An Open Letter To Those Who Feel The Bern

Dear Fellow Bernie Supporters,

We lost. I don’t mean we lost the democratic primary (technically, that will happen next month). We lost the game that we apparently signed up to play. Going into this, many of us didn’t know that, by running in a major American political party, we were signing up for media bias, superdelegates, voter suppression, closed primaries, registration red tape, and other blockades to true democracy. Many of us were just starting out in politics, or had never participated actively before now because Bernie was the first candidate to align with our views. Many of us were just old enough to vote. We will still be blamed for our ignorance and optimism. That’s less of a democracy lesson and more of a life lesson- even when the game is wildly unfair, people in America like winners and criticize losers. Maybe someday we can change the game itself; until then, we’d better get used to it.

So what do we do now?

People will begin asking us this question incessantly (and many more of us have been hearing it for months already). What the question boils down to is, “Now that you’ve seen how unfair the system is, what role do you plan to play in it?” Some people are irritated with our bitterness before we’ve even expressed any. Others are simply scared- they have a lot of skin in the Big Game of Politics and they know we will play a role (directly or indirectly)  in what’s to come. Instead of telling you what I plan to do, let me tell you my opinion about each of our options. I will begin with my most important message.

Don’t you fucking vote Trump.

If you choose to support Hillary Clinton, I’m OK with that. I understand that, as Noam Chomsky said, the approximately 10% difference between the Democrats and Republicans is significant. A lot is contained in that 10%- women’s rights, LGBT rights, education, jobs, healthcare, wages. That 10% contains real, measurable human happiness or suffering, and you can directly impact that by voting for the lesser of two evils. By choosing Hillary, you are giving up the cause of many of our principles- but you’re fighting a much greater evil on the other side of the aisle. I get it. I accept it.

Just don’t cast your goddamned vote for Trump.

If you choose to support Jill Stein, I’m OK with that. I disagree vehemently with the two-party system. In fact, it’s the system that created this mess in the first place. Bernie Sanders is a lifelong Independent- the longest serving one in Congress. He (and I) only joined the Democrats because the system is set up to push out anyone outside the two parties. My real party, the Green Party, can’t even get their candidate on the ballot in many states. Debates push the third parties out. Private monies are only behind the folks in the two major parties. It’s wrong. We should be able to make a rational, informed choice without factoring in strategy. It’s not Risk. It’s not Monopoly. It’s democracy, and everyone should have an equal shot at being chosen for leadership. Jill Stein’s views are nearly identical to Bernie’s- and she’ll be on your ballot in November.

But fuck off if you vote for Trump.

If you choose to write in Bernie’s name, I’m OK with that. Let’s be honest, Bernie was probably never going to be allowed to win. Superdelegates in more than half the country supported Hillary even when their states went 70%+ for Bernie. It’s likely they’d have been happy to thwart democracy at the convention. Sure, people would be outraged- for a while. But mostly, Americans would be happy (as we always are) to return to less troubling distractions like froyo and Netflix. Bernie succeeded against unprecedented odds. Think about it! The most recognizable female politician IN THE WORLD barely won against a 74-year-old socialist jew from Vermont who nobody had even heard of a year ago. That’s incredible! We should be proud, and we can make a statement about that pride. Writing in Bernie will say to the establishment, “You may suppress my vote, but I will stand by my conscience.”

But holy lord, you better not vote for Donald Trump.

If you choose not to vote in the general election at all…...oh man, this is difficult for me. But for this one time, I’m OK with that. Normally, I revile not voting. I feel that you’re not even a worthy member of society if you can’t be bothered to have a stake in how it’s run. But your abstinence this time might be a message in your mind. It might be your way of saying, “I don’t see the purpose in continuing to shout while locked in a soundproof cage.”  Do whatever you possibly can to affect the system going forward. But if you can’t stomach having a stake in this one, purely out of disaffected depression...I get it. Kind of. It’s not something I’d ever do, but I will forgive you this time. Get back out there on November 9th and fight the good fight.

But whatever you do (and I say this with a slow, threatening voice), don’t you DARE cast a vote for Donald Fucking Trump.

By voting Trump, you’re not just messing with the system. You’re not just throwing up your hands. You’re not just picking any outsider, no matter who, and you’re not just sending a message to the powers-that-be. By voting for Donald Trump, YOU ARE STEALING OUR MOVEMENT AND GIVING IT TO THE ENEMY. You are snatching away everything Bernie Sanders stands for, and contributing directly to its destruction. You are painting a legacy of horror in the place of a political movement that I am deeply, deeply proud of, a political movement that I thought I would never see in my home country in my lifetime. To pervert what we’ve created, to smear our hopes and aspirations in such a vile and ugly manner, is the most unforgivable sin I can possibly imagine. I cannot express the disgust, the anger, and the profound disappointment I will feel for my movement if it is reduced to the headline: “Former Sanders supporters Pave Path to Trump Victory”. My faith in our movement will be shattered. It will have all been a sham. My political identity will never recover. Plus, you know....President Trump.

Many will disagree with me. They will object, probably loudly, to many of your options that I accept. Choosing to do anything but work your hardest for Hillary will be treated as borderline treason. I don’t accept that. I won’t accept a shred of blame for Donald Trump, because I will NEVER vote for him. It would be the most violent mangling of my views. To blame anyone for the victory of a candidate they didn't vote for is a logical pretzel for another time. If we're shamed and blamed for NO voting for Hillary, I can handle it. I know where I stand. But I’ll be utterly crushed if the movement that I have invested so much time, energy, and love into is forever is causally linked with the ascension of a demagogic, racist, passive aggressive bully. I don’t know what will become of those who #feelthebern. I hope I like it. I can stomach any outcome but one.

Don’t let me down.

Robin Branson

The Clinton Administration's New Jim Crow (from The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander)

In 1991, the Sentencing Project reported that the number of people behind bars in
the United States was unprecedented in world history, and that one fourth of young African American men were now under the control of the criminal justice system. Despite the jawdropping impact of the “get tough” movement on the African American community, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans revealed any inclination to slow the pace of incarceration. To the contrary, in 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowed that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he. True to his word, just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton chose to fly home to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him until the morning. After the execution, Clinton remarked, “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I’m soft on crime.”

Once elected, Clinton endorsed the idea of a federal “three strikes and you’re out” law, which he advocated in his 1994 State of the Union address to enthusiastic applause on both sides of the aisle. The $30 billion crime bill sent to President Clinton in August 1994 was hailed as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.” The bill created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and expansion of state and local police forces. Far from resisting the emergence of the new caste system, Clinton escalated the drug war beyond what conservatives had imagined possible a decade earlier. As the Justice Policy Institute has observed, “the Clinton Administration’s ‘tough on crime’ policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history.”

Clinton eventually moved beyond crime and capitulated to the conservative racial agenda on welfare. This move, like his “get tough” rhetoric and policies, was part of a grand strategy articulated by the “new Democrats” to appeal to the elusive white swing voters. In so doing, Clinton—more than any other president—created the current racial undercaste. He signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which “ended welfare as we know it,” and replaced it with a block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, as well as a permanent, lifetime ban on eligibility for welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense—including simple possession of marijuana.

Clinton did not stop there. Determined to prove how “tough” he could be on “them,” Clinton also made it easier for federally-assisted public housing projects to exclude anyone with a criminal history—an extraordinarily harsh step in the midst of a drug war aimed at racial and ethnic minorities. In his announcement of the “One Strike and You’re Out” Initiative, Clinton explained: “From now on, the rule for residents who commit crime and peddle drugs should be one strike and you’re out.” The new rule promised to be “the toughest admission and eviction policy that HUD has implemented.” Thus, for countless poor people, particularly racial minorities targeted by the drug war, public housing was no longer available, leaving many of them homeless—locked out not only of mainstream society, but their own homes. The law and order perspective, first introduced during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement by rabid segregationists, had become nearly hegemonic two decades later. By the mid-1990s, no serious alternatives to the War on Drugs and “get tough” movement were being entertained in mainstream political discourse. Once again, in response to a major disruption in the prevailing racial order—this time the civil rights gains of the 1960s—a new system of racialized social control was created by exploiting the vulnerabilities and racial resentments of poor and working class whites. More than 2 million people found themselves behind bars at the turn of the twenty-first century, and millions more were relegated to the margins of mainstream society, banished to a political and social space not unlike Jim Crow, where discrimination in employment, housing, and access to education was perfectly legal, and where they could be denied the right to vote. The system functioned relatively automatically, and the prevailing system of racial meanings, identities, and ideologies already seemed natural. Ninety percent of those admitted to prison for drug offenses in many states were black or Latino, yet the mass incarceration of communities of color was explained in race-neutral terms, an adaptation to the needs and demands of the current political climate. The New Jim Crow was born.

Rebuttal to Paul McHugh's "Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme"

READ THIS FIRST:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

I recently stumbled upon Dr. Hugh's article on Facebook and felt the need to respond to his claims about transgender individuals. A long Facebook comment became a blog post.
Despite Dr. Hugh’s deeply troubling views, I have respect for his thoughtful delivery- it works a lot better than shouting and name-calling. I hope to be as thorough as he was (if not a bit more evidence-based). I’ll give quotes from the article and then provide a response.

“Over the last ten or fifteen years, this [transgender] phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially….has spread to include women as well as men...”

It’s pretty audacious to imply that the rising number of openly transgender individuals in society is due to anything other than their increased acceptance in society. Up until as recently as a decade ago, transgender individuals faced almost universal bigotry and ostracization from society; the fact that they did not make their feelings public information is hardly surprising. One might similarly remark, “Wow! The rate of interracial marriage in the South has sure risen recently! What an interesting phenomenon!” without acknowledging the obvious root cause. The implication that transgender females did not exist prior to this movement is another implicit falsehood easily debunked- their existence has been recorded in America as far back as the Civil War (Source #1 below).

“...has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice…”

Here, Dr. McHugh is revealing how little he understands about LGBT issues- specifically, the difference between biological sex and gender identity. Caitlyn Jenner has not changed her sex- she remains biologically male. Biological sex and gender identity are separate. Why shouldn’t they be? Human beings are complicated. Additionally, human beings have individual freedom to decide how they wish to perceive themselves and be perceived by others, and what they would like to do with their bodies. In my view, it’s extremely disrespectful for any person to impose their own personal abstract view of what is “right” on another without a scientific reason for doing so. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves- more on Sexual Reassignment Surgery later.

“...[the LGBT movement] claim[s] that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.”

More misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation, can’t tell which). Again, one’s gender identity is not their sex. It’s not a two-party system (see Source #2, where Hank Green explains the difference in layman's terms). I'd say the jury is still out on whether gender identity changes sometimes, or whether environmental factors affect the openness a person has about their gender identity. But really, who cares how other people see themselves? I sure don’t, because it’s not my body- let's be who we want to be, and let others do the same.

The conflating of sex and gender identity continues throughout the article, so let’s move on.

“Bruce Jenner...his...”

It’s interesting that he is disrespectful enough to call Caitlyn Jenner by a name and pronoun she does not identify with. My birth certificate says “Robin”, but if I were to shake hands with you and say, “I go by Rob,” would you mock my self-identification by insisting that my name is Robin, and continuing to refer to me as Robin everywhere you go? In my view, that’s the behavior of a bully. Even if Dr. Hugh believes that Caitlyn Jenner has severe mental illness, I think he ought to have more respect than that for his would-be patient.

“The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.”

First of all, it's unclear from the Swedish study what kind of specific Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) participants had. Caitlyn has not had "bottom surgery" (which refers to SRS which changes a person's reproductive organs), and has explained explicitly that she is not interested in doing so. Rather, she has had extensive "top surgery" in order to have an outward appearance that matches her gender identity. However, there is a much more troubling implication in Dr. Hugh's claims here.

It seems like the short-sidedness of Dr. Hugh’s viewpoint is its primary downfall. Obviously, transgender individuals exist in our society, have existed, and will continue to exist. The question seems to be, how do we respond to their presence in our society? With acceptance and celebration of their choices? With ignorance and rejection by apathy? Or with direct intervention in the form of trying to “fix” the person’s “disease”? Dr. Hugh acknowledges the potentially troubling results of the first approach, but not of the others.

Dr. Hugh cites a single randomized-control trial of 324 Swedish people that showed, over a span of 30 years, to have increased rates of suicide. These data seem to be used to imply that, even with social acceptance like in Sweden, suicide rates will rise. However, he fails to acknowledge body of evidence regarding the thousands of LGBT youth who commit suicide in the United States each year, due in large part to the ostracization they feel in their communities (Source #3).

*Admittedly, these data include all LGBT youth (rather than exclusively transgendered individuals), which is a challenge with all data on this subject; however, the factor at play seems to be social acceptance, which has historically been a major struggle LGBT individuals of all stripes in the U.S., and for many, remains so.

So, ignoring the problem is also the wrong approach. How about the third option- “curing” the “disease”?

“The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions...both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters.“As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama."

Here, Dr. Hugh distances himself from the world’s scientific community with a bang. Plenty of misguided youth find their way to LGBT “conversion therapy”.  This kind of “therapy” is universally rejected by governments, doctors, and scientists from countries around the globe, who deem it unethical, potentially harmful, and deeply troubling (sources 4, 5). Nevermind that until recent years, anti-LGBT “therapies” included lobotomy, electroshock therapy and chemical castration. Nevermind that, with both the old methods and the newer “peer prayer and pressure” methods, that it doesn’t work- numerous scientific studies have proven its ineffectiveness (see, for one example, Source 6). The real problem is that these methods are plagued by the very same problems Dr. Hugh accuses the opposition of having- “patients” of conversion therapy are 8 times more likely to commit suicide, and 6 times more likely to report severe depression (source 7).

What does all this tell us? Certainly, that the issue of LGBT suicide needs more study.  I certainly don’t mean to devalue the problem- it’s a troubling one that many are working to solve. However, Dr. Hugh’s proposed solutions are at least as bad, if not far worse, than those posed by the LGBT rights movement. Of course we need to confront the issue of transgender suicide, but rejecting a person’s gender identity in the process of “helping” them is just hate with a love-colored jacket on. I have blue eyes; if someone told me “I love you...I just want to help you get rid of your blue eyes”, that would be offensive and unhelpful, and I would not accept the sincerity of the profession of love. Dr. Hugh seems to think that another person's identity is less important than what he wants their identity to be. Not just one other person, but thousands.

“...no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions.”

Wrong. Here’s a scientific study mapping transgender activity in the brain, specifically in Male-to-female transgender individuals like Jenner (Source 8). And before you say “the hormones did it!”, here's a quote from the article: "To be included in the study, the transsexual participants needed to self-identify as a MTF transsexual, report no history of hormonal treatment, and declare their intention to undergo estrogen replacement therapy."

Back to Dr. Hugh:

“But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.”

I am a heterosexual cisgender adult male. I have no vested interest. I just think that Dr. Hugh is disguising bigotry with concern. And I rest my case.

Sources and further reading-

1. One of many transgender men who was a soldier in the Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier

2. Hank Green Explaining Human Sexuality-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI

3. LGBT Suicide:
http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

4. Conversion Therapy
http://web.archive.org/web/20110407082738/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001.aspx

5. Conversion Therapy
http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf

6. Conversion Therapy Doesn’t Work
http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Practice%26Ethics.pdf

7. Conversion Therapy and Suicide
http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

8. Mapping Gender Identity in the Brain:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-mapping-gender-identity-what-makes-boy-girl-247122

A Reflection on the Ice Bucket Challenge

I have a question or two.

First, is the Ice Bucket Challenge officially over? As I scroll through my Facebook News Feed, I've stopped seeing the signature stills of people standing on grass next to buckets. I've stopped seeing the reports of the skyrocketing donations to the ALS Foundation. I've stopped seeing the links to articles about the terror of ALS and testimonials from grateful patients. I've stopped seeing the Ice Bucket Challenge haters and the angry comment wars in their wake.

Lastly, I've stopped seeing the well-intentioned sermons from the seemingly diehard believers-in-the-cause. These true believers have stopped wagging fingers at me for not participating, stopped preaching the saintliness of those countless everyday folks who experienced voluntary mild discomfort while their sisters-in-law filmed with iPhones. The hype surrounding this bubble of charitable awesomeness seems to have finally burst.

So my second question is for those diehard Ice Bucket Preachers. My question for you is....where are you donating now?

What's your new cause? Who are you dying to save from dying today? Did you do the research and learn about the horrors of Breast Cancer? Or AIDS across the world? Or Heart Disease- there's a big one! Maybe you want to combat hunger next- there are millions of food insecure Americans. I don't need to tell you- you must've read up on that for several hours. I'm only making these assumptions, Mr. Diehard Ice Preacher, because you seemed so passionate a few weeks ago. You made me believe that you were in this for the good of your fellow man, rather than for a chance to post a video of your goofy stunt for all your friends to watch. Was I wrong? I hope I wasn't. I thought you really cared. You made me believe.

And I can't blame you for getting upset about the Disease Formerly Known As Lou Gehrig's- ALS is a terrible disease that kills nearly 7,000 people in the United States every year. The patient stories are horrific. At first, most people notice difficulty using their arms or legs. ALS gets into your central nervous system and makes even the smallest muscle movements feel like a chore. Motor functions become impaired, first slightly and then severely. By the disease's final stages, patients cannot talk, chew food, or even breathe- the cause of death for ALS patients is usually respiratory failure.

What a horrible way to die. But out of that horror came the Ice Bucket Challenge! What a testament to humanity! Awful stories like these have moved us to help our fellow man and make our society better, and collectively, we raised over 100 million dollars! Less people will die because of us humans and our efforts. It's a beautiful thing! But my mind moves past that beauty when I think about that number: 7,000 people....

That's right, almost 7,000 people die from ALS every year......but Prostate Cancer kills over 20,000. Oh, boy. Prostate Cancer, that cancer that every man wishes he didn't have to get checked for. Too bad we can't check ourselves for Prostate Cancer, the way women check themselves for Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer! That kills....over 40,000 people every year. And those are only two types of cancer. Cancer is like a bad bouncer that lets way too many people into the party that is your body. They just keep filling up the room, packing it tighter and tighter, until eventually the punch gets knocked over, the sound system gets smashed, and someone's ass bumps the light switch. Most people in America are familiar with cancer, unfortunately, due to personal experience. The lump. The biopsy. The phone calls to family and friends, and the tears. The sitting in waiting rooms and lying in Operating Rooms and, all too often, visiting funeral homes. My mother got Breast Cancer in 2010. For me, it was pacing around in my apartment in Thailand while mom was in surgery, waiting for online messages from my brothers and sisters telling me everything was OK (my mother repeatedly insisted that I stay at my job overseas rather than fly home to her). My mother survived, and I'm extremely grateful for that. In the past year, more than 40,000 other Breast Cancer patients haven't been so lucky.

While this all might seem very tragic, the story gets even worse. More than 140,000 people in the U.S. die from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (that's lung problems, mostly from smoking). Almost 600,000 die from Heart Disease (that's cholesterol problems, mostly from overeating). Are you feeling hungry? The starving people of the world are, and their numbers make ours look like a joke. Over 900 million people are presently undernourished or malnourished in the world. Five million children every year die of malnutrition. FIVE MILLION CHILDREN- PER YEAR. If this zero:

0

represents all the people that die in the U.S. from ALS every year, here's how many children in the world die of starvation every year:

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Is it time to do something, oh Mighty Protector of Mankind, oh Grand Ice Master of the Internet? Have you come up with a clever gimmick to fix it? Does it involve camera phones, heavy buckets, and Youtube?

I promise I'm not trying to dump on you (zing), Reverend Ice Preacher. I know your heart is in the right place. I know ALS is terrible and you just found this out and you want to make a difference! And I applaud that. It's what makes you human! Be proud of that part of yourself. If you gave money to the ALS cause, that's incredibly awesome. My humble request is that you DO IT AGAIN.

Give money every month, whatever you can afford. Diversify your donations if you can. There are plenty of worthy causes- disease, hunger, education, medicine. The list goes on. The money isn't for your conscience, and it's not for your social media street cred (although those can be added bonuses). The money really does something. It makes a physical difference. Can we please recognize that, and continue the difference? Can't the terrible suffering in the world hold our attention longer than a 50 second video clip? Can we please stop letting our barometer of human decency and empathy be determined by a silly online fad? Can we care, regardless of whether our 800 Facebook friends are going to hear about it?

At the beginning of the ALS Challenge, I posted an article to my Facebook entitled, “Stop Dumping Ice on your Head. Just Give Money.” I would like to provide my own personal spin on that article title. Here it is:

Do whatever you feel like doing, including dumping ice on your head. Also, give money. Regularly.

It's not that difficult, y'all. All it takes is a few of the spare coins in your pocket per day. I know that some of us just can't afford to donate- poverty in the U.S. is worth an article several times this long. But even if the richer half of America (about 160 million people) gave just $5 more per month each, the coffers of charity around the globe would earn an extra 9.6 billion dollars per year. Yep, that's billion with a B. And the cost to you is just one single Venti Doubleshot Latte per month. Imagine that!

So donate, and keep doing it. Don't be beholden to fads or popularity contests, but don't hesistate to enjoy them either. Take a little time to research who you're giving your money to first- like with any other investment. And by all means, once you've donated, go ahead and brag about it on your Facebook if you want. Take a picture of the check. Make a video of yourself mailing it. Do jumping jacks, or twerk, or absolutely dump ice on your head. Whatever gets the job done. People are dying. It's worth it to them.

I did not write this article in order to plug any specific charities, but here are a few that I have researched to my own satisfaction and that I donate to regularly (just $5 or $10 when my budget allows).

DoctorsWithout Borders

TheSalvation Army

TheChildren's Aid Society

FeedingAmerica

Don't take my word for it- check out the details about these and thousands of other charities at www.charitynavigator.org

Seven Things I Will Really, Really Miss About South Korea

This article began as a list of "Ways That South Korea is Better Than America”, and in many ways, that is still the heart of the message. As an American English teacher living Daegu, South Korea for the past two years, I have become all too comfortable with the lifestyle. As my return date approaches, I am dreading a great many aspects of the transition. The fact is, there are indisputably many things about everyday life in Korea that are much better than in the United States. That being said, after I started writing this, my rebellious brain almost immediately led me to a list of all the ways that the USA is actually better than South Korea (it's surely a list that could be made). But I'm writing about the country I live in, not the one I'm from. So forget about who's better- I'm heading home to the US tomorrow and I'm super bummed about some things that I'm leaving behind. Here are all those things.

1. Not Having to Really Worry About Finding a Job

I have no choice but to open with this whopper. Most teaching gigs in Korea operate around one-year contracts. Many (most?) of these teaching jobs offer such standard benefits as free round-trip airfare from your home country, free housing, and contract completion bonuses. That's on top of all the other things most modern countries consider “standard” like health benefits (see below for more on healthcare). With the absence of rent and low cost of living, it's virtually impossible not to save money month-to-month while working here. This is why 95% of the people I know go traveling, often for several months, at the end of their contracts. As if the benefits weren't amazing enough, the job requirements make the whole thing seem just plain too good to be true. You basically need three things to teach English in Korea: A passport from an English-speaking country, a bachelor's degree (any subject), and a pulse. How many jobs at home have even half the perks with less than twice the requirements?

On top of all this, English language education is a booming, multi-billion dollar industry in Korea, which means that if you want steady employment here, it's not really a matter of IF you get a job, but WHEN.

All this isn't to say that working in Korea doesn't have its share of pitfalls, dangers, difficulties, and issues. But those problems are magnified by those of us that live here because we often forget just how awesome we have it in comparison to the average American nine-to-fiver.

2. Not Paying an Arm and a Leg for Healthcare

Over the past three years, I have had a few sever bouts of acute gastritis, and on two occasions I've been forced into a trip to the Emergency Room for severe stomach pain- once in Korea, and once in the U.S.A. This made me the subject of a pretty pure experiment in how each of the systems work. In both cases, I was admitted with almost no waiting. I consulted with a doctor, was administered painkillers, got blood work, and was given a few prescriptions. I was released after an hour or two.

The level of service was excellent in both cases. The doctors were equally busy, equally thorough, and equally helpful. The ONLY noticeable difference in these two experiences was the out-of-pocket price tag: the experience in Korea cost the equivalent of about $200. The one in America was well over $2,200.

Why oh why? Well, for starters, South Korea has a single-payer healthcare system. Like most other “modern” countries, they believe that affordable healthcare is a basic human right. Many of my American friends in Korea already have gotten, or plan to get, all of their non-emergency medical work done here, before returning to the States. It'll save them thousands of dollars.

3. Easy, Affordable, Fast Public Transit

If living abroad teaches you anything, it's that the little things are what make the difference in your everyday life; you learn to rise above the bad and appreciate the good. When it comes to getting around in Korea, it's (almost) all good.

Owning a car is a necessity for no Korean in a good-sized city. Buses and subway lines run everywhere, and run frequently. They are almost never crowded. Bus fare in Daegu is about $1 for a ride, with a free transfer. Compare that to nearly $3 for a ride on a smelly city bus in Sacramento, California, for which I'll receive no transfer. Which means I'll have to pay another $3 to the next bus (which I'll have waited 30 minutes for).

But what if you're in a hurry? What if it's late? What if the bus just won't cut it? Taxis are all over the place. The fair begins at about $2.60, and inches slowly up from there. A forty minute ride all the way across town would cost $20 or so. As for the cabs in the US...I really couldn't tell you. I've only been in them a couple of times, and it was always a reminder of why I never take cabs at home. They will clear out your wallet like a vacuum cleaner.

4. Ridiculously Fast Internet...like, really

Is the internet a necessity in modern society? It certainly seems to be heading that way. The USA is on its way up in this regard- most coffee shops, bars, and even Subway sandwich restaurants are wired up with wifi nowadays. The thing that makes Korea so much better is speed. Wifi is everywhere here, and it's all fast; around 14Mbps on average, which is twice the USA's average speed. I have traveled to both urban and rural Korea, and pretty much the only place I couldn't find a wifi network was in the woods. One time, when I REALLY wanted to download an episode of Game of Thrones, I literally just walked down the street with my laptop until an unsecured network showed up. It took me about ten minutes. To find the network AND download the episode.

Korea has a few giant telecom companies that handle cell phone, data, and internet service, much like the US. The difference is that these companies actually compete for your business, fiercely. Rather than the AT&T approach of “we're the only option, so take our terrible, slow and spotty service”, Korea's telecom companies are constantly introducing new advances and perks to attract new customers. You know, that whole capitalism thing?

Now admittedly, American cell phone companies have become super competitive, which is great for consumers. But has Verizion Wireless equipped public trains, city buses, a whole smattering of private businesses, and even entire urban city centers with their wifi service in order to attract customers? I think not. Olleh Telecom in Korea has done this. If your cell phone comes from Olleh, there are payphones all around the country that double as wifi hotspots for you. Beat that, 'Murica.

5. Banks that are actually worthy of the 21^st Century

Before living in Korea, I lived in Thailand for two years as well. Thailand and Korea are VERY different countries, but they do have one thing in common- their banking systems are both better than the U.S.

Korean ATMs are set up to do 95% of the financial transactions you'll need to perform in a given month, and there is one of them every hundred feet in the city. Money transfers between bank accounts, even from different banks, are as simple as a few clicks on a touchscreen, and everyone is wired into this system. This means you can pay your rent, pay your utilities, pay for some concert tickets you want, pay for a book you bought online, and send ten bucks back to your friend that you borrowed it from, all in less than five minutes, on your way to work, at the ATM. Your boss needs nothing other than your account number to send your paycheck to you instantly, 24/7. And you can keep track of everything on a handy little bank book that acts like an automatic check balance book. “But my app does that!” Of course, all Korean banks have apps that do all this stuff too. This ain't amateur hour.

When I lose my debit card in the USA, I have to make a phone call and wait a few days for a card to come in the mail. Hmm, not too bad. In Korea, I walk into a branch and they make me one in five minutes. Hmm, better.

When I don't have enough money to pay for something in America, the bank allows the transaction and charges me $35 for the privilege of buying that stick of gum from 7-11 without being embarrassed. In Korea, when you can't pay for something, you can't buy it. You also can't be gouged by your bank for making a tiny mistake.

Oh, maybe you noticed back there where I mentioned you can pay your rent at the ATM. Back home, they're still asking for checks for the rent. Are you kidding me? CHECKS? What is this, 1991? Needless to say, I will sorely miss not having to head down to the nearest museum bank for some checks just to pay for my apartment.

6. A Practical Response to Alcohol

Some people in Korea (and well, everywhere) have a drinking problem, and that's nothing to take lightly. Drunk drivers are not OK, drunken aggressors can be annoying if not dangerous, and the health risks of heavy drinking should be considered by everyone. Korea is one of the heaviest drinking countries in the world, with bottles of soju (rice wine) going for $1 at every supermarket. But it's not the drinking culture itself that I will miss, but rather the public/law enforcement response to drinking.

Open alcohol containers on the street are not illegal in Korea. When my American friends came to visit me here, I told them that drinking in the streets was totally OK, giving them the impression that lots of people do it. That's really not the case. It's not that everyone does it; it's just that nobody cares if YOU do. Why should they? Something as arbitrary as WHERE you get drunk has nothing to do with how you behave afterward. In this context, American public intoxication and open container laws feel to me like relics of the puritan era. “But I don't want all those drunkies stumbling around me and my kids!” Then don't take them downtown at 11pm on a Saturday, because with or without open container laws, there will be drunks walking the streets in any country. The difference is, Korea doesn't see being drunk as such a terrible social misstep, and while that might not jive with you, being tolerant of the idea that non-criminals can do what they feel like doing certainly jives with me.

DUI laws are fully enforced here, complete with roadside checkpoints and sobriety tests. However, in Korea you can call a service that will send someone over to your location, who will drive you home in your own car. This is a practical solution to a common problem- if you drove to the bar and are now drunk, what do you do? Abandon your car? Sleep it off in the back seat? Take the risk? This service completely neutralizes the problem, while putting some profit in some entrepreneurial pockets.

If you DO wind up drunk on the street in Korea and needing to sleep it off, do the cops throw you in a “drunk tank” with six crackheads and a car thief? Nope. The police station has beds in it. Beds! Just for drunkies to sober up. A safe, secure place where they're not wreaking havoc or beating their wives or being thrown in the dungeon just for having too much to drink.

Why can't WE do that? Instead of finding ways to punish drunk drivers that also fund the City Budget, why can't we come up with some solutions to drunk driving that actually PREVENT bad things from happening? If nothing else, I sure will miss bars that are located a $4 taxi ride away from home- I haven't needed a designated driver in two years.

7. Being a Foreigner

In Thailand, we were called “farang” and here we're “waygookin”. We're the natural outsiders of this city, but you'd be surprised how well that draws us together. Being part of a community of foreigners in a city overseas is at once intimate, fleeting, and invigorating. You instantly have something to talk about with every new person you meet. “Where are you from?” and “How long have you been here?” are questions that some expats find boring to ask, but let me tell you, they are far more boring back home, where 99% of the respective answers you get are “Here,” and “Forever.”

As a white person, I think there's something terribly important about feeling like the other one or two times in your life- about being stared at, sized up, and turned into a generalization enough times that it starts to bother you. It tells you who you really are, helps you understand the world, and heightens your sense of empathy. It's empowering and special, and travel is the only way we feel it.

When I wake up each morning in Korea, I may not be sure if I'll be able to get the lady making my kimbap to understand that no, I don't want radish in it. But I am positive that every day I will learn something new, I will experience the world that I am a part of, and I will feel indisputably unique, thanks to all the people around me who are so different. It's a feeling I've become addicted to, and I can feel preemptive withdrawal setting in as I pack my bags for home. Who knows, maybe I'll be heading back to live here someday? Eh, I kinda doubt it.

There's other words for “foreigner” I wanna try on.

Christmas for Everyone

(I wrote this on a whim last Christmas and posted it to Facebook, but I think it has enough merit to be posted here)

I'm an agnostic. This means that I believe that the big questions like "How did we get here?" and "Is there a God?" are unanswerable by man. It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't know, I think no one else truly knows, and I don't think anyone is capable of knowing. It's highly unlikely that this is going to change for me, ever. That being said, I respect all forms of spirituality, and admire many of the beautiful practices therein. I meditate. I admire Muslim devotion and Jewish traditions. I love Christian-inspired art. I watched the Passion of the Christ and cried. And I celebrate Christmas. I have a wild passion for the holiday.

I consider that last point to be something of a digression, though. Because Christmas in America is....Christmas. That's it. It's a holiday that has lots of things connected to it, from the religious to the secular. But it's not, by definition, religious or secular, it's Christmas. It's whatever you want it to be, and many of us (while not having any interest in religion) want to be a part of it, because it's awesome. We exchange gifts. We decorate trees. We sing Christmas songs. Some of those Christmas songs talk about the baby Jesus. So what? I don't have to believe in a certain religion to enjoy a nice song. Why should I?

I grew up on Christmas, and I did not grow up on Christ. I sang. I put the star at the top of the tree. I marveled at the special quality of the season to bring people together. I reveled in the celebration of life, kindness, selflessness, and pure celebration. None of this was lost on me because I did not believe in Christ, least of all the cool story of the nativity. Because, whether or not you believe the story is true, it's a cool story anyway. It evokes wonder and excitement and positive energy. And we can do whatever we want with that energy- funnel it into religious stuff, or just take it and use it and pass it on, and everyone benefits either way. America has developed its own kind of Christmas, and every family likewise. That's not religion, it's culture. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but neither are they identical.

So let's quit griping about whether to call it "Christmas" or "the holidays". Everyone knows it IS Christmas. And that doesn't make it offensive unless we MAKE it offensive. Christmas is part of our culture, so let's embrace what we've built and enjoy it. Participate in it, or don't. But try to recognize that we're not all enjoying it because we're Christian- I'd say more of us aren't than are. And certainly don't refuse to enjoy it if you aren't Christian. Take the good, leave the bad, spread the love, drink the eggnog, cut out the gingerbread cookie, annoy your relatives, wear ugly sweaters. Watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and understand. It's all love, man. Merry Christmas!

Five Reasons TV is Now Better Than Movies

It's definitely happened. Over the past five to ten years or so, since sometime around the early 2000's, a major shift has taken place. TV today is vastly superior entertainment to films. The good stories, the good actors, the good production value (although Hollywood admittedly still has the good budgets), all of it has moved from the big screen to the small one. If you need proof, just flip on any one of half a dozen stellar shows presently on HBO. After that, poke your head briefly into a movie theater and catch a glimpse of some of the crap being pumped out of those places nowadays. When did this shift begin? It's a fascinating question, because the change happened so completely and so quickly. I don't know the exact reason, but I have a few ideas to toss into the ring anyway.

1. The Execs at AMC

I did next to no research before making this list, beyond tapping into the wealth of trivial information already inside my noggin, but I like to imagine a board meeting at AMC that went something like this. A young associate is giving a presentation to the executives of AMC. It's 2006. Profits are down, he says. Only old people watch this network. We need something to revitalize things. And I have an idea: let's make TV that's actually good. Because strangely enough, nobody's doing that.

In the few short years since AMC began producing original series like “Mad Men”, “Breaking Bad”, and “The Walking Dead”, the network has skyrocketed to the top of the cable TV food chain, past that, and into the stratosphere. They almost managed to surpass HBO, the original network of quality TV, who, with shows like “Six Feet Under” and “The Sopranos”, has swept the Emmys pretty much every year since 2000. AMC getting into the game was the first sign of an overall shift to the magnificent.

This board meeting could have been the moment that the change was set into motion, but how did it happen in the first place? Well, for starters, there was the fact that...

2. TV Now Exists In Two Worlds: Scripted And Reality

“Survivor” more-or-less began the reality TV era (there was The Real World before that, but who cares). After its success, TV seems to have hit a major fork, with every new show eventually drifting into one of two zones: either towards well-casted, well-written, high grade scripted TV, or down into the Bog of Eternal Reality. As much as I hate reality TV, I am grateful for its existence. The production of that drivel has made everything else better. It's satisfied the demographic of idiots that enjoy watching The Situation flex his over-tanned muscles. Reality TV satiated the heathens, leaving the path wide open to scripted gold.

The Wire was approximately 10 years ahead of its time. Shows like 24 and Lost in the early 2000's hinted at the shift. But then Breaking Bad came along and broke the mold. No, that's not right. Breaking Bad shattered the mold, completely rethought the idea of the mold, and brought Mold 2.0 out in all its shining glory for everyone in the world of TV to behold. (yes, I'm one of those people. Breaking Bad is awesome. Deal with it.)

3. TV Is Now Infinite Access Entertainment

There's a terrific scene in one of the later seasons of “Breaking Bad” that I quite enjoy (spoilers light if any). Jesse and Walt are having a disagreement about an endeavor Jesse plans to make. It turns physical. They roll around on the floor and fight. When the rumble is over, Jesse asks Walt, “Can you walk?” Walter indicates that he can. “Then get the fuck out of here and never come back.” Jesse replies.

This is not the first F-bomb in Breaking Bad; Walter tells off his boss in the pilot of the show using the word. So why the F word? The show airs on AMC. The producers know that it'll have to be censored.

It's because the environment of TV has changed. Sure, when Breaking Bad airs on TV initially, the F-words will be silenced. But we live in an age when TV is on demand (both literally and on Comcast). People can have their TV now, later, next week or next month, on DVR, on Tivo, on BluRay or DVD, whenever and wherever they want. They can pirate it illegally, they can stream it on Amazon or Netflix, and they certainly can get it in a situation where it doesn't have to be censored. The FCC has lost all its leverage anymore, and even though F Bombs are still censored in one tiny context, producers of shows understand that the practicalities of the 2010's make their TV timeless. If an F Bomb is called for, it ought to show up- it will be heard soon enough.

In the old era of TV, there was a finite feeling to each episode. The airing of that episode, that night, for that one moment, was the climax of the experience. We've left that idea in the dust, and TV shows are now a lasting experience that people are much more likely to enjoy reliving again and again. We're rewatching our favorite shows as often now as we rewatch our favorite movies. That makes TV more valuable than ever.

Also, it's easier to marathon an entire season in one afternoon, ever since...

4. Season Length Now Favors Quality Over Quantity

TV used to be season-based. As in, lasting through multiple seasons of the year. A show's run could last the better part of 12 months. It was a weekly ritual- you could count on your show to be there for you for a long time. Sure, it was mediocre, but it was reliable.

TV is more cinematic now. The number of episodes per season has shrank dramatically from the mid twenties to the low teens. The first season of The Newsroom had only ten episodes. The first season of Breaking Bad had only seven (partially due to the writer's strike, but still). This changes how we think of TV, and as a result, how producers create it.

Go watch a few episodes of Aaron Sorkin-created “The West Wing” (if you don't know who Aaron Sorkin is, Google him. You've definitely watched multiple things he's responsible for). “West Wing” sometimes feels very similar to Sorkin's more recent series, “The Newsroom”. The dialogue is quick and snappy. The characters are self-conscious and overly human. The drama gets REALLY drama-ey at times. And yet....The whole Newsroom season is about something. There's a predetermined arc to the story that we can see, hear, and feel as we watch it. In many ways, it is like a very long film in several parts. “The West Wing” has a much different pace. It's built on the old model, where writers sat down to pump out episode 16 after episode 5 already aired. “What new predicament will the gang get into this week?” That style of television is, for all intents and purposes, over. There's a new sheriff in town, and his name is Quality. We don't want TV episodes coming off an assembly line. We want the good stuff, and if we only get it over the space of a couple of months per year, apparently we're fine with that. Game of Thrones is so popular, people have actually started naming their new babies “Khaleesi”, and with only ten episodes a year. Which brings me to...

#5 Game of Thrones. Nuff said.

My favorite films as an adolescent were the Lord of the Rings movies. I watched them obsessively, purchasing the “extended cut” DVDs, which increased the total run time of the films from 9.5 hours to 13 or so. Those movies were so long, even die hard fans could get bored. How ironic, then, that despite the oppressive length, so much of the original story STILL had to be cut out! The cinematic format just couldn't handle a fantasy epic.

Enter Game of Thrones.

Now, please don't get me wrong: Game of Thrones could NOT have existed without Lord of the Rings. Period. Before LotR was greenlighted, people simply didn't make high-budget fantasy on TV or in movies, at all. In the 20 years before LotR came out, we had nothing much beyond The Dark Crystal and a terrible Tom Cruise movie called “Legend” that nobody watched. New Line Cinema agreed to let Peter Jackson, a chunky, massively under-qualified doofus from New Zealand, direct Lord of the Rings. They greenlighted all three films at once, embarking on a financial endeavor that could easily have bankrupted the studio. But the idea worked, and the rest is history.

Game of Thrones had the ridiculous luck of being ready to become a show right as the age of awesome TV was opening up, AND after LotR proved to everyone that fantasy can make money. The result is probably one of the most well-made fantasy anything since ever. That's the kind of accomplishment that only used to exist in cinema. But not anymore.

I'm certainly not saying that Hollywood is over. It's still a multi-billion dollar industry, with huge budgets and lots of interesting things to say (and they've still got comic book movies when they need to make a buck). But TV has stolen the true cinematic pizzazz from Hollywood, and I don't see them giving it back anytime soon.

And that, as an Aaron Sorkin character might cheekily announce, is all she wrote.