An update and some scripts

Hi, everyone! It's a new year, and I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your continued patronage in 2024. I have a lot of videos this planned this year. Big videos. Big, juicy videos. I'm currently writing a much larger than average script about Seinfeld. I also plan to make videos about games, politics, all kinds of things. This is going to be my year.

And now, scripts from last year's episodes.

GRAFFITI 

Tobias Rathjen was born in 1977. A German citizen, Rathjen lived a life of isolation, paranoia, and involuntary celibacy. He developed deeply misogynistic and racist beliefs, stating in a troubled manifesto that certain ethnic groups were “destructive” – particularly to Germany. In the same manifesto, Rathjen called for the absolute annihilation of the nations of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, various Middle Eastern nations. He also called for the annihilation of Laos and Vietnam, as anti-socialist and anti-communist rhetoric flows from the mouths of most far-right extremists. He fell into t he trap of fascism and xenophobia that has seen an upsurge in the 21st century, and there was no climbing out of the pit.

On November 6, 2019, Tobias Rathjen wrote to the Public General Prosecutor about his racist, terroristic beliefs and intentions. He made his manifesto available to the public in February. He was ignored. No action was taken.

On February 19, 2020, Tobias Rathjen fired approximately nine shots at the Midnight shisha bar in Hanau, Germany. He then drove to the Arena Bar and Cafe and fired more shots. Rathjen targeted establishments known to be frequented by immigrants. He then returned home, murdered his mother, and took his own life. In total, eleven people died, and five more were injured.

The community mourned the tragic loss of life. Public anti-racist protesters marched in the streets, candlelight vigils were held, and artists memorialized the dead with public murals. The murals honor the victims, but they also remind the community that the authorities were informed about the shooter – by the shooter himself – and that nothing was done. The murals also remind the community to stay vigilant and stand together.

[Radical Graffiti in the 21st Century. Part 1: A Brief Overview]

Graffiti is art that is written, drawn, carved or painted on a public surface for public viewing. When one thinks of graffiti, one usually thinks of a large wall that has been adorned with a spray painted landscape or portrait. However, both the boundaries are graffiti and definition of graffiti are so all-encompassing that one might also describe a scrawled message in a public restroom, a signature in wet cement, or a declaration of love in a tree as “graffiti” as well. Graffiti is generally created without express permission from those who claim the land. Because of this, graffiti can also be described as “vandalism” but vandalism with style or a purpose.

If graffiti art can be monetized, it can be mainstreamed, such as with popular artists like Banksy and Basquiat. If it cannot, then it will be portrayed by both private property-owning capitalists and the state as a nuisance to the neighborhood, at best, or a degenerate threat to public decency, at worst.

Graffiti, either as vandalism or as art – or as both – has always existed. History has preserved a number of ancient pieces of graffiti, including caricatures of politicians. The ancient Romans carved graffiti on walls. Graffiti was also common in Ancient Greece and the Mayan civilization. Graffiti can be made just for kicks – a name written on a subway train, a dirty limerick on the wall – but graffiti can also have a more significant message to convey to those who come across it. A social message. A political message. Socio-political graffiti. Because of its subversive nature, graffiti lends itself to anti-establishment messaging, to resistance against harmful societal norms. When speaking out is illegal or dangerous, then only an illegal or dangerous form of messaging is possible.

As explained by Iain McIntyre, author of How to Make Trouble and Influence People, “...the streets have consistently given a public canvas to otherwise marginalized artists and malcontents.” In this context, “malcontents” is not meant negatively. Why should marginalized people be content with the status quo?

Vandalism may be a crime, but this technicality is deemed unimportant by the people, as memorials and other forms of socio-political graffiti serve the public good, serve the community. Those who die forthe state often receive statues and public memorials on public land. Those whose lives ended because of the actions or inactions of the state rarely receive such statues or public memorials. Why would the state do this? It would be akin to leaving permanent evidence at the crime scene. Instead, the creation of memorials and other forms of socio-political graffiti are left to the people.

Much like a gathering of people for a group protest, graffiti is the occupation of either private property or public land without express permission from the capitalist who owns the property or the state that claims the land. If the state finds a form of protest against itself acceptable, then the state does not consider this protest threatening to its power or even meaningful. If the state finds a form of protest against itself unacceptable, then the protesters (in this case, radical artists) are probably engaging in a more meaningful protest. Some might even say that obeying the law under certain circumstances feels disrespectful to the dead and others who are affected by the policies of our current laws because the law was what created this tragedy in the first place.

The glorification of martyrs can be said to have spiritual roots – the canonization of those whose radical politics or threats to state or the status quo were seen as too great to continue. Vandalism or not, one might argue that we have no moral authority to tell the people, especially marginalized people, how to protest in public or how to conduct public funerals. Society does not build a platform for marginalized people to speak. There are social and economic imbalances. Therefore, it is both reasonable and acceptable for marginalized people to build their own platform. Demanding that people work “within the system” is extremely condescending when the system is not working forthe people.

Another way of looking at it is that state and corporate ownership of a city is notmore legitimate than the community's claim on the city. It is either less legitimate or only aslegitimate as the people's claim. Corporations force their version of art on communities every day, with every billboard. The state forces its version of art on communities every day, with every piece of propaganda. State propaganda is far more harmful than graffiti, but only one is illegal. Once you realize why that is, you might be less inclined to side with the state on this matter.

In summary, graffiti is not simply vandalism. It is a shot across the bow and a battle cry for those unable to have their voices heard through any other means. Graffiti, therefore, is the language and politics of those who do not have the connections or capital to reach people through means approved by the state. When nobody else will listen and the people look away, staring at the clouds instead, a radical political graffiti artist will paint the sky.

[Part 2: Common Targets]

Although graffiti has always existed in some form, modern graffiti often exists in service of “urban hacking” – reclaiming communities from corporate interests that effectively own and exploit these communities. Urban hacking also reclaims these communities from the state and the agents of state violence and capitalism – the police. This reclamation pushes back against exploitation, particularly the intersection of racism, capitalism and gentrification.

As explained in the book Political Graffiti in Critical Times, “In the contemporary process of capitalist urbanization around the globe, there is an increasing mobilization of cultural producers, including street artists, graffitists and muralists, in oppositional movements and grass-roots collectives against the wholesale instrumentalization of culture, art and creativity. Urban social movements activism emerged against the increasing commoditization, polarization and the enclosures of the urban commons. Seeking visibility, they handle graffiti as an infrapolitical mode of protest …

They serve as a means for communicating a variety of sociopolitical issues relevant to the claims of urban social movements, expressing political demands, social commentaries, criticism, protest, and rejection of, or agreement with, social changes. For many street activists, the act of doing graffiti stems from the imperative of the right to the city …”

Let's look at some common targets of activist graffiti artists. Anti-racist graffiti is highly prevalent in major metropolitan areas in the United States because the makeup and demographics of these cities were created through explicit, state-sponsored segregation and absence of generational wealth. The result has been a racialized poverty that has existed for a very long time and shows little sign of ending.

As stated earlier, a common form of street art is the memorial. A mural for the victims of an exploitative society. In the United States, such murals are everywhere. Black Americans are often memorialized when their lives are taken by the police. These memorials are testimonies of a community, they are both heartfelt remembrance andactivism. Graffiti was everywhere in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. And so many other places and for so many other people.

Unfortunately, racist and fascist graffiti also exist, but graffiti that enforcesthe status quo of socio-economic hierarchies is far less common than graffiti that challenges socio-economic hierarchies. The favored people, the privileged, the well-to-do people, have fewer cares in the world. They have fewer reasons to fight back, fewer reasons to risk being arrested. Privileged people also live in neighborhoods that are so obsessed with property values and the conformist aesthetic of the suburb that the community will ask for any graffiti, regardless of its politics or values, to be removed immediately.

Racist or fascist graffiti usually does not last long in a minority-majority community. These communities tend to rally together when there is a threat, including the existence of racist or fascist graffiti. Because these communities have their fair share of graffiti artists, these artists tend to paint over encroaching racist or fascist graffiti.

As income equality widens, anti-capitalist graffiti becomes more and more common. The Cold War solidified anti-socialist and anti-communist sentiment among people in the west, particularly in the United States. Graffiti allows for public displays of anti-capitalist sentiments without requiring the permission of the capitalist mass media or the state.

In the 21st century, the state's first priority is the protection of private property rights in service of neoliberal capitalism. With this perspective in mind, you can imagine how much the state abhors graffiti. On top of the vandalization of private property in and of itself, radical graffiti often explicitly condemns the social or economic structures that the state supports. It's a double-whammy, in which the message is often anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian, and the medium itself, due to its illegality, is also anti-authoritarian. The conflict between oppression and freedom, between hierarchism and egalitarianism, plays out in the public square.

According to Bill Posters, author of The Street Art Manual, “Through history, people have used creativity to push against conformity in search of experiences that create more meaning. … [Street art and graffiti] can be creative forms of resistance to what Guy Debord, the French philosopher and founder of the Situationist International … called 'the society of the spectacle', in other words, consumer culture.”

Graffiti offers insight into the needs, wants, desires and demands of a community. Across the world, graffiti relays messages about the abuses of state power, about racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia – about poverty and capitalism, and about gentrification of the very cities adorned with radical art. Graffiti, by its mere existence, opposes the enclosure of public spaces by private enterprise and state authority.

[Part 3: Recent Events]

The recent escalation of fascist rhetoric has been countered with anti-fascist activism, and the recent capacity to film to fascist actors has built solidarity among their most common victims.

During the 2020 riots, broadcasting the community's demands and concerns was challenging because corporate and state propaganda demonized the riots as mindless violence instead of communities lashing out in understandable pain. Riots are spontaneous, unplanned, and illegal. Due to the nature of riots, there is no spokesperson, no official communications between the rioters and the media, except through anonymity.

Messaging must be pushed through alternative means, in hopes of photographers bringing the message to the mainstream. Graffiti on state-owned property, such as a police station, forces the media to photograph the messages, slogans, demands, and concerns of the community. Although little can be conveyed through a simple slogan like A-C-A-B, we live in the internet age in which people will look up the term and potentially learn more about police abolition. Tagging police property also reminds the police that the people can overrun them whenever they choose.

Sometimes the message is more clear, such as this graffiti in Kenosha. “You have stolen more than we could ever loot.” Uprisings, riots, and revolutions always contain expropriation of goods from the more wealthy. The enclosure of land by the wealthy and by the state is all the justification needed to take back what was once held by the people. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. This simple message makes it clear that the rioters do not consider this an immoral act in the face of their oppression.

Another recent controversial event was the construction of the “border wall” or more accurately, border fence or slats. Every wall is a blank canvas, but some walls are more tempting to the activist graffiti artist than others. Activist graffiti artists have adorned the wall with political sentiments opposing its construction and those who champion the wall.

According to the author of Conflict Graffiti, John Lennon – but not thatJohn Lennon, “Like walls, graffiti are both physical and symbolic. Counteracting the nationalistic performance of border walls, graffiti can be read as ritualistic counterperformances that cover this blankness with images and words, creating narratives of resistance that rhetorically make marginalized individuals – the women and men who wrote the graffiti – visible. …

The culminating visualization of protest is a testament to what we already know but must be consistently reminded of: walls can be breached, toppled, destroyed. For all their perceived invincibility, they are vulnerable to collectivized hands that want to tear them down. Graffiti subversively interacts with the state, often turning the emblem of state power into a symbol of resistance.”

Yet another recent event that has attracted graffiti is the reversal of Roe v. Wade and abortion bans in several states. Jane's Revenge, an activist group, is responsible for a number of incidents that vandalized and tagged institutions that supported the reversal. “If abortions aren't safe, neither are you.” is both slogan and threat. In the face of the reactionary movement against reproductive rights, activists are not backing down, and this graffiti burns that message into the popular consciousness.

[Part 4: How It's Done]

This next section inside educational, not instructional. In other words, I am not instructing you to engage in vandalism or any other illegal action. Discussing a topic is not an explicit call to action.

Graffiti artists have an unlimited canvass, but radical political graffiti artists tend to choose walls and other surfaces with a lot of foot traffic. A bridge, for example, or a wall in a neighborhood with a large population but slow police response time. According to Recipes for Disaster, “The best targets are in areas that are very busy during the day but practically deserted and unguarded at night. … One-way streets can be safer than two-way streets, as traffic can only be expected from one direction.”

One method for maintaining anonymity while spray painting is to wear a disguise and plan a cover story. Someone in a black hoodie with an anarchy “A” on it, marching confidently towards the side of a police station is going to get arrested. It makes more sense for the graffiti artist to look like they are doing something. For instance, the graffiti could walk their dog in unassuming suburbanite clothes, carry a bag that is seemingly full of dog-owner stuff but actually contains the tools required for the job.

Graffiti artists try to use their environment to maximize the message. As an example, this is a military recruitment billboard that has been vandalized to eliminate its power. The United States military tends to recruit low-income Americans without a college education. It's one of the reasons why offering free college and removing student debt frightens the state so much. The artist reminds poverty-stricken Americans that dying for the state is still much worse than their current situation. Sandblasting some surfaces, like a brick wall, is easy, but graffiti from billboards is more challenging to remove without also ruining the advertisement in the process.

Another effective use of graffiti can be found on plaques and statues. A commemorative plaque needs to have its graffiti removed carefully so not to damage it. The same goes for an expensive, irreplaceable statue of a colonizer, slave-owner, war criminal, or worst of all, an American president, which is sometimes all three.

[Conclusion]

As explained by Mitka Velikonja, author of Post-Socialist Graffiti in the Balkans and Central Europe, “The understanding of graffiti and street art oscillates between cynical rejection on the one side ... and the acknowledgement of their emancipatory potentials on the other.”

Some people will say “You wouldn't feel this way if someone sprayed political messages you don't agree with!” Yeah, sure, I think bad things are bad, and good things are good. This is not hypocrisy, because the objection or approval is never the physical spray paint can – a morally neutral, inanimate object – but the content of the message. Oh, you like baseball bats when they are hitting home runs but not when they are killing Glen from The Walking Dead? What a hypocrite.

Some people will also say “You wouldn't feel this way if property you own was vandalized!” and to that say, you think I own property?I side with the concerns of people who have real concerns. I do not side with white suburban grandfathers yelling at people to “go back to where they came from” – unpleasant, selfish people who have no stake in the plight of the poor living an hour away downtown. “Get off my lawn” is not a concern of a serious critic of society and humanity.

Let's be serious people.

DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY

Are you thinking about joining the military? The Army, the Navy, the Space Force. You may think you have your reasons. Maybe you need money for college. Maybe you think serving is an honorable profession because your grandfather served in Vietnam but doesn't like to talk about it. Maybe you saw Top Gun: Maverick and thought that invading the airspace of another nation and bombing them was deeply heroic because the Kenny Logins soundtrack told you so.

Whatever the reason you think you may have, you should not join the military. It's not what you think it is, and your time spent there will not be what you imagine.

It's not your fault for considering the military, though. Don't feel bad. If you live in the United States, you have been told all your life that military service is the most noble path one can walk in life. If you live elsewhere, this might still be true, but military service in so-called America has a unique vibe all its won. A fetishization of the military. We have parades, two separate federal holidays, statues in public parks, monuments in the nation's capitol, war movies funded by the Department of Defense, commercials with Marines fighting living chess pieces, Army surplus stores in every major city, and Sgt. Slaughter on GI Joe.

As explained by Pat Elder, author of Military Recruiting in the United States, “Our military is a scourge on the American experience. Forty percent of those recruited every year drop out in the first term. Musculo-skeletal injuries alone account for 2 million medical encounters yearly. Desertions are rampant. Nearly half of all veterans who get out have filed injury claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, whose waiting list still stands at a half million. Suicide is at or near record levels, and so are rapes and assaults.

... but the public fails to hold it responsible for the staggering level of human suffering it causes. Harsh criticism of every major American governmental institution, including all of the executive departments, is a deeply ingrained part of the American experience, but criticism of the military is off limits. We are conditioned to 'support the troops' and every aspect of American militarism.”

This militarism, this fetishism, is the result of widespread propaganda and ushered in by willing politicians. When politicians meet veterans, they follow a script that always reads “Thank you for your service.” and God help them if they forget to say it or don't say it with enough enthusiasm. Questioning US presence in other nations is considered treasonous. We have been conditioned to speak in euphemisms when discussing our wars. “Global hegemony” becomes “spreading democracy” and “invasion” becomes “intervention” – at least when we do it, not when other nations do it. Then, it's correctly called an invasion.

So, don't feel bad that the thought of serving in the military crossed your mind. Because in addition to all this, you probably encountered a military recruiter, and that recruiter lied to you – right to your face.

Military recruiters are not hapless employees handing out brochures. Recruiters are servicemen who joined a branch of the military, usually the Army, and applied to be a recruiter afterward. Recruiters are a mix of active and inactive duty servicemen. They give you the hard sell because a) successful recruiters stay recruiters instead of going back to a war zone and b) they have quotas to meet. They don't use the word “quotas” in press releases and some official documents. The task is called their “recruiting mission” and failure of to reach the quota is called a “mission gap.”

An Army recruiter makes approximately $68,000 a year, a pretty solid middle class wage, whereas an Army private makes about one third of that – approximately $23,000 a year. Recruiters are incentivized to do a good job, and a good job convincing someone to go to war involves finessing the truth. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem because the United States military is currently suffering through a mission gap, and it's putting even more pressure on recruiters to bend the truth. Here are some common lies that recruiters tell potential recruits:

[“You will learn skills to use in the civilian world.”] Sure, sometimes, like learning how to fix a humvee might get you a job at Jiffy Lube, but not every job in the military has a one-to-one civilian equivalent. A sniper cannot reuse that skill as a mall cop.

[“You can leave any time you want.”] If you're on active duty in a war zone, and you try to leave, you may face legal recourse. When you join the military, you sign a contract. If it were simple to leave the military, a larger number of people would be handing in their walking papers should they be assigned to a foreign war. Failure to report to duty or continue your duties is a violation of Article 86 USMJ. What the recruiter really means is that at the end of your contract, say four years active duty and four years inactive duty, you can leave. It's not a lifetime commitment, but it isa commitment. There are circumstances in which the contract can be broken with fewer consequences, but it's not like giving your boss your two weeks notice.

[“You don't have to deploy, and you don't have to see combat.”] Yeah, technically, you can apply to do something else, but everyone is eligible to be deployed. That should go without saying, but the amount of people who sign up for the military thinking that they are not going to war is really staggering.

[“Don't worry, drones do all the fighting these days.”] If drones did all the fighting, the military wouldn't need many, or any servicemen. War is not completely automated, this isn't that Star Trek episode with the computerized war game. Thousands upon thousands of servicemen have died since the invention of the drone strike. The only thing drones do is make it easier for the US to bomb foreign countries and rack up untold deaths among enemy combatants and civilians.

[“You'll get a signing bonus!”] Yeah, sometimes, and sometimes it just doesn't go through because of the fine print. Don't assume the money that the military claims it will give you will actually land in your bank account.

[“You can have whatever job you want in the service.”] You say you want to do a certain job, the job is full at the time of recruitment, but the recruiter says you will get the job the instant there is an open slot. What they don't tell you is that there is a long waiting list for the more desirable jobs, and you will probably be sent to do something else for the majority or even entirety of your time in the military.

[“It's only four years of active duty.”] Yeah, and then four more years of inactive duty. What the recruiter probably meant to say is that you will be serving half of that on active duty and the other half in the reserves. Active duty is pretty much what it sounds like, but inactive duty is euphemistic. You are still working for the military in one way or another, possibly as a recruiter, possibly in the reserves, but you can always be called up for active duty should the situation arise. It actually varies, and the amount of time changes depending on current laws and which branch of the military you join, but when the recruiter says that it will go by in a snap, he's not being honest.

[“You can go to college for free!”] Not exactly. First, you have to pay $100 a month for the first twelve months to qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill. Second, you have to commit to the military for a long time to qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Third, and most importantly, there are other, safer, less morally questionable ways of paying for college. More on this later. For now, let's move on to a separate but related topic.

In 2001, the US Congress and the George W. Bush administration renewed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, at the time called No Child Left Behind. The act stated that high schools receiving federal funds must send a complete listing of all students' directory information to local military recruiting offices. The act also stated that high schools must provide military recruiters access to school campuses. If schools refuse, their funding is removed. In 2015, the United States Congress and the Barack Obama administration renewed the ESEA again but called it the Every Student Succeeds Act. The two provisions about recruiter access from the previous version were maintained in the new version. It doesn't matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. Both parties are beholden to military fetishism in the US, and both parties assist in the recruitment of children.

As described by Brian W. Lagotte, author of Military Recruiting in High School: From School Space to Marketplace, “On a sunny school day at Chelsea High, a Blackhawk helicopter floated over the football field, soldiers dropped ropes from either side of the chopper to repel onto the fifty-yard line, and a tank roared through the parking lot towards the football stadium. A Humvee sped behind the tank, and the whole assault force met with perfect synchronicity at the center of the field – soldier, vehicle, and weapon alike. According to the principal, the activities were not a recruiting visit; the event was a specifically scheduled 'military appreciation day.' …”

The past two decades of military recruitment has had some pushback in the courts and from universities, but by and large, the military has won this conflict. Public schools are government schools, universities often receive federal funding, and politicians use this technicality to claim ownership of their policy to do whatever they want. The military contracts think tanks like the Rand Corporation to better assist recruitment efforts. Study after study has been made that essentially teaches the military how best to brainwash impressionable teenagers into throwing their lives away.

If you have ever been contacted by a recruiter, be aware that the pitch they give you is the culmination of decades of research into methodology and retention. The recruiter is not your friend or your big brother. The recruiter is no better than a telemarketer running a scam – only this telemarketer has a gun, the backing of the US government, and access to your high school and your private information.

The military has been doing this for a long time, but they have been going harder ever since the reputed War on Terror. In recent years, the military has created video games to manipulate teenagers into joining. One such game is called America's Army. It's military propaganda and recruitment disguised as entertainment. Most branches of the military have e-sports team to slide their way into popular culture. The army even has a Twitch channel where its servicemen play first person shooters and try to recruit young people who are probably just there to see some game footage.

Now, you might be thinking “Sure, this is super gross, but the military only recruits adults, not kids. You have to be eighteen to be in the military!” Well, there's three problems with that argument.

First, all those Twitch channels and video games? You can be exposed to that before you're eighteen. You can also be exposed to movies that the Department of Defense funds well before you're eighteen. Pretty sure every Marvel movie is rated PG-13.

Second, ever heard of the JROTC? It's the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, a federal program in many high schools and even middle schools. The US code refers to it as an organization designed to instill “...the values of citizenship service to the United States, and personal responsibility...” but it's really just early recruitment. Children in the JROTC don't wear “citizenship uniforms” – they wear military uniforms. Somewhere between 30% and 50% of JROTC children eventually join the military. The numbers tend to vary depending on who is doing the answering, but even if it's only 30%, that should tell you the real purpose of the JROTC.

Third, you can actually be recruited into the military at age 17. Before you can even vote for the government that will send you off to die, you can be tricked into signing up for that war. Also, even though 17 is the age limit, the military recruiters are there in high schools, and if you think they never talk to freshmen and sophomores to prime to pump for later, you're fooling yourself. Children don't wear badges with their ages on them when they walk down the halls.

If you're a teenager considering joining the military because it seems so cool, I assure you that you only think that because the military has been targeting you with ads, video games, and recruiters at your high school career day. They are taking advantage of you because you don't have enough life experience to know that there are better options out there and that the military is not all its cracked up to be. If you're a teenager thinking about this, stopthinking about this. Take it from a guy of 40 years, old enough to be your father. In fact, I am your father. Don't join the military.

So, what will happen if you actually join the military? What's the worst that can happen, right?

If everything does go smoothly, and you come home from combat without any serious injuries, you still may be subject to being pulled back into the war zone through loopholes like “stop-loss” – a euphemism for the backdoor draft. The US hasn't instituted the regular draft in a long time due to its widespread unpopularity during the Vietnam War, so they squeeze every minute of combat time possible from their recruits.

These outcomes are the best case scenarios, and they still pretty terrible. What about scenarios besides the best case? You will probably be injured, possibly severely. Almost 50% of US servicemen are injured each year. According to the Defense Centers for Public Health, that is over 2,000,000 medical encounters. You might be thinking “Oh, less than 50%? So, I probably won't be injured, right?” No, because again, that's each year, and you signed on for eight. You have to play those 50/50 odds each year, and it is statistically bonkers that you could actually get through your entire contract without any injury.

Now, admittedly, not all of these injuries are catastrophic, but a lot of them are. Many of these injuries result in permanent disabilities that you will have to deal with for the rest of your life. Don't count on your military health insurance and the office of Veterans Affairs to take care of you all that well either. They are massively underfunded and understaffed because Congress loves funding war but seems to hate funding the health of people they tricked into goingto war.

There is a really good chance that you will end up disabled and have to tell the story of why you're in a wheelchair to every nosy civilian who wants to feel better about themselves by thanking you for your service. It will be exhausting, and it will never end.

It gets worse. Approximately one in four women serving in the military reports that they were sexually assaulted, typically by servicemen. Their superiors often try to conceal sex crimes, which means that these women rarely get justice.

And then there's the possibility of being killed in action. Don't let anyone tell you that it doesn't really happen now that drones do so much of the fighting. It still happens, and it could happen a lot more in the future. Experts say that the United States is on the brink of two separate wars that could result in ground troops. I'm sure everyone in the first half of 2001 who signed up for the military thought they were safe, too. If yet another war requiring ground troops breaks out in the next five to ten years like some are predicting, and your contract is for eight years, I don't like your chances.

Even if you get through your contract physically unscathed, your psychological damage will probably last the rest of your life. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is common for veterans, and good luck getting civilians to relate to your hardship. The suicide rate of servicemen during their service is much higher than average, and the suicide rate following their service remains high.

You may hear all this and think “I don't care. I'll do whatever it takes to defend my country.” But here's the thing. That's not what you're doing.

You may be put into a situation in which you must kill another human being, and it's not something that is easy to get over and just dismiss. You may also be put into a situation in which your commander officer orders you to commit an act that constitutes a war crime. The US commits war crimes at an alarming rate, and though there are almost never legal consequences for these war crimes, your participation will be something that will almost certainly haunt you for the rest of your life. Most victims during war in the 21stcentury are actually civilians, not enemy combatants, so telling yourself that it was him or me, or that soldiers are supposed to fight each other doesn't entirely add up when you are responsible for the deaths of civilians.

As explained by in the book 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military, “The reality of torture and other war crimes presents a moral challenge to all young men and women considering a career in military service.…

War crimes in Iraq are not mere aberrations. They emanate from official policies regarding the aims and conduct of the occupation. It is official policy, for example, to use cluster bombs in populated areas. Soldiers and Marines merely carry out the policy. It was official policy, under Operation Iron Hammer, to put barbed wire around villages, to bulldoze crops, to bomb homes, and to hold families in jail until they released insurgent information.”

The United States military serves the economic interests of the nation and diminishes the economic prosperity of other nations in a massive, international and longstanding effort to maintain global hegemony or supremacy.

Wars are generally fought over resources, over scarcity, but a superpower starting a war with a much smaller, poorer country is not doing so because of scarcity. The superpower does not do this because it has a lack of wealth. The superpower does this to hoard more wealthand deepen the unequal relationships between them, to enact trade deals that disproportionately benefit the superpower.

Today, there are fewer superpowers, the US being chiefest among them. The US must maintain this status by deepening the disparity of poor nations and rich nations. They do this through a combination of military force and their disproportionate voting power in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

So, how does this work, exactly? Well, the US does not invade a country and just load a bunch of barrels of oil on to a back of a truck. In order for the US and its allies to get a good deal on oil, the US maintains a good relationship with Saudi Arabia. In return, the US arms the Saudis with weapons. That way the Saudi Arabian military can drop bombs on Yemen and annihilate their civilian population.

But if the US does not have a good relationship with a nation but needs their resources, they follow a plan of invasion, installation and coercion. First, an invasion – or intervention. Second, the US installs a regime that is friendly to their interests. Third, the US essentially forces that regime to sign trade deals that benefit the US instead of the people of their own nation. Through both the aforementioned diplomatic process and the aforementioned coercive process, the US creates subordinate regimes and client states in an effort to maintain this global hegemony.

It's significantly more complicated than that, but the headline is this: it's all about money. Anyone telling you that the US is in the Middle East, Africa and everywhere else because they are “spreading freedom” is lying right to your face.

I know you wanted to believe that joining the military was something heroic or that you wanted to “defend our country” but that's not what is really going on. I'm sorry.

So, what can you do instead of joining the military? Well, you can choose to do literally anything else.

Can't afford college? Search for scholarships, grants, contact Federal Student Aid, ask about tuition assistance, tax credits for students. If all else fails, take out a student loan. Yeah, I know. Student loans suck, but not as much as eight years of dodging improvised explosive devices.

Do you come from a military family, and you want to make your parents proud? You're an adult now, and you get to choose your own path. The best part about being old enough to join the military is being able to choose not to join the military. I got news for you. Your parents are going to be disappointed in a lot of things you do as an adult, and none of it will matter because you're the adult now. Your parents don't get to decide what you do with your life.

Want to make some money? You can earn more working retail than as a private in the Army, and you have almost no chance of committing a war crime – unless you work at Hobby Lobby.

Want to feel tough and independent? Go to the gym, hike a trail, go mountain climbing, go on adventures. You can all that without joining the military, and you will have far less risk of PTSD.

Want to see the world? There are educational recruiting agencies that will hire almost anyone to teach English in a foreign country. I lived in South Korea and Montenegro for a while as a teacher. I had teaching experience before then, but the truth is that the main requirement for these jobs is being able to speak English. There are other ways to see the world, too, like taking a road trip to Canada or Mexico, and both of those trips last about a week – not eight years.

You are young, and you want to spend the best years of your life getting shot so that the government can hoard more cobalt?! You only have so many years of your prime. Don't waste them on a lie. Don't join the military.

HOW MANY COPS ARE DOMESTIC ABUSERS?

In 2011, Amanda Johnson and Seth Perrault met on the internet. Perrault had cancer and was living with in his parents' home. Amanda and Seth soon married, and Amanda became Seth's primary caregiver until his cancer went into remission.

Amanda drifted away from her family, who believed that Seth was controlling her. Seth would not permit Amanda to have a phone, to have a job, or to have contact with her relatives. Seth had become a police officer, and not long after joining the force, Seth's controlling behavior turned violent.

One night, Amanda called the police, informing them that he had assaulted her. Seth's daughter witnessed the assault. Seth was charged with simple assault, family violence, and cruelty to children. This was not the only incident, as neighbors would later tell police that the couple would fight loudly and that Seth was the aggressor. The neighbors never called the police because Seth was a police officer himself.

Only five days after the domestic incident, Amanda was dead. Seth initially claimed that she had taken her own life, but an investigation proved otherwise. Seth had been covertly giving Amanda painkillers all day. She was unconscious when Seth shot  her.

This was not an isolated incident.

Violence against intimate partners is a serious problem even outside of the participation of police officers, but a police officer is significantly more likely to cause violence to an intimate partner than someone who is not a police officer. The numbers found in the results of studies on this matter tend to vary by country, year, and by amount of people surveyed, but these studies almost universally show a disparity in violence in police officers and those who are not.

In 2010, the CDC in the United States reported that approximately 4% of women reported physical violence by an intimate partner in the past year. Far more than 4% of women are assaulted in their lifetimes, but let's focus on annual numbers to see the disparity. In another study, women who live with police officers reported at a much higher rate of 10% – more than double. However, outside observers have noted that this study was probably flawed because the questionnaire was mailed to the home of police officers instead of being asked privately. The conclusion is that the number was probably much higher than 10%.

Studies that ask these questions privately, even privately to police officers themselves, show much higher percentages. A separate study conduct by Arizona police officer Albert Seng showed that 28% of police officers were violent to their spouse at least once in the past year. When Seng asked their spouses, the number was a comparable 25%. In all likelihood, a portion of these spouses did not wish to answer honestly out of fear of repercussions.

Yet another study that was presented to the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families showed that a staggering 40% of police officers admitted that they had behaved violently toward their spouse or children in the previous six months. Not in their lifetime – only the past six months – which suggests that the lifetime average is noticeably higher. The number is also higher than Albert Seng's report because this study included abuse of spouses and children, and the number may include instances of verbal abuse and stalking, not only physical abuse.

Whether the number is as low as 10% per year or as high as 40% per year, it is still well above the national average, even if we go by the most conservative of estimates. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that if these numbers are skewed, they are probably skewed low, not high, because some victims are uncomfortable or even terrified to come forward.

We need to ask ourselves three questions. First, why does this happen? Put simply, why do police officers abuse and even murder their intimate partners at much higher rate than the average person? Second, how does this happen? Basically, how does it occur, and how to police officers keep getting away with it? Third, what do we do when it's happening? What if we know someone who is being abused by a police officer? What if you are being abused by a police officer? How do you get out? First things first.

There are a number of reasons, a number of contributing factors to the elevated, disproportionate levels of domestic abuse in police officer families. One contributing factor rests in the personalities of those who would want to be police officers in the first place.

According to Nancy K. Bohl, “Personnel selected for law enforcement duties ... tend to display guarded, moralistic, rigid, and authoritarian behaviors. These characteristics make the individual less flexible in interpersonal situations. Police officers detach themselves emotionally from the environment in which they work. Dropping that detachment at home becomes difficult as they progress in their careers. This often results in withdrawal, decreased communication, and lack of emotional intimacy.

The individual who has no outlet for emotional expression may feel stressed, and there will be an increased tendency to act out. The police officer's acceptance of traditional male-female sex-role stereotypes, in which the man is expected to remain strong and silent and the woman is expected to remain obedient, increases the tendency toward maladaptive behavior.”

We are not our careers, but our careers tell us a lot about ourselves. Nobody grows up dreaming to be a cashier or a waitress, but people are cashiers and waitresses because of the economic circumstances of their upbringings, and other circumstances that lead them to this career. Limited options and economics get in the way of loftier goals. People choose to work in retail because it is available – not because they have dreams of stocking shelves.

Other careers tell us more about the circumstances of those who choose them. Not every pediatrician has a good bedside manner, or has a paternal or maternal quality, or even gets along well with children, but clearly these qualities lend themselves to someone choosing this career path. These qualities also lend themselves to being successful in this career path.

Sometimes people just fall into their careers – even lofty careers - but there is still a disproportionate amount of a certain “type” of person who will choose these careers.

And what about a career in law enforcement? What “type” of person often chooses this career? According to forensic psychologist Victoria Hargan, “...police officers possess many of the same personality traits domestic abusers possess, such as authoritarianism, coercion, manipulation, deception, psychological tactics, isolation, high rates of substance abuse, relationship issues, and a sense of entitlement are examples.”

It should be noted that there is conflicting evidence about personality alone being a contributing factor. Some researchers instead argue that this so-called “police personality” is only dangerous due to a mixture of its existence and experience as a police officer.

The use of force over the course of years as a police officer changes the psychology and personality of these officers. The use of force is justify under the vague notion of officer safety. This is part of their training. In fact, it's a significant part of their training. Police officers are trained to think of their own safety above all else, including above the safety of civilians. The idea of strongly considering the safety of the suspect as equal to their own is anathema to the police. They are simply not trained to consider that.

Anything besides suspect compliance is considered a potential threat to safety, regardless of the lack of intent of the suspect. It instills as “us vs. them” mentality, and this is so all-encompassing that the border between work and home blurs. “Us vs. them” permeates into the home. Anyone who doesn't understand “us vs. them” is part of them, and anyone who is “them” is suspicious. If questioned, police officers may disagree that they adhere to this mentality, but decades of research into police psychology suggests that they may not even realize that they are doing it.

In other words, it's not simply the stress of the job – it's the conditioning of the job. Many careers are stressful, like being a paramedic, but a disproportionate amount of paramedics do not abuse their intimate partners the way a disproportionate amount of police officers do.

In addition to the us vs. them mentality, police are also traumatized by what they see as officers. This results is PTSD that can sometimes lead to violence. It can also result in substance abuse, which can also lead to violence.

Another reason police officer domestic violence happens with such greater frequency than average is that the officer knows that he will probably be protected by his fellow officers. And that leads us to how this happens.

All domestic abuse is heinous and wrong, but domestic abuse committed by a police officer creates unique challenges for the victim. According to Alex Roslin, author of Police Wife, “Domestic violence is bad enough for any woman to deal with. … But abuse at home is far worse for the wife or girlfriend of a cop. Who will she call – 911? What if a co-worker or friend of her husband responds?”

Even if the responding officer does not know the alleged abuser, there is a good chance, based on the statistics about how many officers are abusers, that the responding officer abuses his own wife. A police officer who abuses his wife is now interviewing another officer's wife. So, how sympathetic do you think this responding officer is going to be? The chances that a police officer's wife will get a responding officer who also abuses his wife is way too high and way too much of a risk for many women.

Everything is worse when the abuser is a police officer. Many cities have adopted 'nuisance property' laws that pressure landlords to evict tenants if people are repeatedly called to their home for domestic abuse or other issues. This discourages women from reporting domestic abuse. When the abuser is a police officer, the abuser can cite the law to the victim, discouraging her further.

When women seek refuge in women's shelters, they are often turned away because these shelters are underfunded, understaffed and lack room. When the abuser is a police officer, where can the woman hide? The officer probably knows where the shelters are or could easily ask someone to check in. In fact, some shelters even turn police spouses away.

When a woman chooses to stay with friends or family, that can be safer, but when the abuser is a police officer, that complicates matters. What if the abuser bangs on the door and demands entrance? What if the abuser calls his police officer friends? Sometimes abused women run away much further, but when a police officer is the abuser, they have the tools and resources to better track their victim.

According to Jess Hill, “Frequently, victims will raise concerns about having their devices monitored and tracked (sometimes with the assistance of other police officers and police systems), only to be told by police investigators that this isn’t really stalking because it’s ‘well intended’, or because the perpetrator ‘just has PTSD and is harmless’.”

When a woman reports her husband or boyfriend is an abuser, they can often use signs of injury like bruised faces as evidence. However, when the abuser is police officer, that is more challenging because officers are trained to use physical force, and know how to hurt someone without leaving a trace.

The Lautenberg Amendment of 1968 prohibited convicted domestic abusers from owning firearms. However, if a police officer pleads guilty or is convicted of domestic abuse, he can still retain his job, andretain his firearm. Many abusers own guns, but not all of them, whereas all police officers have access to guns. Police officers also have access to handcuffs, tasers, and other implements that would be useful to an abuser.

When a woman reports her husband or boyfriend, she may or may not receive sympathy from her neighbors. When the abuser is a police officer, she will have even less chance of receiving sympathy due to the elevated, heroic status of police officers in our society. Worse still, fewer neighbors would be willing to step in and help due to the danger of angering a police officer.

When a man is convicted of domestic abuse, there can be severe consequences. For police officers, there are fewer consequences. Convicting a police officer of domestic abuse is extremely rare, and even when it happens, the sentence is sometimes a discharge – termination. That means nothing added to their criminal record. Sometimes, even that won't happen. He won't lose his job, and he can continue abusing women and patrolling the neighborhood with the implements he used on his own wife.

Some men show remorse for striking their girlfriend or wife and do not continue the abuse. However, since a police officer is more likely to suffer from substance abuse, PTSD, and the other trappings of being an officer, the abuse is probably going to continue indefinitely.

Police officers follow a code of silence that protects their fellow officers from accusations of wrongdoing. A gang mentality that severely limits consequences for police officers. If an officer informs on another officer, it is the informant who has done wrong. If an officer investigates another officer, for domestic abuse or anything else, the investigating officer is harassed, threatened, attacked, even killed to protect the officer under investigation.

As explained by Diane Wetendorf, “The police code of silence dictates that no matter what, cops protect and defend other cops. As a matter of 'honor,' they are to lie and cover up for other officers and present a united front under any threat of an investigation. If there is a discrepancy between what he told them and what they observed at the scene, they might come to a consensus on some version of the story and then stick to it. Their official report (if there is one) will reflect the agreed upon version.”

Again, all domestic abuse is awful and immoral, but when the abuser is a police officer, the victim is generally in an even worse position. They will feel even more trapped, and because of this, escape is much more challenging, which means the abuse will continue for a long time – or reach a more tragic conclusion.

It should be noted that sometimes women who are police officers abuse their boyfriends and husbands. This is much more rare and may have greater consequences for the abuser, but it should not be swept under the rug. Men who are abused by women police officers have a unique challenge in convincing their peers that the abuse is happening because of societal expectations of male-female relationships.

This all sounds like a nightmare, but there is hope.

Escaping from an abusive relationship is always difficult, but escaping from an abusive police officer requires even more planning and support. I hope this next section is helpful, but it is abbreviated. I strongly recommend reading Police Domestic Violence: A Handbook for Victims. The author offers the e-book for free with a coupon code. Link in the description.

If you call 911, this is how it will probably go down: the responding officer may view you as vindictive or dishonest. Even if the responding officer believes you, the officer will probably request that you don't file a criminal complaint. The officer will claim that your abuser is simply under stress. The responding officer is living my the police code of silence. Do not believe anything he says if he begins to caution you about pressing charges.

If you decide to press charges, what happens next depends on whether or not this department has an official police for officer-involved domestic abuse. If it does, someone from internal affairs may visit you, and your abuser will be aware of whatever charges are levied against him.

Regardless of how the investigation progresses, you may wish to escape your current living situation. If you have children, they should come with you, but you should discuss this with an attorney first because your abusive husband will try to claim that this is child abduction.

If you fear for your life, you may wish to escape the city altogether. However, bear in mind that no matter how little a trail you leave, a police officer will always be able to track your movements through credit cards, phone records, credit reports, bank reports. This is a terrible and disgusting violation of your privacy, but people with access to these tools never think of it that way. Don't assume that your abuser won't do this.

Speak to an expert and get an order of protection against your abuser. Although this may only seem like a piece of paper, it is legal method in which to remove your abuser from your home and protect your children. You may still be in love with the abuser, and this may make you hesitant to act or guilty about protecting yourself. Ignore that feeling. Your abuser is the bad guy. You are defending yourself.

Let's summarize. The police have far too much power in our society. They are not simply given firearms, they are given something far more dangerous: the benefit of the doubt. We have been indoctrinated into believing they are the default good guys. Because of this, many people think of them as protectors, not perpetrators. Defenders, not abusers.

But the facts tell us something completely different, and ignorant arguments that defend them mean absolutely nothing. “Better not call 911 then.” “You'll want the police when you're in trouble.” “She deserved it, probably.” “You believe some woman over the police?!” “The police are all heroes.”

They shout things like “There are abusers in every profession.” Yes, there are abusers in every profession, but there are significantly more abusers than average among the police. 1 is not the same as 10. 4 is not the same as 40. The fact that this occurs outside of the police force does not change the fact that this occurs is far greater frequency among the police force. More importantly, a police officer has greater authority to hide his abuse and protect himself from consequences.

No defense of the police can change the results of these studies or the lived experiences of abused women. No defense of the police can change the reality of the situation. If you're in an abusive relationship with a police officer, please use the researched advice given earlier, and seek the help of professionals, like attorneys and counselors. Good luck.