Money-opoly

Monopoly is arguably the most popular board game in history, it's likely we've all played it one or more times in our lives. So let's walk through a typical game scenario and learn what we can. Let's say you're playing with two of your friends or family. One takes the race car, the other takes the battleship, and you take the shoe. Everyone starts with the same amount of money and the board is full of unowned properties (presumably owned by the bank) desperate for buyers. In the first four or five times around the square board most properties have been purchased. One of you may have both utilities, another could be the railroad baron with three or four railroads, and you bought both of the purple properties for a sweet deal. Now your building hotels in the ghetto, it's not much but the money starts to roll in.

The game can go on for a while where it seems as though everyone has a fighting chance, but it always seems to end the same way. No one has landed on your properties in the last four times around and you keep landing on those damn railroads and utilities. Someone pulls way ahead and everyone is mortgaging their properties to stay afloat. Then you land on Boardwalk for a short but expensive stay in the fancy new hotel and you're broke, busted, your out of the game. Tough luck. And tough love from the town you used to be a big player in, let's call it Monopolis.

It's true you can learn a few things from this game, but what exactly? It doesn't seem like my life at all. I didn't start life with an equal pile of money as the next guy. And the world was already bought and sold before I came into the game. The board came pre-monopolized and I can't afford a hotel room on Boardwalk! And why don't people have jobs in monopoly? They just drive around town all day collecting money every week, sometimes they go to jail for no apparent reason. The ones who do all the work must be those pathetic schmucks living in the cheap little green houses on Baltic Avenue.

Imagine a game of monopoly that was started over 300 years ago, and has been going on ever since. The original people who dominated the board just handed it all over to their children to continue collecting money. This has been going on for so long that it's just not fun anymore. When we were born the game was already won and maybe we're all suckers for playing at all. But who couldn't understand why the game goes on? When you are the winner and nobody wants to play anymore, that's when you feel like you're just getting started. You don't want to give up, you want to start loaning money and subsidizing other players just to keep the rush of domination flowing.

Is there another game to play? Is it "fun" to share things equally like we were taught to do as children? Can we make a game out of feeding the hungry and healing the sick? Or maybe we should forget about these silly childish games and start living in responsible, sustainable ways, in harmony with each other, and the planet. We can put down the race car and the battleship and just walk peacefully around our world, learning to walk softly again. Does this sound like a good, market-able game? No? Good! Maybe one day the market will just be a small part of our world instead of monopolizing the board. I personally don't care about money, I want to work. I just want everyone to work their fair share and I'd rather not be dominated by anyone at all. But for some, to do any work at all, to lose their wealth and live an average working life however well paid, seems a fate worse than death.


Here's George Carlin using grown up language to give his take on Money-opoly, Enjoy!

Equal Rights For Everyone!

Lets begin by looking at the word "Rights" in hopes we might understand what rights really are, and are not. Nothing is guaranteed in this world, and whether you are in the right or in the wrong the outcome is not assured. A true hero can be framed for a crime and be jailed or executed in shame, tainting his reputation and that of his family for generations. And one who breaks laws their entire life, hurting many for their own personal gain, can be written down in history as a great person. This is neither the rule nor is it the exception, instead "rights" and "wrongs" have always co-existed and will continue to do so.

The use of the word "rights" has a relatively short and recent lifespan in human history, but it hasn't changed the reality of right and wrong. It's true that the civil rights movement has made significant strides and changed the way the world works, but it hasn't squashed the scourge of racism. People are still being subjected to discrimination inside and outside of institutions and government, and they don't always see justice if they can afford to pursue it. People as a whole have their rights violated each and everyday by corporations who consistently pollute the environment. Innocent people still go to jail and the guilty still go free. So what has changed?

Not much really. "Rights" are truly abstract, an idea, nothing more. They exist on paper and change from state to state, nation to nation, and across class divides. Even on paper they are interpreted differently by different people and when made law are infrequently enforced if enforceable at all. A policy that cannot be policed is called a toothless tiger, but even a toothy tiger can refuse to eat. The inspiring story of the American civil war is not so uplifting when one hears a true telling of the after story of reconstruction. A process which reduced the impact of the hard won "rights" of the newly freed slaves from an overt oppression to a covert terror campaign. Their "rights" were acknowledged by day with a wink and a nod, only to be violated in the cold, dark night; punishment for the "uppity" behavior of enjoying ones' rights.

Even today as I write this in the context of the civil rights movements newest frontier of gay marriage, recent headlines include a story of a Louisiana Justice of the peace who refuses to marry inter-racial couples. He claims he is "not racist" (few racists admit that they are racist) he simply doesn't "believe in mixing the races that way." He has been the Justice of the peace in his town for 34 years and inter-racial marriage has been legal for over 40 years, he admits refusing to marry inter-racial couples over his entire career. So what do advocates of gay marriage have to look forward to? More struggle, more discrimination, more of the same. Todays big issue is gays in the military and president Obamas pledge to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Obama may accept an individuals sexual preferences, but he can't change anyones mind on the subject, even if he changes some policy.

Now for the big question: How equal can equal rights be when Americans demand them for themselves while denying them for non-Americans? On both the topics of terrorism and immigration you will hear politicians and talking heads squeal at the notion of giving non-citizens the same rights we enjoy as Americans. Not all politicians and pundits, but the same ones who would have been railing against the civil rights movements of the past if they were born decades earlier. We all know that equal rights have been hard fought, and hard won where applicable, but the flip side is that they have been hard fought against. The racists and racism of the past is comfortably distant in history, but it's contemporary incarnation is all too prevalent.

To fight for equal rights today we must understand that our opponents have a global outlook and are afraid we might adapt one ourselves. We can no longer have the attitude or strategy that we will win rights for Americans first and then we can give them to the rest of the world somehow later. And we must be diligent against the cause of rights to be a rally cry for war visited from one nation on another. The cause of rights will always be fought between peoples and governments, and this can be done most effectively if we globalize our goals. We may not be able to rush the cultures of the world through hundreds if not thousands of years of evolution, but we can unite as people and find our common values and goals. Rights are not perfect in any country and no nation can claim to be the authority for all, they are human rights and and they should be of, by, and for all the people of the world, equally.

Why I voted for Obama: Reason

I have never been a believer in democracy American style and years of participation has not changed my mind. My first opportunity to vote was Bill Clintons' first term and I skipped it due to apathy. I didn't want to vote for the lessor of two evils, I wanted to believe in someone. I pretty much dropped out of society during the Clinton years and don't even remember his second election, no TV or radio for several years. I dropped back into society in a big way by the 2000 election season and found in Ralph Nader someone I did actually believe in and I enthusiastically gave him my vote. I knew he couldn't win a presidential election, but I wanted him to get enough votes to receive federal campaign funds for the Green Party.

After four years of Bush I was hugely political and though I didn't believe in John Kerry I held my nose and voted for him. I don't like the idea of voting for the lessor of two evils but in this case the greater of two evils was the dark lord himself. Needless to say I have regretted that decision ever since and I would like to see John Kerry go to jail for giving the presidency away instead of taking a necessary stand and fighting the schoolyard bully. At least my first time was for love, oh well. I'll take this opportunity to say that a true democracy would allow for a run-off voting system in which you get a first choice (Nader) and a second choice (Kerry) and so on. With this far more fair and logical system, we wouldn't be accusing a growing third party of spoiling elections, this monopoly two party system must be stopped!

So who would have thought that just four years later, I was ready to believe in someone, and vote for someone, who would actually win? Although, after eight years of Bush/Cheney, and with the traveling side show the republicans were endorsing, it's hard to believe that any Democrat could lose. But I wasn't gaga over Obama, OK, so I was feelin' it, but I've been burned before. I knew that the truth behind his overwhelming individual campaign contributions was his overwhelming corporate contributions. Historically, presidents do not keep the campaign promises they make in public, but the ones they make in private to their biggest contributors. We all felt the epic shift of corporate dollars go from mainly Republicans to mainly Democrats, and specifically to the Obama Campaign. And we all know why they gave so much to him, they weren't supporting him like you or I, they were buying him outright.

So why did I vote for another Democrat, why did I vote for Obama? George Bush was a real wake up call for my generation, and maybe for the world. Being under his command was like having a plunger for a boss, there's just no reasoning with an inanimate object. When we say Bush was a "tool" we really mean it. He was intellectually inanimate, he was just a conduit for the will of others. When he spoke he mis-spoke and no one could understand him much less argue with him, and when he gave rehearsed speeches it was obvious that someone had to coach him and explain what he was saying and why. When he said, "Let's bomb Iraq, it will solve all our problems" the world rose up and resoundingly said "Hell no!". He responded by suggesting that the record breaking world wide peace protests represented a "special interest group". Protesting anything that came out of the Bush administration was (as congressman Barney Frank said) like arguing with a dining room table.

When I look at Obama I don't see a dining room table or a plunger, and I certainly don't see an angel or a devil. I see a reasonable, rational man who is not only capable of using logic, but also vulnerable to it. I voted for him because I believe that a superior logic can persuade him when he is on the wrong path. If he had picked a less bank and corporate friendly staff I'd be inclined to believe that he had many of the right answers and strategies. But unfortunately the jackals are deeply entrenched and bent on making sure that his every deed is a misdeed. But if we can get a superior message into those big ears and on that great mind of his, Obama may have little choice when the light of reason shines in. I've not seen much that gives me hope since his inauguration but the reason I voted for him remains: Reason. Obama is far from perfect, but he may be willing to go in that direction when the way is clearly shown.

Nobel peace prize for rhetoric?

The one man who can put the brakes on two wars destroying the lives of millions of people instead puts his foot on the gas. Barak Obama's campaign promises were full of hope and promise that the illegal wars of the Bush administration could be drawn to a close; if not immediately, within a reasonable time frame. Of course he couldn't say one way or the other what his true intentions were due to the childish game we call campaigning. Instead he chose language that sounded reasonable and sympathetic to the cause of peace, without sounding too soft as to become an easy target for the predictable onslaughts of the McCain campaign. If mastering rhetoric was a criterion for winning the Nobel peace prize then I suppose he has earned it.

The only actions he has done thus far in his first two seasons as president is to back peddle on rhetoric that was already lite on substance. It's hard to find instances where Obama has delivered for those who voted for him, but the examples of his favors to corporate campaign contributors abound. It would be difficult to argue with the fact that his voter base was largely due to a war weary population when there have been two simultaneous wars both of which have gone on longer than twice the duration of Americas involvement in World War II. If one could only see the actions of the white house without knowing who won the presidency, we might think McCain had won. Would things be so different if he had?

McCain may have deliberated less over sending more troops to both wars, but there's not many troops to send anyway. So the big choice we all had last year was to vote for someone who will escalate wars without much thought, and someone who will do the same after much deliberation. It's true that the war in Iraq is ever so slowly winding down, but it was already there when Obama took over. And though it has wound down from calamity beyond description, it could only hope to stabilize into a continuous state of calamity of a lessor degree. The best Obama can do for Iraq is to let it be the waste land we have created with enormous US military bases and a permanent residual occupation, Hooray! Victory?

So let's not look at Iraq, it's just too depressing. Instead lets look at that really great war in Afghanistan spilling over into Pakistan, that's where Obama is really shining. Sure he said he would escalate Afghanistan and he admitted he would bomb Pakistan to his hearts content before he was elected. Wouldn't you know that would be the one promise he could keep. Millions of Americans are not returning to the homes they were kicked out of or the jobs they were laid off from, but we get to kill more people in a far away place. With no clear goal and no way of achieving anything but more dead soldiers and civilians, Afghanistan is somehow a good war. I didn't know that there was a Nobel peace prize for rhetoric, but that is the only thing Obama has accomplished resembling peace.

Left, Right, Wrong?

Imagine a world in which cardinal directions didn't exist, and instead our sense of direction was based on our left and right hemispheres. In this world imagine people who vehemently believe that one direction is somehow superior to the other whenever a literal or metaphorical fork in the road lies before them. Now imagine that our ship of state is an actual ship on the open sea, and these two groups are constantly fighting each other over control of the steering mechanism. One group is satisfied going in clockwise circles as long as they're always steering right, and the other believes that all our problems would be solved if we were fixed in a counter clockwise spin. No landmark or guiding star can change their stubborn beliefs, and as long as the struggle continues they can only dig in their heels in the face of the opposition. This mindless struggle ensures that the ship of state will forever be a ship of fools.

What does it mean to be left or right of center and where is center anyway? The terms come from the French seating arrangements in government from before the French revolution where the supporters of the monarch sat on the right and the more radical and liberal voices on the left. After the revolution the right remained but simply held a torch for monarchy and it's old order, always pining away for the good old days. To this day we still hear moaning about the good old days, and many would gladly welcome a monarch who could deliver up the old order again. Let's face it, as long as some people are prone to abuse power they will oppose a fair distribution of power and wealth. And when any movement towards fairness is made the ownership classes cry about how unfair fairness has been to them.

So the key difference here is those who believe in hierarchal power structures with the power in the hands of the few on top, and those who believe in a lateral distribution of power and wealth with no one person over another. Or to put it in Old English: those who are promised the favor of a king are in favor of a king. And in grade school terms: those who can be in the exclusive inner circle are in favor of having an exclusive inner circle. There is also a significant portion of every population that supports the old order despite the fact that it's held up on their backs and they receive no obvious material reward. And this is where rhetoric is the thread that bundles the factions together into the duality of either left or right. In fact, left or right may feel more comfortably lateral to the greater population, but top and bottom is where the true division lies.

We make matters worse when we use words like "liberal" and "conservative", and like all things abused they lose their intended meaning and purpose in the process. What does it mean to be liberal? or conservative? The answers are long and complicated and change with each person you ask. In the literal sense, we are all liberal and conservative but not in the same ways or on the same issues. It would make perfect sense to say that one who recycles bottles and cans is being conservative with finite resources. When we use those words politically however, we tend to mean that one is either liberal or conservative by a moral standard. So one who recycles is morally liberal by being adaptable to change and for sympathizing with the environment. But "conservative" and "Liberal" also date back to pre-revolutionary France and that same group of people who wanted to conserve the old order as it was.

A ship guided only by the basic directions of left and right is doomed to be lost at sea and one day bashed on the rocky shores while it's crew is busy infighting. Locked in this futile debate we may never find higher orders of direction making skilled navigation possible and instead we continue spinning aimlessly in circles. Our language is the battle ground and words like "liberal" and "conservative" are the targets of attacks set to malign the opposing sides. Those words are held up like martyrs whose true life and meaning have been sacrificed for a cause that redefines them until they are ultimately useless. Political rhetoric turns our language into a mine field with loaded buzz words ready to trigger the rage programmed into our circuitry.

In reality, words are neutral vehicles simply designed to transport ideas from one mind to another. The art of rhetoric is knowing that these words can be literally charged with negative or positive connotations obscuring their original semantic structure and purpose. It is up to us to take these words back for the crucial function of clear communication they are meant to serve. We must learn to recognize the connotations of a word as a temporary manipulation of an otherwise neutral tool. You can commit acts of violence with a hammer, but the hammer is not the violence or the violator. Every individual is responsible for finding the true meaning of each word in their vocabulary, and until they do they are vulnerable to the manipulations of those who dominate the debates in politics and media. Someday we will stop debating like children and have actual conversations.

Here is an excellent (recent) radio broadcast about the conservative mindset, have a listen!

Against the Grain - October 12, 2011 at 12:00pm

Click to listen (or download)