25 of Tiger King's Characters from Best to Worst (morally)

Okay, so we are quarantined, yadda yadda yadda. Obviously, if you don't live under a rock you've heard about Tiger King. if you don't want any spoilers, don't read this. I wanted to put my thoughts on paper about just how morally suspect these characters are and I came up with this list: 

25. Saff
Saff is too good for Joe Exotic’s world. He not only cared about the animals he was entrusted with, but lost his fucking hand to save them and his boss. Throughout the series, Saff proves himself as loyal, trustworthy, and is significantly smarter than most of those around him. Nothing he says sends off an, ‘oh, this guy is also a creep’ bad signal. That’s pretty high praise.

24. Barbara Fisher
Barbara gives us the inside deets on Doc Antle’s cult, and for that she deserves praise. Those who get out and speak about what it’s like ‘inside’ are invaluable to the process of saving people from cults and people in relationships with dubious consent. Glad she’s living her best life.

23. Anne McQueen
Anne seems like a genuinely good business manager who tried to do what was in her boss’ best interest while also telling her boss’s wife she’s low-key dumb ass. I approve.

22. John Reinke
Loyalty goes a long way with me, and while I think Reinke trusts Joe a bit too much, he’s definitely loyal. I think he also really cared about the animals under his care and seems like a genuinely good person despite the fact that he befriended such a hot mess of a train wreck.

21. Joseph Fritz
Atty Joseph Fritz has a lot to say – especially about Don Lewis’ will. Nothing inherently bad about this guy except I wish he’d had the guts to say who he thought killed Don. Then again, he probably knows the law well enough not to fall on that sword.

20. Gladys Lewis Cross
Don’s ex-wife got a raw deal with Don. He, apparently, slept around and with women half his age. She seems to really have cared about him even if I do think her motivations regarding money might be suspect.

19. Sheriff Rhodes
I don’t know. He’s doing what sheriffs do? Not good or bad, I guess.

18. Joshua Dial
Libertarian campaign manager to Joe Exotics various campaigns, this guy had integrity. However, he did help run a presidential campaign or a guy he admits he knew was ‘crazy’ because of their many conversations at the Walmart ammo counter. So, while I like you, Josh…ambition got you doing some bad shit.

17. Don’s Daughters
Not unlike their mother, I think they got a raw deal. But unlike their mother, I get the vibe that all that mattered to them was the money anyway.

16. Travis Maldonado
You might wonder why Joe’s straight husbands come near the middle of the pack. None of them really did anything ‘evil’ or anything. That said, They kept a lot of Joe’s secrets and so have a bit of guilt by association. That said, Travis seems a pure spirit taken in by a guy who some weed and big cats. His story is sad.

15. John Finlay
John and Travis have a similar story, only John got his happy ending, finally marrying a fellow employee of GW Zoo. Makes me think there was some cheating happening back in the day. All speculation, of course. He did love his crocodiles, though.

14. Dillon Passage
Joe’s current husband might actually be gay? I don’t know. Time will tell. But they are still together and he stands by his man – even while Exotic waits out his sentence in prison. Dillon is neither good nor bad in that we don’t know much about him at all.

13. Erik Cowie
In some ways, Erik is a libertarian champion. When asked ‘How many wives does Doc have?’ he answers, ‘I don’t give a fuck’. But that also implies that he doesn’t care that this dude is running a cult and fishing for teenage girls with wildlife. The ultimate moral centrist, I guess.

12. Rick Kirkham
I love Rick. Rick should have a billion dollars by now. That said, he happily profited (or hoped to profit) off of animal cruelty and people who were very clearly not in a position to present their best selves by way of addiction and/or poverty. So, morally speaking Rick is getting into iffy territory.

11. Howard Baskin
I think Howard probably isn’t a bad dude – but he is married to Carole and will do all her bidding no matter that moral consequence. For that reason, he can’t be a ‘good guy’ in this story. Please, Howard, whatever you do, hide the sardine oil from Carole.

10. Lauren Lowe
Similarly to Howard, she’s just married to a real POS. What makes her slightly worse is that she helps him lure in other victims and participates in the ‘sex for tigers’ thing he’s got going on. It’s a bad look. Hope she gets out of that relationship.

9. Brittany Peet (PETA)
Did Brittany do anything immoral in the show? Not really – except pretending like Carole’s cat rescue is somehow a lot different than Joe Exotic’s. That said, she works for a company that is hypocritical and contributes to the euthanasia of animals by the truckload so I don’t think she’s a hero.

8. Don Lewis
By all accounts, Don was a piece of shit. So, we know this list is about to go downhill fast. He was a serial cheater, bred big cats in captivity, didn’t seem to care about them outside of making money – and he MIGHT have faked his own death as a parting shot to his wife. We still don’t know. And that’s why keeps him higher on the list than others.

7. Carole Baskin
Is the Big Cat Rescue a money making endeavor? Yes. Is she a hypocrite? Yes. Is she sanctimonious and obnoxious? You betcha. Did she kill her husband? Maybe. So, she’s bad. Okay. But that kernel of doubt maker her only the 7^th worst person documented in this series.

6. James Garretson
The FBI informant turned Jet Ski enthusiast likes to fancy himself the hero of this story, but he’s sad, pathetic, and worst of all a ‘yes man’. I hate an ass kisser and I get the feeling that he’s spent a long time kissing Jeff Lowe’s ass. His hands are dirty too, but he jetted off into the sunset, free as a bird, by rolling over on others. I’m not a fan.

5. Joe Exotic
Honestly, I think Joe did start his Zoo with good intentions. Make money doing something you love. But by the end, he was not only not all about the animals, but those animals were also being horribly abused and neglected. As his narcissism grew, so did his exploitation of animals and human beings – breeding cubs he couldn’t pay for, luring in straight young men with meth and weed, and eventually considering killing a person because of his obsession with her.

4. Tim Stark
Tim was a minor character, but as a ‘private zoo’ owner in Indiana, I took a bit of interest in him. Turns out the State of Indiana is going after him for many crimes against animals including abuse and neglect. He doesn’t give a shit about wildlife.

3. Jeff Lowe
This POS. He’s abusive. He’s a con artist and manipulator. There isn’t much good about him at all. And, it turns out, he might have been the one to put the murder for hire idea into Joe’s head in the first place! He only cares about #1, and he will destroy anyone to protect himself.

2. Mario Tabraue
While not a terribly interesting character in the series, he DID inspire Tony Montana in ‘Scarface’ and therefore, we cannot ignore his moral character. Honestly, as bad as cutting up a body and disposing of it is, that’s not why he ranks so low. It’s the fact that he and his father smuggled drugs into the country by way of living animals. The amount of animals he must have killed or put at risk is staggering.

1. Doc Antle
This guy is a piece of work. He’s getting away with it because he knows how to keep his mouth shut and comes off as more refined than people like Joe Exotic or Tim Stark. In reality, the man is absolutely running a wildlife cult – convincing young girls that his penis will give them enlightenment and that working 24/7 for $100/week is a ‘calling’ or ‘lifestyle’ rather than labor exploitation.  Numerous people have accused him of euthanizing his big cats when they are no longer profitable and, honestly, given how many he breeds it’s the only logical conclusion. Doc is, morally, the worst and he is the one who will likely continue to live his life freely because he has the right connections and knows exactly how to work the system.

Lack of Empathy and Compassion is America's Problem - Not Capitalism

If you've been on the internet longer than 30 minutes and are under the age of 35, you've probably heard Capitalism is baaaaaaaaad. Everything bad is 'Late Stage Capitalism' and everything good is 'despite capitalism'. It's not dissimilar to great things being attributed to God and bad things being attributed to the devil. For anyone looking at the long line of human history, this take is nothing sort of baffling and massively frustrating.

Currently, a self-identified socialist - or 'Democratic Socialist' - is leading the Democratic Primary for President and some anti-caps are pretty stoked about it. Cool. But here's the problem. The issues Bernie Sanders is bringing to the table regarding healthcare, education, social responsibility, etc aren't the logical conclusion to 'Capitalism'. In fact, all those countries he gives accolades to for providing healthcare to all their citizens are, wait for it...capitalist countries. You see, that's how you pay for things. Want everyone to be able to get a quadruple bypass without paying a bill? You need someone to be making enough money to pay for it. Which means you need money coming in.

With much talk of how glorious and wonderful the 'Scandinavian Model' is, it seems odd that these self-avowed 'Democratic Socialists' ignore that the Scandinavian Model thrives on and celebrates...Capitalism. These countries heavily invest in private industry and start-ups for their social betterment. Those companies then pay into a system that benefits everyone.

Why is America so different? We have a lot of inept and inefficient social programs for a couple of reasons. For one, our division of powers between state and federal makes implementation difficult. But even more importantly, American culture differs from European, Israeli, Canadian, Central American concepts of social responsibility and the idea of morality tied to monetary success.

Americans are ruggedly individual. In some ways, this serves us. We follow passions, we chart new courses, we try new things. The idea that we should limit ourselves is often foreign to us. But as a society, this perspective is a huge problem, and it is the root cause of our lack of action on crucial social safety nets. We bring in plenty of revenue to take on a number of these tasks but we don't. Why? Because 'government aid' is seen as an unearned handout, and poverty a moral failing - lazy.

Bezos isn't stopping single-payer healthcare - Joe Smith who doesn't want to pay for other people does. Bill Gates isn't a hindrance in 'free' college - Nancy who thinks it is bullshit that she paid $30k for college and the kids behind her will get it for free does. And that's not capitalism's fault. Plenty of capitalist countries yield populations who believe that it is a society's responsibility to take care of those who cannot care for themselves, who believe that healthcare and educations are both rights. The difference is, these countries have cultures that promote empathy and compassion in a way we do not. These societies don't look at economic success or failure as a moral issue as Americans do.

Perhaps, one reason for this - at least in Europe - is that those societies have had defined class systems for much longer. Old and New money were well defined and people rarely moved out of their class. In America, on the other hand, class is fluid, harder to pin down. Most Americans are 'new money'. And so, the idea that 'anyone' can make it if they try hard enough seems self-evidence even if the reality is that poverty and wealth are more inherited than we want to believe and privilege is real.

All of these issues are fascinating and play a role in the startling differences in social priorities between America and most of the rest of the developed world, but that's a discussion for another day. The main point is that capitalism isn't why we don't have the services that people want. Capitalism isn't making you poorer. By all measures, everyone in America is earning more now than 40 years ago. It is true, however, that the top earners are earning wealth faster than the bottom earners. That's not the same thing as the poor getting poorer.

In fact, countries that remove capitalism as a way to pay for these social safety nets fail time and time again. I know, Telesur says Venezuala was destroyed by 'THE CAPITALISTS' and Cuba would be Paradise if only America would have traded with them (despite every other major economy in the world trading with them). But let's get reasonable. The fact is, nationalizing the entire economy and drastically limiting who could make an independent living is DIRECTLY responsible for mass starvation in Venezuela. And, do I really even need to get into the Soviet Union?

What would happen if we allowed those who know how to generate wealth to continue to do it while also building social safety nets with a reorganized government that works for the people not for reelection? What would happen if we ended the war machine and, instead, allocated money to figuring out how to fix our broken education system? The problem isn't how we earn the money. The problem is how we USE the money.  And we can't fix that problem until we get Joe, Nancy, and every other person who thinks he or she is an island - in no need of social services - to embrace empathy and compassion for their fellow man.

Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, etc, none of them are going to fix the broken parts of our society until the American people stop looking at struggling people and think they are lazy, stupid, and undeserving of aid. Because, if you radically change our economic structure without changing the American blind spot for empathy and understanding, all you will get is a selfish proletariat deciding who is and isn't deserving of the state services and why. On the other hand, if you can infuse American society with a strong dose of compassion for their fellow global citizens, passing things like single-payer healthcare, subsidized education, clean needle centers, mental health facilities, etc would be a breeze.

'Late Stage Capitalism' isn't killing us. American self-centeredness is.

A Note to Mike Boudet of Sword and Scale and other shit men who think they are entitled to platforms...

Been a while, guys! I'm momentarily back to respond to Sword and Scale's removal from Wondery and host Mike Boudet's whiney AF announcement of his supreme persecution.

For a little background Sword and Scale is true crime podcast that has become very popular despite polarizing host, Mike Boudet, who frequently catches the ire of social media users, fans and non-fans alike, with his 11-year-old sense of 'humor', offensive depictions of women, body shaming, and general fucking terribleness. Welp, he went a step or two too far and the right people (including Undisclosed's Rabia Chaudry) circled the wagons, finally getting Wondery to drop the show.

Cut to, Mike Boudet's pathetic response to all of this, where he blames Rabia and Lore podcast host Aaron Mahnke for 'censoring him' (cue my eyes rolling into the back of my head). He starts off by saying 'censorship works'. Going on to say, 'the mob can censor you through intimidation and boycotts just because they don't like what you say.'

No, honey bear. That's called a market. You provide content and then the consumer and marketplace decide if that content is worth listening to, or paying into (if you are an advertiser). You see, just because you think you are a special snowflake doesn't actually mean you are entitled to a platform. You earn a platform within the market by having a product people want to buy or consume. What happened is that the number of people you offended outweighed the number of people who enjoyed your childish bullshit. That's not censorship. That's you losing a platform just like people do all the time. Wondery doesn't owe you a spot on their platform. Advertisers do not owe you advertising deals. You lost them. You. Because being an offensive little prick was more important to you than all those people you claim to care about being laid off due to your mouth writing checks you weren't prepared to cash.

He calls what is happening a 'culture war' (where have I head that before?) where the likes of 'the mob' want to control not only what they personal hear but what anyone is allowed to hear. This is, of course, tyranny.

I've heard all this before. Typical white male bullshit when your ideas are antiquated and gross and somehow you got convinced that just having an opinion made you special and everyone must hear it! The fact of the matter is, just like you have a right to say offensive things, everyone else has a right to take your own words and use them to limit your platform. If you don't like it, choose your words more carefully or don't make your living off of being a public figure that relies on the reputations of advertisers and platform makers. Make your own platform or STFU.

Next, he accuses Aaron and Rabia of personally ruining his company - as if they did it all by themselves - totally ignoring how he'd been on a steady decline for a while given that he can't keep his disgusting yap closed for more than half a second. His words have been taken 'out of context' (okay Jordan Peterson), and besides, he's only sharing other people's content - because apparently, that means something?

See my above note. Rabia and Aaron didn't destroy your business. You did. At any point you could have stuck to podcast making and put aside the fat shaming, skeevy fan flirting, calling women 'cunts', and being an all-around edge lord. You could have done that if you cared about your business. You cared far more about your ego and perception that your shitty voice was too important to be silenced! (Direct quote: 'my words have been silenced!') For the record, you also haven't been silenced. You are literally talking right now. You are literally telling everyone where they can continue to find your podcast on another platform. You aren't being silenced, people just aren't required to give you a voice.

Then he whines that he's been 'deemed a bad person', asserting that those who take issue with his social media presence are 'virtue signaling' (he really is playing douche bag BINGO, isn't he). He's being persecuted for believing in 'independent thought and speech'.

Oh, yep. There went my eyes. They did roll so hard as to fall out of my head that time. First of all, 'virtue signaling' the way white assholes use it is never really a thing. Secondly, how independent are his thoughts and his speech when they are just regurgitated forms of the same toxic male bullshit we've heard for millennia? Ohhh, so independent! Much new! Very profound fat joke, there, guy!

But to his claim that he's been unfairly deemed a 'bad person' let's talk about his long history of being garbage. First, he routinely gets creepy with female fans, asking them to send him nudes, creepily commenting on their attractiveness. Then, when a fan tagged him on twitter, he mocked her for being fat:

He was constantly searching out social media fights and place himself in the middle of them, baiting people, doxing people, and wading into trivial social media group 'wars' including subreddits, and harassing critics. His vitriol was at its worst when talking to women, whom he regularly called 'cunts'. Wondery and advertisers had been getting negative feedback for a long time before things escalated this week - likely due to Boudet's insistence that Adnan Sayed (form Serial Podcast's first season) was guilty. Full disclosure: I think Adnan is guilty too. Rabia Chaudry's Undisclosed podcast is famously a defense of Adnan which is an issue very important to her. Whether or not that's the motivation for Rabia going hard on Boudet is unclear, but she is hardly the only person who has taken issue with him.

Likely, the straw that broke the camel's back was this self-indulgent tweet by Boudet:

If only we understood the independent spirit of his profound and important speech! He closes his pouting announcement with 'Maybe I am an asshole. I'm one that you will no longer be able to hear.'

Oh, if only that were true, Mike. Unfortunately, you still have like 50 other mediums and platforms to be garbage in - it just won't be with ad revenue or at Wondery. 

Libertarianism and Social Justice

As libertarianism gets more and more awareness, the challenge becomes how to navigate upholding libertarian principles, pragmatism, and resisting the urge to turn the ideology into a taxation obsessed club of: 'I got mine, fuck you.' Ron Paul has done a lot to bring people to libertarianism, but since his focus has mainly been on Economics and Foreign Policy, a lot of the newbies he's brought in think that taxation, gay Nazi cakes, and isolationism are literally all libertarianism is about. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Libertarianism isn't a selfish ideology, though that is usually the most often used accusation against us. Bad marketing, as well as a member group who are unclear about the wide breadth of libertarian issues have led outsiders to see us as mostly white men screeching 'TAXATION IS THEFT!' and 'COLLECTIVISM IS CANCER!' into the void while accusing anyone who questions their myopic worldview as a 'collectivist' or, worse, an SJW (GASP!). The very audacity of you to extend the concept of individual liberty to those outside the white male caucus!

So, I'd like to clear the air of any confusion about Libertarianism and Social Justice. In my opinion, not only are they compatible but key components of libertarianism REQUIRE social justice. We are not simply dropped on this earth as equals working within a meritocracy for our wealth, labor, etc. We are born into a very unequal society, and some of that inequality cannot be helped - like economic inequality. But some of it can - like racial, gender, sex, orientation, religion, etc. And libertarians should be striving for a marketplace where all participants are treated equally - at the very least.

Let's look at some generally agreed upon components of libertarianism individually:

Individualism and Individual Rights:
Individuals are the most vulnerable minority and individuals are responsible for their own actions. Collectivism holds individuals responsible for actions of other people in their identity group and this is inherently unjust.

Many paleolibertarians think this means that we need to ignore all conversations about racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. If we were to address these inequities we are engaging in collectivism. That is, of course, utter nonsense. Individualism is a key component to libertarianism but we are not currently being seen as or treated as individuals. Therefore, to uphold individualism we need to actively fight collectivists policies that disproportionately hurt marginalized people.

So, BLM, Gay Pride, feminism, etc are all a part of individualism in that the ultimate goal of all of these movements is for the members of these groups to stop being seen as a collective of negative attributes and to be seen as individuals with no negative connotations attributed to them based on their identity group.

The fact that police disproportionately patrol black neighborhoods, escalate situations with black suspects, are more likely to fear for their lives while interacting with black citizens are all examples of collectivism. By not actively fighting these things, you are supporting collectivism.

The fact that black kids are more likely to be arrested or punished for bad behavior at school, that black people - regardless of economic status - receive harsher penalties for the same crimes, and that people of color still face regular discrimination in hiring practices are examples of collectivism. Libertarians should be fighting to end these things if we really believe in individualism.

Anywhere that we can see discrimination, oppression, subjugation happening either publically or privately on a systemic scale, collectivism is at work. And as Individualists, it is a libertarians responsibility to oppose that sort of collectivism. It isn't any more collectivist to FIGHT social collectivism than it is pro-fire to put out a house fire. The fact remains that collectivism is how the world operates. In order to move to Individualism, we need to rid our society of the collectivist thinking that hands white people privileges and sticks minorities with disadvantages they didn't earn.

Free Markets:
The fact that a baker, or gas station owner, or grocer, or whoever CAN discriminate against people of color, or women, or Muslims, or...take your pick doesn't mean that he should. Being for free markets doesn't mean you don't have an opinion about how people act within that market. If a member of the selling group is refusing service to a buying group, calling that out as wrong isn't anti-libertarian. It's an extension of the first tenant of individualism. That is, no one should be denied service based on COLLECTIVIST thinking, like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Moreover, there is a bigger question at play here. Locke and Nozick (both libertarian or classical liberal philosophers) agree that entitlement theory allows all fairly acquired property and wealth to be transferred to another (often in death). This is a libertarian principle that cannot be denied, but the question is about whether the original property was fairly acquired, and for that, the question becomes more complicated.

In a country that has seen its rise off the backs of people of color, can we ever be sure white property has been fairly acquired? This is much more difficult knot to untangle. We know slaves contributed massive amounts of wealth to white landowners and never saw returns on that labor. We know they went on to be subjected to racial intolerance, Jim Crow, poor schools, indentured servitude, ghettoization, drug wars, all of which not only thwarted their ability to get ahead or earn capital but also stole their labor with little to no compensation. If that is the case, then how can we determine the wealth generated from this injustice and spread through the hands of white people has been fairly acquired? Even if you do not agree, you have to admit that question is one that is necessary to ask if we are going to pretend our market is at all free under the terms of fair acquirement.

Non-Aggression Principle:
As libertarians, we oppose the initiation of force to achieve our goals. We do not believe in 'strike first' nor do we believe that anyone, including the government, has the right to use aggression or force against an individual or their property outside of defense.

This is another place paleolibertarians go off the rails. Law and Order, 'muh borders' obsession comes

from a place of aggression. Despite what you think, most people are not in prison for violent crimes. In fact, some people sitting in cages have not even been convicted of crimes. Criminal justice reform and the breakdown of the Prison Industrial Complex are VITAL to libertarianism because our current system is slavery by another name. We incarcerate people for victimless crimes, hold them on bail without convictions, and subject them to labor for which they are paid nearly nothing.

At the border, the problem is growing. It is no less than an egregious NAP violation to not only hinder people from free movement across political borders but to prosecute them, cage them, and kidnap their children. These people are seeking to escape harsh, potentially fatal conditions and forcibly halting them from doing so and/or returning them to those conditions is an act of aggression for which there is no defense, from a libertarian perspective. Entering a political border is not, itself, a threat of violence so there are no grounds under NAP to do what we do to undocumented immigrants.

I could truly go on and on about all the ways in which libertarianism and social justice intersect, but let me address what I'm sure is the most common critique of social justice. It is a misconception that everyone fighting for social justice wants to ban 'hate speech,' or write quota laws, or socially engineer from the government down. Social Justice doesn't even have to be facilitated by the government - outside of the parts where we are asking the government to not victimize the population (which, btw, all libertarians should agree with). Social Justice starts with you. It starts at home. It starts with educating yourself about the injustice around you and choosing not to contribute to it. Then, choosing to do something about it - to protest, to boycott, to contribute to organizations actively fighting the injustice. None of these things require the government if that is your concern. But too often those opposed to social justice merely want to hide their heads in the sand about systemic injustice and blather on about 'collectivism is cancer' while actively enabling collectivism in its worst form.

Libertarianism not only goes hand in hand with Social Justice, I'd argue they are inextricably linked.

A Note to Republicans (and a small one for Democrats) in the Wake of Roy Moore

A note to Republicans who have felt emboldened by Trump's win. Congratulations to you. It seems like most of you very much want to be told how wonderful it is that your candidate won. He did. Yay. Now, moving on to more than just winning a single election, it's time to talk about the big picture.

Yes, Trump won an election. One election. And yes, he won that election by tapping into disatisfaction of a large section of the population while the Democratic candidate struggled to make connections with the electorate. But winning one election is nothing, my friends. Where do you go from here? Well, if Alabama is any indication, many in the deepest of red states have decided to double down on the 'Trump Factor' in their Republican primaries, assuming that a whacky character with strong views - not all entirely sane - that spoke to the heart of disatisfied America was the winning strategy. Well, folks, it's not. It can win an election or two, outside of a dictatorship, it's not a recipe for lasting success.

Being angry, hateful, riled up, etc...they aren't lasting emotions. They are hard to sustain. And having such low standards for candidates comes with risks. Like, for instance, when your candidate has a pretty well documented history of staking out malls for young girls while working as a DA, thinks life was better when slavery was still legal, thinks that homosexuality should be illegal, and was suspended from the Alabama Supreme Court for failing to follow the law, it doesn't take much for any other candidate to hold the moral high ground over you. Party loyalty is a powerful drug, but even that can't get everyone to ignore massive character flaws and potential felonious behavior. In reality, Republicans are better off for Moore losing, and Trump Republicans should take this loss very seriously. If Moore-like candidates cannot win in Alabama, they cannot win anywhere. Perhaps it is time to leave the lost culture wars behind, accept life in 2017, live your life as traditionally, religiously, and modestly as you wish but leave every one else alone and try to find candidates that understand how to make good, thoughtful, and coherent policy. Just a thought. Democrats: People of color and women (especially women of color) carry your party. They carry your party in every state in the Union. Now it's time to stop taking those votes for granted and prioritizing their needs. Get to work.

The #transban highlights a huge flaw in our military culture

By now you've heard that 45 has been recklessly tweeting again, this time about a ban on Transpeople serving in the Military. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't actually think Trump cares about Trans people in the military. He wants his stupid wall built and Congress - while the country is burning to the ground - is having philosophical conversations about the 2-4 trans people in the entire country who might want to have Sex Reassignment Surgery on the government dime. You know, because this is the government expenditure that is an immediate threat to civilization. Therefore, Trump's ham-fisted response is to say 'No Trans People' in the military. Regardless, of his intent, this #transban has highlighted a very real and age-old problem with the American Military Culture. I want to preface all of this by saying that I deeply respect the military and this is not an attack on military service men, individually, but rather the culture that is fostered in the military in a broad way.

In the IDF not upsetting the worldview of the troops doesn't rank high on the list of priorities for military enrollement policy. Israel, a non-secular country, has no problem with Transpeople serving in their military. They also have no problem with gay soldiers. Or females ones. In fact, instead of making harsh limits on who can and cannot join, they try to find a place for everyone within reason. (They also have a draft, which I oppose, but that's a topic for another day) No one could argue the IDF is a weak or ineffective military. No one could argue that IDF doesn't face the same military realities of the United States. IDF fights are mandatory. The US is often meddling in business that isn't even ours.

As military reality changes, there are more military positions for those who might not meet the standard physical requirements of service, or who don't fit in the the 'old boy's club'. Israel has been on the forefront of finding the right fit for the right person to enhance military operations, but they aren't the only Western military thinking this way. In fact, many Western militaries have active serving trans people who are doing so proudly. No military break down. The logistics haven't caused a security risk. The men and women who fight alongside these trans people simply have to be grown ups. Military leaders simply have to set the example for that maturity and respect. It really is that simple.

But in America, 'boys will be boys' still prevails in the American Military. Even as more and more women join the ranks of the armed forces, rape culture continues to grow, sexism prevails, and leadership has little interest in curbing any of it. Moreover, that sexist culture is putting the more than 1 million women who serve in danger. So, while everyone is concerned about the feelings of the melting macho snowflakes and how they will handle taking a shower with someone who has breasts and a penis, no one at all seems concerned about the fact that military women don't feel safe with their brothers in arms. So much for a 'brotherhood' (or sisterhood), amiright?

This culture has to change. And no, that's not 'turning the military into a social experiment'. It is literally asking that anyone who serves respects the people they serve with. Regardless of body parts. Regardless of sexual orientation. Regardless of gender. Regardless of religion. You know, this concept isn't all that crazy. In fact, in 2017, it's more the norm than it isn't in the West.

For a society obsessed with being the leader of Western Culture, we are falling drastically behind in our own progress. Our insistence that men can't be expected to treat people who aren't like them with respect isn't something to be proud of. It is something to change. If we are at risk because the same military minds who plan elaborate and complex war strategy can't figure out how to configure bathrooms or showers, then we have bigger problems than I think we realize. If you are so worried about paying for the tiny number of people who may seek Sex Reassignment Surgery, but you couldn't be bothered to get upset about the thousands of military women violated by the Marine photo scandal, or the women who were raped and given little justice in the Air Force Acadamy rape scandal you really have no business talking about what will and won't be harmful to military security. It seems, what you are really saying is 'it might make a section of macho snowflakes melt, and we can't have that.'


*photo credit 1: Star Tribune, Steve Sack
*photo credit 2: The Invisibile War, Kirby Dick