monopoly

Last night, a couple of comrades came over, decided to stay a night as they were making their way to Montreal. Arriving late, I had dinner made and ready to eat, the wine opened, breathing, and sipping on a little of it myself. After dinner, we busted out Monopoly!, a game most everyone enjoys (except myself.) Over rolling dice and mortgaged homes, we talked about more important things like what the couple planned to do in Montreal, where they were staying, when they were coming back. They reminded us that this trip was not for business or pleasure, but necessity. They were headed east in search of something: semi-privatized healthcare.

The husband of the pair is a British citizen married to a Canadian. He has been having knee problems since their engagement, just over a year ago, and surgery after surgery, he still walks with crutches. Residing in Ontario has been relatively kind to the couple, except when it came down to medical attention. Because Ontario is on a public system, the husband cannot receive knee-surgery as he does not have an OHIP card. Instead, because healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction, he and his wife have to travel to Montreal, where, despite being a staunchly socialist province, it has private facilities to perform operations.

Now, I know it's dangerous to say, but it's just something to think about. Personally, I think universal healthcare should be accessible to everyone, no matter his or her income, nationality, beliefs, etc. If you have doctors around, someone's health should not come down to the petty details of tax-brackets and insurance payments. That being said, I know it is not the reality of things.

I find it irritating that, as Canadians, we take pride in our healthcare system -- we proudly proclaim, no one has to pay to see a doctor! Yet, we discriminate upon those that, not only can pay, but need to pay because they do not have Canadian citizenry. What is also frustrating is the bureaucracy of citizenship in this country. It is confusing and extensive. It has been close to a year that this couple has been married and the husband is still "going through the process". I have many migrating friends that have/had been in Canada for close to 15 years and were still considered landed-immigrants.

Having a coffee this morning at the Brazilian Bakery in Little Portugal, we got to talking about the diversity that Toronto offers, especially now that the World Cup is happening. The husband of the couple asked how many different cultures there are in the city, to which my answer was: 285, a random number I picked from the tip of my brain. The point is, there are a lot. It's what defines Toronto and builds its identity, makes it the most culturally beautiful place in the world.

And then, I think about the government and its lackadaisical approach to addressing immigration issues and the difficulty some must face in receiving healthcare. It seems as though politics has shifted from the people to the material -- essentially, the economy. I feel like political platforms used to be built upon core issues, deep-seeded problems that needed to be uprooted and changed. Right now, the focus is on the G20 and the harmonized sales tax (HST), two very superficial and fleeting issues when it comes to the bigger picture. These two controversies are minute, little bumps in the road to the progress of humanity, but are given a lot of attention because it distracts people from pervasive problems, like immigrants' access to necessary healthcare.

Like crows to a silver-spoon, we are caught up in the shininess of it all.

Although superficial developments are interesting to watch -- like quarreling lovers in the street -- we should maintain focus: to change things for the better, not for the instant. Rallying and protesting is good to get a message out there, some publicity to a voice, and, perhaps, to coerce a quick executive decision, but then what?

In reality, change is, and should be, a slow process. It's something that should not happen in an instant. Taking the time to enact change, through letters or secret meetings over monopoly or inspiring one another or creating contesting subject matter, is worth the effort.

However, the youth live in a time of "now", demanding for things to happen instantly. For example, when we need to find out information, we Google or Wikipedia it.

We require immediate satisfaction, yet we are creatures that are never sated.

Personally, satisfaction is a superficial sentiment. One can be satisfied with the way things are, but what about striving for something greater? This "greater" thing may not be realized in our lifetime, or ever, but one can still enjoy the pursuit of it, no? We may not ever see accessible, universal healthcare in the province of Ontario, but wouldn't it be nice if our great-grandchildren could?

Such were my thoughts over our cordial game of Monopoly!, the thoughts that may have distracted me from winning, made me the first one out. Either that or I am just a bad business owner. Probably the latter. Doesn't matter, there are other things on my mind.

BAFICI: Jaffa, The Orange´s Clockwork

Despite the witty-title, this documentary about the demolition and evolution of the Jaffa Oranges in Palestine/Israel is heart-wrenching. I don´t know if it was using the orange-business as the symbolic/literal axis for dispute between the Palestinians and Israelis or whether it was the old, Palestinian orchard mechanic that began to weep in his interview, but this doc was simply powerful.

Most documentaries following the Middle-Eastern (referred to as the Oriental conflict in the film) have become cliché: Yes, we know about 1948, Zionism, atrocities, extermination, suicide-bombings, etc. These occurrences are devastating to the soul, but people stop paying attention to things that are on repeat. Jaffa, however, told a different side of the story.

It started with scenes of prosperous orange-orchards where Jews and Muslims worked side-by-side cultivating some of the most delicious citrus fruit in the World -- Queen Victoria could attest to it with her order of 3 boxes. After 1948, the life in Jaffa changed. With the Zionist Exodus came an inundation of Europeans, reclaiming land and orchards that had been owned and operated, by Muslims and Jews, for decades. Since the rise in the population, the port-town´s water supply could no longer support keep the people and the oranges hydrated. Most of the groves were levelled.

¨You just don´t do that to a land that you love,¨ said a Palestinian historian and writer.

And so it goes for many living in the divided and occupied territories. It´s something that must be seen with our own eyes to understand the devastating effects the occupation has had.

Not only was the film incredible and informative, the situation was surreal. It was being screened at the Abasto Shopping Centre, in the Jewish-barrio called Almagro in Buenos Aires. Over-generalizing, I thought there might be some scoffing, despite the films balance of Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals discussing the issue. Instead, at the end of the film, there was a round of applause.

rogue

Watching X-Men: The Last Stand, I got very aggravated with the character Rogue. As a kid, growing up, she was my favourite. I wanted to be her: to have red-hair, to be able to fly, to absorb mutants´powers, to have her boyfriend (the Frenchie named Gambit), etc. She was a very strong character, torn by her past, frustrated by her present (as she could not touch anybody) and terrified of her future. She was tough on the outside, but tender on the inside. Hm, interesting.

Nevertheless, the third movie to the X-men trilogy was a disappointment in that Rogue, who from the get-go was poorly slated, chose the have a procedure so that she would lose her mutant power. I understand why her character did that -- everyone just wants to be loved -- but, really? At such a young age? Maybe Bobby would up and leave her for Kitty, leaving Rogue alone anyways.

It seems as though normalcy is what some people strive for today. Perhaps it´s because there are just too many people in the world for each one to be extraordinary. In the end, I guess what appears as normalcy is just that, superficial.

To me, every person I have ever met has had something extra-ordinary about them. Although some people are deceived, thrown off, by the appearance of things, what lies beneath is that amazing human potential at greatness. I look at many of my friends and think, they are just so wonderful. Even strangers or new acquaintances who have a slight quirk fascinate me. Although we all look alike, for the most part, want to belong to a common group, for the most part, as individuals we are so unique.

I believe that more and more people are beginning to wake up to this reality. Now, what we must consider, is how to make each individual work within a society or community. I do not believe that the North American independent society is a bad thing. Great things have developed and flourished there. However, I do believe that we can combine forces and thoughts with other societies, to learn from, on amore holistic level.

For instance, here in Buenos Aires, I have met extra-ordinary people, however they maintain their sociality (is that a word?). They greet one another with besos on the cheek, they have coffee all afternoon with family, stand in circles and sip mate with friends. The strangest thing I saw at a beach was the way that the families set-up their chairs and blankets. In North America, everyone points their blankets and chairs either towards the water or the sun. In Latin America, they form circles so that they can sit and have conversations all day long. Bizarre, but refreshing.

As I rant and nearly forget where I was going with this, my point is that we can still embrace our differences within and look for those who will accept us back. We are humans and need constant love and attention from others. We need a community because we are social creatures. We are social creatures because we are unique individuals who contribute unique gifts to a group. Normalcy should not be the answer. Pretending you are something you not should not even cross your mind. We shouldn´t try to fix ourselves to be accepted in the opinions of others. If you are everything you want to be, your group will find you.

evolving ideas: private property

The most important part of philosophy is to put it into practice. This was one of Marx´s biggest criticisms of his inspiration, Hegel. Hegel lived in the mind, in logic, whereas Marx understood that humans are sensient beings who actualize themselves as a species by experiencing and doing things (different from labouring at things). Thus, he took Hegels Idea and evolved it into his own formulation: an Ideation of a universal man, the proletariat, a society of communism. As a result, Marx is followed more than any other Hegelian-philosopher. Obviously.

Howevever, my problem with philosophy, an ideology in fact, is devotion. Although I am a firm supporter, more like understander, of the Marxist Idea, much of the the components of Marxist thought does not apply today. The times have changed -- so must we.

Marx´s ideas on labour and property are outdated. What might have been applicable 150 years ago is no longer relevant. Instead, we need to take these ideas, change them and make them adapt to our situation.

Let´s take private property. Much of the arguments against private property are relevant for a time where men were subjected and enslaved as pieces of property themselves. Although I have no doubts that some sort of secretive-serf servitude still exists, at times private property can save your livelihood. Take for example the First-Nations´ Land Rights or the Northern-Canadian disputed land claims. In both cases, not only is the State trying to breach contractual agreements, but, with help from multinational corporate interests, also natural-being agreements. Although I am not a devoted fan of Locke, his principles of private property are dead-on.

If you live on the land and work the land to support yourself and your family, what gives the government or business the right to come in and take it away? The most important part of Locke´s idea is the working of land as how one sees fit. It produces a means for one´s self and one´s family, whether you have a small vegetable patch or a corner-store, that land is being worked by the owner so that the owner may live and provide for his or her family.

In today´s society, despite my dreamy hopes of a world where everyone holds hands and shares, the exchange of goods and services is a necessity. Thus, one who grows vegetables on his land should have the right to exchange, or sell, it to the other man working his corner store. The existence of exchange, usually performed through money, is a modern reality. So, for now, property is a reality.

Until we reach that utopia, or eutopia, an indivdual´s property must be protected. [The word ¨individual¨ is highlighted because property should be the right of man, not the right of conglomerates and most certainly not the right of government.] Once an individual enters into the private- (business) or public- (government) sphere, where he or she must oversee other people´s lives and jobs, his or her right to property should only exist in his or her home, not through or where he or she works. The business and government, as a representative of a group with hidden interests, should have no claim to an individual´s property.

Currently, people are being forced -- physically, mentally, financially -- from their homes as a result of disputed State and Corporation land claims. It is for this reason that First Nations protest on the 400-highways, why Caledonia is such a controversial issue, why the people in Parry Sound and Muskoka region are forced from their homes that have been passed down from generations due to rising land-taxes (because the government re-values these families´property according to business development).

In the end, all I am trying to say is that, right now, my dear Marx, an individual needs his or her property as a safe-haven from economic enslavement. Everyone needs a place to call home. Interesting research has pointed out that the homeless who have found a home, a roof over their heads, become better adjusted and are able to become financially independent. They become individuals.

Even Marx believed that society can only function if people are able to be themselves, to be individuals. Therefore, with the rich getting richer, and the State becoming more powerful, and these two forces combining to run humanity into the ground, private property is a necessity. Hopefully, in a better future, things will change and private property will adapt, evolve, into people joining hands and sharing.

recommended reading

As an addict of many things there is only one man who has been able to leave me satisfied with 10-page doses at a time: Marx. Obviously.

There is something in the way he writes (although I am aware that it is an English-translation) that stirs the embers in my core and make me want to end something he started over a hundred-and-fifty years ago.

Recently, I have dabbling in his Manuscripts on Economy and Philosophy, of which one of the chapters is called, you guessed it again, Money. Although I find the literature fascinating, it is a complex, interwoven, Hegelian-based dialectic that is hard to reinterpret onto paper (or a computer screen). It deals with man being alienated away from his product due to laborious hours as he is always in the pursuit to obtain another man's product. Unfortunately, my writing is not as concise and organized as Marx's philosophical, yet practical, prose.

Thus, I recommend the read for those who are interested in feeling better about working part-time, or feel like there is more to life than putting in 50+ hours of work a week in a job you hate. It truly is enlightening.

evolution, not revolution

Last night, I experienced the closest thing to the Enlightenment's Parisian-salons, where philosophy and politics were discussed in order to hypothesize about a greater future. Normally, when discussing politics or the philosophy behind it, I find myself talking in circles about what we ought to do, of course drawing from Marx, Nietzsche and JJ Rousseau. The Three Kings.

Then, like a slap in the face, I realized that those kings wrote in a different age with different problems, with different ways of fixing them. Today, we live in a time that was unforseen: the virtual age of the internet.

More and more, people are able to educate themselves through this forum. They are able to search out information, ideas, discussion groups, hilarious YouTube videos and relevant blogs. The potential for intellectual growth is astounding. However, we must be aware of the potential consequences.

The Industrial Revolution was supposed to open doors for the people (according to Marx). It was supposed to leave menial labour up the machines so that people would have more free-time to do whatever truly made them happy. Art, writing, riding, hilarious YouTube videos, there is a market for it all.

Nevertheless, as forseen by Marx, the IR enslaved the working-class because of the increased interest in consumption. Instead of machines freeing the worker, they compelled the worker to create more in less time to feed hungry consumers. Instead of the machine releasing man from obligation, it incorporated him, made them into cogs of the wheel.

The virtual revolution is no different.

In a discussion last night, I realized that revolution means to start at one point, typically a low-point, commence a change, rotate, pivot and come full circle, back to the low-point. What we need to learn from all of history's revolutions is the need to change, to move forward, to evolve. We can do this by taking ideas of great philosophers, from Kings and common folk, changing them, adapting them to fit our environment. The only way we can do this is through free-speech, liberdad de expresion, through discussion and critical analysis of opinions and ideas. We need to synthesize thoughts and create relative theories of our own.

Hopefully, the people, especially in Canada, will see the need to step away from the hindrance of censorship. No good can come of the State telling you what to say or what to think. How could our thoughts ever evolve if they are not subjected to criticism and discussion?

That is what the internet should provide: a forum to discuss and criticize Ideas. We do not have to revolve into darkness, reading online gossip magazines or corporate-bought media, whose only job is to spread fear of Swine Flu or market-crashes.

These things, this spreading of fear, endenture man as the worker, makes him think that the only reason to live is just to coast through life, to follow the straight path of complacency.

The inernet has that potential to tear man's soul away from him. However, it also has to potential to show him the light, change him, and allow him to evolve.

the question of god and free speech

Recently, an article in The Toronto Star has exposed the controversial banners (advertisements?) posted along the side of TTC streetcars. The banners provoke passer-bys to deal with common questions surrounding religion and to procede to a website, a discussion forum, to read and contribute to the questions at hand. The most recent polemic question posed: "Does God care if I'm gay?" The "answers" were removed from the website.

Toronto has the most homosexuals per capita than any other city in the world, so I understand when the banners border on offensive. I also do not think that the "answers" provided by "God" are legitimate markers of logic or reason: Instead, it should be looked at as an opinion, a very mighty opinion, mind you.

However, Canada is one of those "forward-thinking" countries who believe in censoring hateful comments. Like an overprotective mother, it cuddles and cradles all those who are "defenseless". In all seriousness, I think it's more offensive for the State to think that a woman, a gay, an ethnic minority, or a religious minority as "defenseless" creatures who need protection. That just sends out the wrong message.

In order to defend these weak, sub-sections of humans, the government, of all levels, has taken it upon itself to form our society's opinions. This is outrageous. I have been reading some of Marx's thoughts on freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and not even J.S. Mills could put it so eloquently:

We can answer this question only by criticizing it.

- [The Leading Article in No. 179 of the Kolnische Zeitung: Religion, Free Press and Philosophy]

Although this sentence was referring to philosophy as an idea, the same applies to thoughts and ideas, which in themselves are a form of informal philosphy. Not only does the question "Does God care if I'm gay?" bring to the public's attention the ever-current tension between homosexuality and the Church, it brings about thoughts about the validity of God's opinion: Why should a homosexual care what God thinks? Why should anyone care about insuring their place in God's good books if we aren't even sure he exists? Why not, like the banners of before questioned, just enjoy the life we have now?

This is what debate forums and chat groups should be about, as long as relevancy prevails. Personal attacks and emotionally driven anger have no place in rounds of discussion in the search of truth, but if the "answers" are rlevant, and we can question those answers, then question those questions, why are they being removed?

This is a tough spot for me because, as I begin to get the ball rolling, I would like TIP to become a debate forum without censorship. It will remain respectful and anything that is not relevant, especially personal attacks, would be removed (more because it's a waste of time to read something uneducated and unintelligent). I want it to become a forum for people to discuss relevant issues, like the elite did in salons during the Enlightenment, but current and accessible to all.

Freedom of Speech is one of those ideas, at the same time practical, that pushes and compels humanity to move forward: To rise against the oppression that is now verbalized which, before, was just a latent feeling lashed out in passive-agreesive manners. Without free speech, we cannot see nor understand nor comprehend the other side's view. We cannot fight back because we do not know their ammunition. We cannot take their "facts" or opinions, research them and then find them false. Without free speech, we live in a war with loaded guns and blindfolds.