BLM, Equality, and the absurdity of Cancel Culture

A few years ago, I wanted to get into a hobby which challenged me to be more creative, then, one Christmas, my wife gave me a camera.  I really got into it and watched some Youtube videos and bought a course.  I learned the basic math behind the exposure triangle (yes, that is a thing).  I loved it.  I quickly learned how understanding the impartial math help me realize my creative dream.  In fact, I grew to love it so much I didn’t (and still don’t) care if I am the best.  The enjoyment of the hobby is all I need.

However, I then thought that photography is for me, but what kind of photographer?  After some reflection, I decided on travel photography (this was before the pandemic and there is more to how I will achieve that).  Then came the cancel culture.  This as an aspiring travel photographer seems like the most toxic thing possible.  Traditionally, the Left tells us “travel and see the world.  Experience other cultures because yours is not the only valid one!!!”  True.  So, very true!  If I’m not careful, I might learn something.  However, what is the point of traveling to see other cultures if the uniqueness has been sanitized and everything the Left doesn’t like has been cancelled out?

Then came Black Lives Matter (organization) and their criticisms.  Their criticisms are bogus or even dangerous.  When the response <<all lives matter>> came out, it really resonated with me.  All lives DO matter.  What confuses me is why the phrase <<all lives matter>> is seen as toxic.  When this debate came out, I quickly asked myself >>WHY<< do black lives matter?  My immediate response to this was simple, and to me, self evident.  Their lives matter because they have an ethical sense of right and wrong.  They use this ethical sense to reflect on yesterday, ponder today, and dream about tomorrow.  However, all ethnicities and therefore all cultures do this.  This why ALL lives matter.  This debate between <<black lives matter>> and <<all lives matter>> is a red herring.  It is meant to divide us rather than unify the Nation around dealing with bigotry in favor of dignity.

Some people claim that no lives matter until black lives matter.  There is a great danger in this.  Are Native American’s ability to reflect on yesterday dependent on Blacks’ being validated?  NO! They shouldn’t wait until such validation.  Are Asians’ ability to dream about tomorrow dependent on Blacks being validated?  NO!  They shouldn’t wait until such validation.  Do Black’s ability to make moral choices depend on any one else?  NO!  They shouldn’t wait for such validation.  They shouldn't wait because that is not where their dignity comes from.  Human dignity is transcendent of any ethnicity or law.  It goes to the very heart of what it means to be human.

<<All lives matter>> is not a racist denial of the trials an tribulations of any one ethnicity.  It is meant to bring context to then discuss why the lives of all ethnicities matter.  It is to say that we are all <<in the same boat.>>  We are all in the same boat of seeking dignity.  It is the sad state of affairs today that we see each other as different needing to be fixed.  If we explored people’s similarities we could then build upon that knowledge with greater dignity and respect for all.

This is the purpose of art.  The individual can choose how and when to use art. for reflection, pondering, or dreaming.  Cancel culture denies others the ability to make this decision.  There is no equality of opportunity here.  I would even theorize that cancel culture is about individuals wanting to avoid doing this.  It is strange how the argument against art (supporting cancel culture) is it creates <<an unsafe environment.>>  Unsafe in what way?  Are life and limb being threatened?  Are people denied the ability to retreat to a safe place?  In one way, this is actually the purpose of art.  Either to challenge our beliefs or help us aspire to something better.

It is strange how people see statues of bygone eras as threatening and dangerous while people have been killed over the phrase “all lives matter.”

Then, what is the way forward?  We must agree to nonaggression.  Indiscriminate violence never solved anything.  We must first seek to understand our similarities.  When we appreciate that we are actually have more similarities than differences, we can appreciate others for who they really are.  The healing of wrongs is not dwelling in the past but building the future.

The past present and future of a "Timelady"

Am I a fan of Dr. Who?

The answer is both “yes” and “no.”  I am a fan in that I have watched and loved the show since the mid-1970’s.  There was even a time when my old PBS station played every episode from “An Unearthly Child” as a Saturday afternoon Dr. Who movie.  I enjoyed every minute of it.

However, the answer of “no” is also valid because science fiction and fantasy have been my “go to” genres for stories as long as I can remember.  My love is not specific to Dr. Who, but to the genre as a whole.  I have also had a love for Star Trek which predates my ability to fully appreciate the plots or the intended point of the stories (I was younger than 6 years old at the time).  Over the whole franchise, I was enthralled by the exploration of honor through the Klingon culture.  The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition and their culture has been a fascinating discussion on how we can put money as the central concern.  Having been a fan for so long, I naturally interpret show concepts and characterizations in the greater light of issues universal to humanity (as well as within the confines of the show canon).

Concerning Dr. Who directly, it was announced that Jodie Whittaker is cast to be the next incarnation of the Doctor.  The show has long established that Timelords have a certain amount of control in directing how they regenerate.  It would be strange for the series to make such a direction and not address why the Doctor made this sudden change after so many male incarnations.

Sure, it has been long established that Timelords can make the shift.  This has been mentioned several times in different ways on the show.  However, nothing (biological or social) operates in isolation (especially something like a person's sex).  Often times, both can impact the other.  We, however, know very little of Gallifreyan culture, especially on this issue.  What are the social, environmental, or biological conditions which lead to that change?  Without knowing this information, selecting a female Doctor risks being “preachy” on gender identity politics instead of exploring an alien culture.  How many Timelords make the shift and how often?  Are there ever Timelords who regret making this change for personal reasons? What are the risks in doing so?

However, the producers decided not to have this change (for varied reasons over the course of the show).  Exploring his home culture's view on this change could have given an excellent counterbalance (within the show) for why he didn't.  Then, when they decide to make the shift, they could have had a few adventures which establish a change in his mind on the issue.  Having an established reason for making a choice can also help lay the groundwork for establishing reasons for a reversal on that decision.

Part of this sense of “preachiness” could also come from what the BBC has not done.  There has been a call for spin-off series involving Susan (the Doctor’s granddaughter), Romana (female Timelord who traveled with the Doctor during his Fourth Regeneration), River Song (his wife, and her story is complicated).  Were these ideas for t.v. shows (no objection) rejected because they would somehow diminish the Doctor becoming a female (politically charged)?

While this decision has definite support now.  It also risks coming across as a gimmick in the long run.  Without having the roots of knowing this change in Gallifreyan culture, (and considering the social climate we live in today) in the long run it could come across as bowing to political or social forces in operation today.  The real test for this move will be the nature of the stories and how long they last.  Will they be as strong seasons down the road?  Will they be as strong when Ms. Whittaker’s replacement’s replacement announces leaving the show?  We are often told “time marches on” when our favorite actor for the show leaves.  However, what are the politics that will develop when the novelty of having a female Doctor has evaporated?  Only time will tell.

UPDATES:
Wed 19JUL 2017 Included the paragraph "However, the producers decided not to have this change..."

Homosexual Marriage and how SCOTUS failed the Country

THEY SAY:  Don’t force your morality on me.

THEY SAY:  Baking the cake/ taking the photos of a gay wedding is not endorsing gay marriage, it is just a contract

QUOTE: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice… (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution)

QUOTE: [T]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions (Danbury Baptists Letter)

QUOTE: Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. (Catholic Catechism)

QUOTE: When the first word link is forged, the first speech censured, the first thought forbidden the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.  “The Drumhead” (ST: TNG)

I SAY:  The Supreme Court of the United States declared homosexual marriage a Constitutional right.  However, in declaring something Constitutional or unConstitutional, they are invoking the Founding Fathers.  They are saying that they believe the original drafters of the Constitution would hold this opinion on the matter at hand.  The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has severely strayed from this.  While letters such as Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is not part of law, it does offer insight to what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution.  After all, Jefferson was one of them.

However, declaring such a right is holding an opinion, which Jefferson denounced.  The “insurmountable wall” was to protect the Church from the government, not the other way around.  However, this is not to say that the Church was to be superior to the Government, rather it is to say that the Church should be able to voice its opinion free of government interference.  The people at large should be free to accept or reject the proclamations of the Church.  It is the job the SCOTUS to preserve and promote discussion, not to make decisions of law like this.

If not this, then how should the government be run?  By for and of the people.  The roll of the SCOTUS is to mediate between Congress and the President, not make moral proclamations.  The proper place for the development of laws should be Congress or referendums of the people.  However before SCOTUS ruled, different states had referendums both endorsing and opposing gay marriage.  We cannot say “the will of the people be done” supporting one referendum while denouncing another.  To do this is to chain us all.  The issue of homosexual marriage is a States' rights issue as much as it is about marriage itself.

Government may prevent, permit, or promote an action.  The proper role of the Court is to prevent slander or defamation of character in order to help promote insightful discussion in the public forum while permitting gay marriage.  To do this while the public debates and discusses how the law should be read is the true role of the Courts in this country.

If baking the wedding cake or doing the photoshoot is just a contract (and not an endorsement of gay marriage) as they say, then why is it so important that the cake be made by that baker or the pictures taken by that photographer.  After all, it is just a contract.  The courts failed the public by ignoring this question in favor of making the moral judgement.  The proper ruling would have been to protect the business while saying that the gay couple held the right to contract with a business willing to do the service.

As a different example, I love my Easter ham.  It is my favorite meal of the year.  However, should I protest in the streets when a jewish deli won’t sell me my ham?  Or, would the more mature response be to go purchase my ham from a business that will.  I could even buy from the jewish deli products which they do sell.

The reason laws are to come from the Congress is to help insure that different perspectives are voiced and recognized.  We are a Nation established for “rule by for and of the people.”  In order to achieve this ideal, we need to make the people the central source of developing laws.  Any “advancement” which our society makes, should come from the people, not the social engineering of the Courts.

Love and Abortion: Irony with Extreme Prejudice

I got this message from a longtime friend (I’ll call Jane Doe, not her real name) on Facebook.  We had been neighbors growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s.  Since then, I had moved out of state.  We then reconnected over the internet.  We occasionally debated Democrat/ Republican politics.  I am actually not a Republican, but I am, socially, a moderate conservative.  Then, by e-mail, I received notice of this posting.  Soon after Jane made this post, she cut the friend’s link between our accounts.  This issue for me (abortion in general) is such an emotional one, even for me personally, that I had to step away from my computer numerous times to collect my thoughts.

In her attempt to “spell things out” for me, I could not help but notice how this is saturated in irony.  Right from the start saying she says “[a]ll men oppress women no matter their political, cultural or religious beliefs.”  She says this with the thesis that abortion is a way for women to “claim their independence.”  It would be foolish to say that there is no oppression of women.  However, to make such a sweeping statement as “[a]ll men oppress women” is disconcerting to say the least.  The easy sound-byte answer to this is what of men who support abortion?  Are such allies of abortion oppressing women just by being men?  However, this is to easy of an answer to leave it here.

The irony starts with the history of abortion in the modern world.  Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) would agree with Jane that women have an inherent drive to improve their lives.  I personally, have little admiration for Sanger’s work, however, she did make an important point.  She also saw abortion as specifically a tool for men to keep women oppressed.  One of her specific arguments is the inherent health risks involved with the procedure.  Even in today’s political environment of having abortion legal, there are still cases where women die on the table specifically because of abortion.  Coat-hanger abortions (while did occur) was never conducted at the rate the propagandists claimed.  It was a lie perpetuated by a man in order to get abortion legal.  The irony is most poignant with the case of Kermit Gosnell (a man!).  Women going to such horrible conditions to claim their “what is best for their health and future” is beyond me.  Then, there is Uncle Pervert who chauffeurs young women to an abortion clinic in order to cover up his oppression.  Yes, there are men who oppress women. 

The Supreme Court (all men at the time, not one woman on the panel) ruled in favor of abortion through Roe v. Wade (remember that “all men oppress women regardless of their political beliefs”).  Today, some of the strongest (and most controversial, therefore well known) opponents to abortion (especially within the Catholic Church) are actually women.  Lila Rose of “Live Action,” became famous for holding some of the first undercover videos within a Planned Parenthood.  Then, Abby Johnson left her job as a general manager of a Planned Parenthood office specifically because of an experience assisting in an abortion.  She even wrote a book about the event.  Now, even the young “Roe” of Roe v. Wade (Norma McCorvey) has regretted her decision to participate in the case.  She is now a strong advocate against abortion.  Both Abby Johnson and Norma McCorvey have been baptized into Christianity as part of their leaving the “abortion community.”  So, lets look at other religions and at Christianity specifically.

There are men who subscribe to pagan beliefs.  Some of these belief systems worship the feminine, often in terms of the “Earth Mother.”  The feminine is most associated with creation, fertility, motherhood, etc.  According to Jane, “all men oppress women regardless of their religious… beliefs.”  I would be hard pressed to see how such a belief system makes women “second class citizens” as Jane would have us believe.  Moreover, I don’t understand how men participating in such belief systems is an oppression of women.

Lets now look at Christianity.  Christ (as a man on Earth) extolled such teachings of “love your neighbor as yourself,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “love one another as I have loved you.”  However, this theme of love did not stay within the Gospels.  St. Paul wrote “and if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” [1Cor 13: 2].

However, how are we to define “love.”  Is love merely the “rubber-stamping” of another person’s beliefs and actions?  Is it endorsing whatever beliefs or agendas society tells us is acceptable?  Or, is love challenging and helping others to rise above their anger and heal from their pain?