March, 2006 It is hard to believe, but in September 2006, Star Trek will be 40 years old. Most of the fans of the show are younger than Star Trek. In fact, many were born after we were cancelled in 1969. That was the year that Astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon. I remember thinking we, the actors who played the characters on Star Trek, were "beaming down" onto planets three years before that. Armstrong's moon landing looked so bulky and old fashioned. We were so much more futuristic. On Star Trek, we talked to each other on our "communicators" as we walked around the corridors of our Starship Enterprise. That was amazing science fiction - then. Now, it is a commonplace reality. We talk on our cell phones as we walk down the sidewalk. What was once eye-opening science fiction has now become reality. Today, Blackberry isn't just a fruit; Spam isn't just canned pork; I-pod isn't the husk of some exotic vegetation. They are just a part of the vocabulary of our everyday techno-world. Increasingly, the 23rd century envisioned by the creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, is becoming the recognizable society of our times. So much has happened to change the world since that September night in 1966 when Star Trek, with its shiningly optimistic view of the future, made its debut on our television screens. America was so different forty years ago.
I remember the horror of a fiery night in August when the south central area of my hometown exploded in angry rioting. Years of racial injustice and despair suffered by African Americans ignited the southern skies of my beloved Los Angeles in black smoke and enraged flames. While the fires of race riots were breaking out in many other major American cities across our country, internationally we were frozen in the coldest of cold wars with another great world power, the Soviet Union. We lived in fear of a red button being pressed by either the President of the United States or the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that could end civilization as we knew it. It was to that society of racial strife and global tension that Star Trek brought an idealistic picture of a starship in space with a crew made up of the many peoples of the known universe working as a team, "boldly going where no one had gone before." Of course, that was science fiction - then. Today, we have in fact a craft in space called the International Space Station with a crew made up of people of many races, citizens of many nations and - of all things - Americans and Russians working together in concert. Today, we have an African American woman serving as the Secretary of State of the United States. An African American man preceded her. There are two Asian Americans currently serving as Cabinet Secretaries. These are phenomena hoped for but quite implausible just forty years ago. So much has changed in forty years.
Those changes didn't just happen. They were the results of bold initiatives taken by venturesome people. Whether in the arena of politics, or the research laboratories and test chambers of the sciences, or the marketplace of entrepreneurs, or the streets of our cities by social activists, changes happened because of the energies, ideas, and imagination of dedicated people - optimistic people with a vision of a better society.
There will always be the Klingons, the adversaries of change. There will always be some setbacks. Today, we live with another kind of terror, both domestically and globally. There still is a racial divide in this nation - as we saw so distressingly during the Katrina hurricane disaster. Yet, look how far we have come in forty years - in our lifetime. Optimism, imagination, and hard work trump obstacles and setbacks. We have made amazing progress.
As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Star Trek with a host of conventions throughout the world, I will always be mindful of the fact that we, at the same time, celebrate the genius of the optimistic mind. We celebrate the science fiction world transformed into our very real society today by those visionary minds.
We celebrate the people, the fans, who connected with that positive vision of Gene Roddenberry. In September, on the 8th, the birthday of Star Trek, I will be joining the fans at the Science Fiction Museum in Seattle for a big 40th Anniversary Convention. Then, most excitingly, I venture forth on a project I had never imagined in my wildest dreams. I begin filming a new manifestation of Star Trek - this time to be accessed only on the Internet! This miraculous rebirth of Star Trek called, Star Trek: New Voyages, is the brainchild of a venturesome young fan, James Cawley. James is an extraordinarily enterprising fan "boldly going" where no fan had ever gone before. He has already produced two Internet episodes, one with Walter Koenig, who spoke highly to me of his experience on the show. For mine, titled, "World Enough and Time," James Cawley has gathered a remarkable pool of veteran Star Trek talent. The gifted team of Marc Zicree and Michael Reaves are currently busily at work on the script. Marc will also be at the helm as director of the film. Ron B. Moore, a good friend and veteran of "The Next Generation," "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager," will be doing the visual effects. In addition, playing the heroic Captain Kirk is the truly heroic James Cawley. He, in fact, personifies the adventurous spirit of Star Trek.
On this propitious fortieth year of Star Trek, we, most of all, celebrate the spirit that looks to the challenges yet to come - that vast unknown with such intriguing mysteries yet to be explored. I look forward to sharing that journey into our common future as we "boldly go where no one has gone before" for many more years.
The campaign is part of the Scottish government's One Scotland project in an effort to reduce hate crime.
"The provocative ads were produced by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland as part of the One Scotland campa… https://t.co/KjinQL9xXT— Lizanne Foster (@Lizanne Foster) 1537935300.0
One letter reads:
"Dear transphobes, do you think it's right to harass people in the street? Right to push transgender people around in clubs? Right to humiliate, intimidate and threaten them online? Well we don't."
"That's why if we see you doing harm, we're reporting you. We believe people should be allowed to be themselves. Except if they're spreading hate."
"Yours, Scotland."
(In another letter, the country says it has a "phobia" of homophobic behavior.
"If you torment people because of who they love, shout word that we are not going to write, or use violence because you don't like who someone is holding hands with, you should be worried."
"If we see or hear your abuse, we're calling the police. That's because love lives in this country, not hate."
"Yours, Scotland."
(One Scotland's website describes the organization as one that aims to continue building an inclusive society while recognizing the significant strides made so far towards equality.
"One Scotland embodies the inclusive society we want in Scotland, where equality and human rights are respected and every individual and minority group feels valued."
There is a new ad campaign against hate crimes in Scotland. “We are a caring nation, not a hating one”.… https://t.co/rfsiFjIq6V— Jen Yang Mezei (@Jen Yang Mezei) 1537975493.0
The website defines hate crimes as abuse that "can be verbal or physical and has hugely damaging effects on the victims, their families and communities, and we all must play our part to challenge it."
"Police Scotland takes hate crime very seriously. In the last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland1."
"However, there are many more incidents that go unreported. We all have a responsibility to report hate crime if we witness it – it's the only way we can challenge it, and put an end to it for good."
The fact that the Scottish government and police are behind this ad campaign is incredible. It's good to see at lea… https://t.co/zMrqDVrhed— TransgenderDate (@TransgenderDate) 1537900917.0
Justice minister Humza Yousaf is familiar with being a victim of a bigotry and is encouraging people to call out and report any incidents involving harassment.
"As somebody who has faced Islamaphobic and racial abuse over the years, I know how upsetting being a victim of hate can be. Hate crime and prejudice are completely unacceptable and we are absolutely committed to tackling it."
"We all have a role to play in stamping out prejudice and I would ask anyone who witnesses a hate crime to play their part and report it. Justice agencies such the police and Crown Office will deal sensitively with reports made and people should have confidence in how they will be treated. Last year there were over 5,300 charges of hate crime reported to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland but there are still many incidents that are going unreported."
New Ad Campaign launching on billboards and ad spaces all over #Scotland tackles #hatecime. The Police Scotland a… https://t.co/VJFH0jprjP— Pinksixty (@Pinksixty) 1537896702.0
Henrietta Mochrie identifies as transgender and has been the victim of repeated harassment and abuse. She emphasized the importance of speaking out against the hatred.
"I'll often get street harassment, sometimes this has escalated to the point where I've been followed by people shouting abuse at me, just because of who I am."
"It makes me feel really down and scared to leave the house. It's important that if you witness hate crime that you report it to take a stand against hate."
One Scotland's ad campaign officially launched on Wednesday.
Hopefully, it won't take too long before other nations follow suit in this bold, yet necessary fight for equality.
H/T - OneScotland, PinkNews, Twitter
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both.— Richard Cooper (@Richard Cooper) 1536083523.0
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
@Rich_Cooper #BenevolentSexism is still #sexism. I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment.— ☮️ Minkajane ☮️ (@☮️ Minkajane ☮️) 1537276790.0
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
@Rich_Cooper What people care about is caring, empathic, considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is… https://t.co/wlGHWRzKLi— Mark W. Wilson, MD (@Mark W. Wilson, MD) 1537276816.0
Some women got right down to the point.
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I will only be nice to you if you agree to be subservient to me— Elizabeth Noll (@Elizabeth Noll) 1537292709.0
@Rich_Cooper Gotta love when a man tells women what they can and can't have. Thanks for the heads up buddy 😉 https://t.co/gDMJscuTac— Hannah ✊ (@Hannah ✊) 1537285112.0
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I couldn’t possibly be expected to treat women as equals, show them respect, and still feel like a man.— Dom (@Dom) 1537293169.0
@Rich_Cooper We are sooooo bored with "chivalry" which stems from the courtly love period in the middle ages when w… https://t.co/wRho1a9DTz— Jeanthejust (@Jeanthejust) 1537280103.0
@Rich_Cooper Dear man. As a feminist, I open doors for men all the time. I also offer my seat to men in need on t… https://t.co/uxdwfh1kEM— My ovaries dream of puppers (@My ovaries dream of puppers) 1537502301.0
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
@Rich_Cooper Nah. That's some real childlike, oversimplified thinking. There are obviously more than these two op… https://t.co/lUqnEJhIAp— TheQuietRanger (@TheQuietRanger) 1537342901.0
@Rich_Cooper Wow, I had no idea that feminists were campaigning for chivalry, thanks for the Valuable Insight lol… https://t.co/iK62FTM9WY— Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom) (@Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom)) 1537294172.0
@Rich_Cooper I hold the door open for a guy walking into Starbucks behind me. Tomorrow, he might do the same for me… https://t.co/xWQEu6QHrM— Emma Scott (@Emma Scott) 1537294526.0
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
@Rich_Cooper @kent_imig Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do wi… https://t.co/m8YPUkaUzm— Mark Findlay (@Mark Findlay) 1537257080.0
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
@seanrmccauley @DoverCook @ShappiKhorsandi @Rich_Cooper @MarkFindlay26 @kent_imig Nobody needs chivalry. Equality a… https://t.co/isq5Fo84iU— John Dougherty (@John Dougherty) 1537357843.0
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
The #MusicModernizationAct has been passed by the U.S. Senate! 🎶 Along with our members across the country, we're e… https://t.co/52yNhtV4zk— Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@Recording Academy / GRAMMYs) 1537318533.0
@kayhanley @SIRIUSXM Hi @kayhanley, I absolutely support the #MusicModernizationAct. I signed on as a cosponsor ear… https://t.co/j4JHXpLBxI— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1537225190.0
People said this was impossible. Some even worked hard to make it impossible, even telling outright lies about wh… https://t.co/iMTlwJLWVw— Future of Music Coalition (@Future of Music Coalition) 1537309844.0
We're thrilled to share that the Senate has unanimously voted to pass the #MusicModernizationAct, an historic miles… https://t.co/Uuy2Yp8zCw— ASCAP (@ASCAP) 1537311517.0
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP Grateful. That says it all. Grateful past language for the sweet souls who worked so hard to mak… https://t.co/JSeUNCwFSd— Paul Williams (@Paul Williams) 1537319434.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams YES!!!! Songwriters are dancing everywhere!— James Grey (@James Grey) 1537315642.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank you for helping us all organize to get this done #MusicModernizationAct— Tangent Recording (@Tangent Recording) 1537311639.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Greatness Is What Greatness Does....And This Is Great.— Eddie C Person Jr (@Eddie C Person Jr) 1537365270.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams #Love it!— CKGTHEDON (@CKGTHEDON) 1537315443.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Fantastic News! Thank You U.S. Senate ~> Pass it House Of Representatives ~> Sig… https://t.co/tukiZ8Ryug— MarkAlexanderCarroll (@MarkAlexanderCarroll) 1537321589.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Simply amazing hard work pays off.— PedroBarr (@PedroBarr) 1537320953.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank all of you for your tireless efforts and work.Protecting what is important… https://t.co/goFps7yu2V— Roney Hooks (@Roney Hooks) 1537317136.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams I am so thankful for this wonderful change. We songwriters deserve it!— J.R. FOWLER (@J.R. FOWLER) 1537322119.0
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
