Today Doctor Who decided to take the final step in their long sjw path and go full Ghostbusters.

Jodie Whittaker has been announced as Doctor Who’s 13th Time Lord – the first woman to be given the role.
The new Doctor’s identity was revealed in a trailer broadcast at the end of the Wimbledon men’s singles final.
The Broadchurch star succeeds Peter Capaldi, who took over the role in 2013 and leaves in the forthcoming Christmas special.

As you might guess all of the usual suspects are overjoyed, it’s being hailed a breakthrough and there doesn’t seem to be a single voice in dissent.

Well as person who has followed the series religiously and as the only person in history to question a future US president at a press conference wearing a Doctor Who Scarf, let me bluntly say what I suspect a lot of other people would like to say but dare not if they want to ever work for the BBC again.

I dissent.

This is a bad idea, in fact for reasons I’ve already written about it’s a horrible idea not only in the short term but for the entire franchise long term. for the 1st time ever kids can go online and find celebrity nudes of the Doctor, isn’t that special?

I’m not going to reiterate all the various reasons from my old post but I am going a step further.

I not only dissent, but after 41 years I’m done.

It’s not a step I take lightly, this is something that has been special to me for over four decades. It’s a fandom I shared with my sons and celebrated together. All three Doctor Who scarfs I own are gifts from friends or family.

Now I know that since the series came back there has been a bit of a sjw agenda that has been pushed since the 2nd half of the 1st season. As the years have gone by it’s become more and more open but I let it go, first because I was so pleased to see the series back, then because I thought David Tennant was great, then because I thought Matt Smith was the best thing to happen to the series since Tom Baker, then because Peter Capaldi had given the character depth and then because Michelle Gomez was just so good as Missy and she and Capaldi worked so well that you wanted to see what happened next.

The actual reality is that I loved this show and even as it tried to nudge me away or suggest that I and my values were unwelcome I clung to it because of what it meant to me and mine. In a world becoming increasingly hostile it was my last my childhood escape that decades later was still intact.

So why would a female Doctor make the difference? Why would that escape be gone. The answer comes from this remark from the new show runner is why:

Chris Chibnall, New Head Writer and Executive Producer says : “After months of lists, conversations, auditions, recalls, and a lot of secret-keeping, we’re excited to welcome Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor. I always knew I wanted the Thirteenth Doctor to be a woman and we’re thrilled to have secured our number one choice. Her audition for The Doctor simply blew us all away. Jodie is an in-demand, funny, inspiring, super-smart force of nature and will bring loads of wit, strength and warmth to the role. The Thirteenth Doctor is on her way.”

and this from the BBC:

It was always unlikely that the Doctor would continue to be white and male, especially as the BBC has committed itself to greater diversity on its programmes.

Casting the first female Doctor is something many viewers have been calling for. And strong female-led stories have been successful on the big and small screen in recent years, in films ranging from The Hunger Games and Star Wars to Wonder Woman, and in TV series like Game of Thrones.

The BBC will be hoping today’s announcement will not just excite viewers, but will also demonstrate that the time travel show has firmly moved into the 21st century.

Do you see the point here. We’re not making the Doctor a woman because it will improve the dynamic of the series, we’ve not choosing a woman because it will enhance the narrative, it’s not about the younger kids who watch or the 50 year plus history.
We’ve not even choosing Jodie Whitaker (an OK actress) because she was the best thespian for the job. No dammit we’re going to make the Doctor a woman because Chris Chibnall wants the Doctor to be a woman, the BBC wants the Doctor to be a woman (perhaps that’s why Chibnall was chosen) and we’re all going to prove how modern and diverse we are so dammit that’s how it’s going to be!

In other words it’s the SJW agenda being shoved in my face.

Well BBC it’s your show and Mr. Chibnall you’re the boss, and you have the right and authority to do with your show as you see fit.

Me I’m the viewer. I’ve got a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money to invest in my entertainment and in this 21st century world that you are boasting of moving into I have a plethora of entertainment choices to invest my time and money in.

And I choose to no longer invest in the Doctor Who franchise, either the new series or via Big Finish.

My Congratulations Mr. Chibnall, my congratulations BBC, my congratulations Ms. Whitaker, you’ve managed to do what age, marriage, children and all the difficulties of life over four decades have not been able to, you’ve made Doctor Who just another TV show to me and made me no longer be invested in the character of the Doctor.

Now I can see the blowback comming in fact Ms. Whitaker take on the role suggests the form it will take:

What does it feel like to be the first woman Doctor?
It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist, as a woman, as an actor, as a human, as someone who wants to continually push themselves and challenge themselves, and not be boxed in by what you’re told you can and can’t be. It feels incredible.

7) What do you want to tell the fans?
I want to tell the fans not to be scared by my gender. Because this is a really exciting time, and Doctor Who represents everything that’s exciting about change. The fans have lived through so many changes, and this is only a new, different one, not a fearful one.

Scared? How DARE you suggest that my or anyone else’s objections are based on fear, either of your gender or of change. You are a performer, you make your living giving performances for your customer base the viewer. It is for the customer to choose to stay or go based on their entertainment preferences

And I choose to leave.

Now Mr. Chibnall is a good writer (Boradchurch season 1 & 2 are excellent season 3 so far meh) and Ms. Whitaker is a passable actress so I don’t doubt that there will be some interesting stories, in fact I predict that the first half Ms. Whitaker’s first season will do quite well ratings wise, maybe even well in terms of merchandising, however I suspect by the 2nd season it will be Sylvester McCoy and 1989 all over again, but the BBC will do their best to ignore it because they can’t let the first female doctor fail. They’ll retain quite few of the older viewers and a good part of the cult fan base, but in the end instead of national and international institution that gets kids and their families and hold them for generations, it will become just another BBC Drama.

It’s a shame but hey, it’s not a big deal, after all it’s just a TV show.

Closing thought: How long do you think it’s going to be before assorted sjw groups decide they are aggrieved because the Doctor is a white woman rather than a black man or a black woman or an asian man, or a muslim woman or a transgender woman who defines as a gender yet unknown. Or perhaps Mr Chibnall will have Whitaker’s doctor define herself as a man or something else to keep the SJW crowd happy?

I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, not my problem anymore.

Update: That didn’t take long

New FEMALE Doctor Who Jodie Whittaker NUDE modelling and bath scene from Venus

Just what the series needed a Doctor that boys who aren’t gay could masturbate to.

Meanwhile Colin Baker weighs in

I would remind the esteemed Mr. Baker that this is the attitude that led to the show being cancelled the first time, on the plus side, it’s arrogance is completely in character in terms of what the 6th doctor would say.

By John Ruberry

Donald J. Trump may not be going through a witch hunt, but he’s surely the only president to face so many attempts to remove him from office.

What follows is a brief summary of the plots.

Shortly after his surprise win over Hillary Clinton, Democrats and their media wing tried to delegitimize his triumph by claiming that Russians, meaning of course Vladimir Putin, hacked the election results. To date no evidence has emerged of a single vote changed because of Russian interference. And the liberals also claimed that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

In December, shortly before the Electoral College met in the 50 state capitols and the District of Columbia, a group of has-been Hollywood celebrities calling themselves Unite for America released a video asking Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. Another group, the Hamilton Electors, also unsuccessfully made a similar call out to the electors.

The Electoral College didn’t punt–Trump won the most electors.

The following month a smattering of Democrats tried to convince Congress not to certify the Electoral College results. A few days after Trump was inaugurated a leftist group sued him, claiming that Trump was in violation of the obscure emoluments clause in the Constitution because a representative of a foreign government, might, just might, stay at a Trump Organization hotel. Remember, just a few days later. Besides, the president removed himself from running the company.

In May there was a spike in impeachment calls after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, citing obstruction of justice. Late last month Trump Tweeted about the MSNBC show “Morning Joe,” drawing attention to a facelift of co-host Mika Brzezinski.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsWhich led to calls by Democrats to have Trump removed from office under the 25th Amendment, calling into question his mental health.

Blogger with a man claiming to be Trump

The latest impeachment dustup centers on his son, Donald Trump Jr., meeting with some Russian operatives last summer, which have brought new life to the collusion charges. Let’s dial this back. Trump’s son met with some Russians, so the president should be removed from office. Trump Jr. met with those Russians. Not the president. If that makes sense to you–then you are probably a leftist.

Let’s not forget the regular stoking of the ouster flames with the regular calls for Trump to release his tax returns–although there is no legal requirement for any president to do so.

You know what? All of this sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Or, as Lou Dobbs said on Fox Business last week, “This is about a full-on assault by the left–the Democratic Party–to absolutely carry out a coup d’etat against President Trump, aided by the left-wing media.”

Yep. A witch hunt. Definitely.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Since the day I accidently discovered that the Vatican pulled the Bible from their web site I’ve been racking my brain for a logical reason why in the internet age Rome would decide that Sacred Scripture had no place at Vatican online and would instead choose to send people searching for scripture to the sites of local authorities.  There are in fact arguments one can make for the change

One can suggest that it’s a lot less work to send people elsewhere  handle a dozen different languages on the site, except of course that they site already existed. One can argue that the Holy See doesn’t want to endorse one “official” version when there are several good translations there but that could be handled by a banner disclaimer.  One might even suggest that it solves the problem of the Psalms which were put up with only a single link meaning that you had to either start at Psalm 1 and go forward or Psalm 150 and work backward which while it would be a pain to fix could not be more than a couple of days work at the most for even the least competent programmer.  One could even claim this is part of the shepherds getting closer to the sheep by pushing traffic to the sites of local

Unfortunately there is one logical conclusion that given the divisions that have rocked the church since Amoris Laetitia makes the most logical sense.

Say you are the Bishops of Malta have decided to interpret the controversial parts of Amoris Laetitia as loosely as possible when it comes to admitting those practicing unrepentant Mortal Sin to communion when scripture inconveniently says this

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.  

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (via USCCB Site)

Rather than trying to make specious argument to counter 2000 years of tradition and a clear translation on the Vatican Site might it not be easier to eliminate such a passage online, footnote it to redefine it while one commissions a different translation that rephrases these inconvenient passages to push toward your flock.  It might take some time and cost some money but once it’s done then you can claim that what was once universally considered mortally sinful is no big deal and point to “scripture” to prove it.  You might even get to the point where those pointing out Mortal Sin and considering it unacceptable behavior would be accused themselves of sinfulness for doing so.

Of course a Bishop or an Episcopal Conference doing such a thing would be endangering not other the souls of their parishioners but their own souls as Christ emphatically states in Matthew:

Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

If your hand or foot causes you to sin,* cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

Matthew 18:6-9 via USCCB

Then again the Bishops in question can always decide to re-interpret that passage too

Now you might say “DaTechGuy that’s just paranoia.”  I’d like to think you’re right but I’m old enough to remember that it was just 20 years ago here in America that people from Nancy Pelosi to Bill Clinton were insisting that anyone suggesting legalizing Civil Unions would lead to Gay Marriage was crazy and less than tens years ago that anyone suggesting gay marriage would lead to laws where you can be punished for not allowing people with a penis to use the ladies room would be a nut.  And I would further remind people that there are not only many priests who are publicly pushing to redefine sin but we have the example of the collapse of churches like the Episcopal church of the US to know what redefining sin leads to for a church.

Horrible Exit Question:   Does the Vatican and Pope Francis consider this possibility a bug or a feature of leaving the Bible off the Vatican site.