicaid Expansion

Last year, Democrat Laura Kelly was elected Governor of Kansas promising, among other things, to expand the state’s Medicaid program under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. However, while Medicaid Expansion passed the State House of Representative in March, the legislation has been stymied in the State Senate, and Kansas remains one of the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid. The battle over Medicaid Expansion is going to continue in the legislature’s next session.

Kansas is regarded by some advocates as doing the bare minimum. Medicaid is not offered to childless adults and is only available to parents making up to 38 percent of the federal poverty line, and those with disabilities making up to 74 percent of the federal poverty line, with more benefits available for children. Those who make between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for subsidized private health insurance plans from the Federal government. The amount varies depending on income, with more subsidies available to those closer to the poverty line. Currently, the Federal government pays up to 60 percent of the cost, with the rest coming out of the state budget. This leaves many Kansans in a situation where they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid under the state’s rules but too little to qualify for subsidies from the Federal government, what is commonly referred to as the Medicaid Gap. 

Medicaid Expansion would extend coverage to those in the Medicaid Gap, to people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line – roughly $16,753 per year for a single adult – with 90 percent of the costs being covered by the Federal Government. In Kansas, it is estimated that approximately 150,000 people would be eligible for coverage under Medicaid Expansion.

Medicaid Expansion legislation was passed by a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans in the Spring but was blocked by the Senate. State Representative Susan Ruiz (D-Lenexa) lays the blame for this squarely on Senate Majority Leader Jim Denning (R-Olathe) and Senate President Susan Wagle (R-Wichita), who refused to add the legislation to the agenda in the last session. 

“It’s in the hands of two people and it’s disgusting to me that they don’t have the moral compass to see how what they are doing not allowing Medicaid [Expansion] to happen,” Ruiz said. 

Some Senators attempted to overrule the Senate leadership and add the Medicaid Expansion to the agenda in the final week of the last session but fell just one vote short.

Denning has stated he intends to bring his own version of Medicaid Expansion to the Floor when the next session begins in January. He has formed a committee to draft the legislation which began meeting this last week. 

This Senate version has not been finalized yet but includes a provision to increase taxes on cigarettes by a dollar a pack, and a 5 cent per milliliter tax on vaping products, which would bring in an estimated $50 million in revenue. It would also add a $31 million dollar surcharge on hospitals and $63 million in fees assessed for managed care organizations serving Medicaid clients. Denning has argued that these taxes and fees are necessary to ensure Medicaid Expansion is revenue neutral. 

Senate President Susan Wagle previously floated the idea of adding work requirements for able-bodied recipients. However, such provisions were not included in Denning’s plan, much to the dismay of many conservative state legislators. The federal government has so far rejected all Expansion plans that included work requirements. 

When reached for comment, State Representative Rui Xu (D-Westwood) says that he expects Denning’s version of Medicaid Expansion to pass the Senate in the next session, meaning the legislation will come down to the conference committee, which leans conservative. He suspects this will result in the final version looking more like Denning’s yet-to-be-released plan. This could kick off a new fight in the state legislature next year if the House doesn’t approve the plan to come out of the conference committee. 

“It all comes down to who plays the game,” according to Xu.

He noted that it depends how willing moderate Republicans in the House will be to pass a version that doesn’t include as expansive coverage. Ruiz said she thinks “The majority of us,” referring to legislators who support Medicaid Expansion, “are ready for a fight and ready to mobilize if we need to.” She went on to say that the efforts of community organizations, activists and constituents are going to be crucial in making sure the best possible version of Medicaid Expansion is enacted. Xu and Ruiz both said that Medicaid Expansion is going to be a top priority in the next session, not only for them but for everyone involved.

This view was also expressed by Governor Kelly in a recent statement. 

“I have been clear that Medicaid Expansion will be my No. 1 priority in 2020,” Kelly said. 

The Governor further expressed her support for the version passed by the House in the last session.

“Simply expanding the Medicaid-eligible population to include adults who make up to $16,753 per year is the best path forward,” Kelly said.

 She encouraged state legislators to look at the experiences of other states that have expanded Medicaid.

“States with the best results and the most financial gain have the simplest plans,” Kelly said.

It is certain that the battle over Medicaid Expansion will be the defining issue of the next session for the Kansas legislature, but the outcome remains uncertain.