Dear God, the Planned Parenthood Shooter Does Not Represent Me

I am Pro-Life.  For the whole life.  I am not ashamed to admit that.  One bit.  I am proud of it.  But I am reluctant to volunteer that information, because, well, three...two...one...  Oh, I'm a woman hater now?  A terrorist?  Anti-choice?  (I won't be referring to supporters of abortion as Pro-Choice because, while I'm aware that it refers specifically to a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, I see it more as the right to make any number of empowering decisions, of which I am a huge supporter.)

I condemn the acts of Robert Dear, the man who shot up a Planned Parenthood center, killing three and wounding more.  However, supporters of abortion, political pundits, and even presidential candidates now lump all Pro-Lifers with him.  Stop.  Just stop.  He does not represent me, and legions of anti-abortion advocates.  He is not a hero, as some like-minded nuts in the Twitterverse have ignorantly and labeled him.  He is mentally unstable.  An asshole.  A murderer.  A TERRORIST.

If I were a proponent of the death penalty--which I'm not, because I'm Pro-Life--he'd be a prime candidate.  But, you know who else would be?  People who perform abortions.  While I believe both actions are equally grave, I don't condone the actions of extremists such as him.  It's absolutely hypocritical to say you value the sanctity of life and then go take it.

I also wholeheartedly disagree that "anti-abortion rhetoric" incites violence or encourages people to behave in such a way.  Those people already have violent tendencies and use their views as justification to enact them.  I am adamantly anti-abortion and I don't wish harm or death on those who disagree with me, much less would I act on it.  Seeing the debunked (?) videos discussing the harvesting of baby parts isn't going to persuade me to go load up on weapons.  If the video is true, that is horrible and I pray for everyone involved.  However, I don't need the possibility of something like that occuring to convince me that Planned Parenthood is wrong.  They end lives.  They openly admit that.  They do have their "justifications", though:

• Those who use it as birth control I have no time for.  If you don't feel you're at the place in your life to have a child or are not prepared to handle the consequences of sex if you're unprotected or if the contraceptive fails, get a vasectomy or a tubal ligation.  Or DON'T HAVE SEX.  Period.
• It is absolutely unfair for a survivor of rape to have to carry the offspring of the rapist to term.  I get that.  But I also get that the baby is still a life.  To make it absolutely clear, rapists are scum and should be locked up with the key thrown away.  But the baby should not be punished.  (Incest is always included with this, but incest is just a buzzword--if it's consensual, refer to point one; if non-consensual, that falls under rape.)
• The one I most understand is the argument about the mother's or baby's life being at risk during birth, and this one is hard to rationalize without sounding insensitive. 
• Finally, it is your body, but once there is a life inside, it's no longer just about your body.  And, best believe I would feel the same exact way if I were capable of carrying a baby.  And, looking at my three beautiful girls--especially Lia, just six months removed from the womb--I cannot imagine having wanted to end their lives before they even had a chance to live them.

I tend to side with the left on most things political (gay rights, gender equality, gun contol, international affairs, education, healthcare, capital punishment, etc.), but this is one issue I am adamantly conservative on--which makes it extremely difficult to vote Democrat despite them usually being the overall better choice.  I am very proud to be Pro-Life, but I don't want to be thrown in with the neo-conservatives and religious extremists. 

So please don't do that.

Peace and love.

THERE'S ANOTHER RACE IN THE SUPERHERO GENRE BESIDES MARVEL/DC

Last year, Michael B. Jordan, an extremely talented up-and-coming black actor, made waves in the nerdosphere when he was cast as Johnny Storm, a historically white character, in this summer's unnecessary "Fantastic Four" reboot.  Of course, there was plenty of racially-driven backlash, but my disapproval comes not from that angle, but one of continuity and canon.  To further emphasize my point, it also irks me that the comic's antagonist, Victor von Doom, has had his named changed as well as has been turned into an internet blogger or hacker.  Or something.  (That means I could be Dr. Doom typing this.)  Not that any of this matters to me, as the film doesn't appeal to me in the least, but I want to address the general principal.

Apparently, in the context of the new movie, Johnny's family adopted his sister, Sue, who is white.  Cool.  Whatever.  I have absolutely no problem with multi-racial families; I think they're just as beautiful as any other.  My problem is changing an established backstory--an established canon.

This isn't about "stealing our white superheroes".  This is about continuity and not breaking it (that's what Elseworlds comics are for).  I am a stickler for continuity.  (Being that I am a Batman Stan first and foremost, you will notice that much of this article goes back to him.)  Aside from the fact that the last three installments of the original Batman series sucked, it bothered me to no end that there were three different actors playing the Caped Crusader, and Harvey Dent was portrayed by two--of different skin colors.  The Dark Knight Trilogy--my all-time favorite franchise of films--did this with Rachel Dawes.  I find it difficult to watch "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" consecutively, with two different actresses playing the character.  And, as a break from canon, I hate how Nolan and co. changed the Waynes' murders from happenstance to being the result of Bruce's fear of bats in the opera they were attending (a bit too coincidental for my taste), making his motive for his war on crime less about justice and more about redemption due to his guilt.  (I also thought the changing of Bane's ethnic background was unnecessary, but am okay with his venom being thrown aside in order to fit into Nolan's realism-based universe.)

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that all of these iconic superheroes--Batman and Robin, Superman, Captain America, Spider-Man, etc.--were conceived in a time where it would have been taboo to even fathom them being created anything other than straight and white.  There is definitely a huge injustice in that, but retconning shouldn't be the answer; heroes of all backgrounds should be developed and risen to equal importance and stature.  Just as I don't think changing these characters from black to white is the appropriate measure, I don't think it would be fair to change Bishop or Blade or Black Panther or Cyborg or Storm.

I have no problem with a superhero persona, per se, having their race changed--as long as it's someone else behind the mask.  A few years ago, Marvel Comics introduced Miles Morales, an African-American, as the new Spider-Man.  Although I don't read Spider-Man comics, I thought it was an ambitious and inspired move, but I'm happy--for continuity and canon reasons--it wasn't Peter Parker.  If DC wants to introduce a black Batman, or an Islamic Batman, or Hispanic, Asian, or gay, I'm all for it.  But not as Bruce Wayne.  Hell, even give them a similar background if need be.  In the Marvel movies, if Sam Wilson takes over as Captain America or James Rhodes as Iron Man (though I prefer Don Cheadle, the cast changing of Terrence Howard to Cheadle is another one of those irritating moves), or if they introduce Miles Morales into the cinematic universe, I won't blink an eye.  (And, seeing that this Avengers saga is seemingly never-ending, that may be the direction to go.)  However, for an on-screen Dark Knight--with whom I have more of an emotional connection than I do with those others--I am not at all interested in a non-Bruce Wayne Batman.  I didn't say I don't want to watch a Batman of a race; I just simply want Bruce Wayne.  Not Terry McGinnis, not Dick Grayson, not Jean-Paul Valley.  All white, but not what I want to see.

I can see the hypocrisy in being okay with minor characters such as Perry White having their skin color changed.  But, as well-known as he may be, he's not as iconic as those other characters.  Same with Deadshot, the character Will Smith is playing in the upcoming "Suicide Squad".  And speaking of villains in that film...

I always say that, as amazing a performance as he gave and how much that interpretation worked for that movie, Heath Ledger's Joker in "The Dark Knight" is not The Joker to me.  His look, his swagger, his demeanor--it is not how I envision the Clown Prince of Crime.  Jared Leto is an incredible actor and I can't wait to see his take on the character.  He actually looks like him, definitely more than Ledger did...except for those tattoos.  Nothing against tattoos or people with them, but The Joker does not have one across his forehead.  But it's not about tattoos or race; it's about canon and continuity.  That's not how I see The Joker.

It's not fair for me to expect studios to adhere to my preferences.  Each filmmaker has his or her own story to tell and their own vision to share.  But I think it's important to acknowledge that there is a large fan-base with classic images with which they're familiar, and sometimes it just doesn't make sense to toy with familiarity.

Going back to the original point, it's hard to take this stance without coming across as racist.  As before mentioned, that's not the angle I am taking, but I'm going to spare everyone the obligatory "I'm not racist because..." statements.  Hell, just read my blog and other rants on the Washington football team name.  And, finally, as a white Christian, I am bothered by Jesus being depicted as a white man, when he most definitely wasn't.