Fear of Another Planet

Hearing others speaking a foreign language makes me wish I knew another language. Lately, I have been enjoying the opportunity to learn from Spanish-speaking co-workers. Therefore, it makes no sense to me that anyone would instead wish they were speaking English. Further, I think the root problem with this way of thinking is a systemic issue fundamental to a major criticism of mine regarding American society in general: “You need to learn my ways,” is the same as, “I need to remain ignorant.”

While dangerous activities and chemical addictions are probably best avoided, the biggest risk to gaining experiences is discovering that your assumptions about them were incorrect. I believe that is exactly what frightens people about the unknown; they don’t want to risk feeling obliged to change. Resistance to change can make sense in an evolutionary sense- an unyielding, unreasonable desire to preserve a way of life is often the only thing that prevents its annihilation.

Human survival throughout history has depended upon the coordination of a minority possessing ingenuity with a majority possessing a brazen, stubborn fighting spirit. Being generous and open-minded does not make one a good soldier. I am currently reading Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell, which is a first-hand account of the operations of an atheist army unit in Spain during their Civil War, and it really highlights the importance of obediently following orders, and the benefits of them being followed because of genuine convictions rather than fear of retribution.

The default position for most is to justify and defend their current state of being. We can feel a sense of betrayal for appreciating things outside of our declared preferences. We immediately point out apparent flaws by contrasting novel things from established likes. We tend to accentuate the positives in our own experiences and the negatives in the experiences of others. It is extremely difficult for some to admit they don’t like something because they are biased against it. We are so used to this, in fact, that it can be creepy when someone unflinchingly declares a bias. We tend to prefer justifying our beliefs with largely irrelevant and retroactively applied rationalizations. We actively seek out and latch onto claims that support our presuppositions as well as those that refute anything contrary to them.

This is purely conjecture, but I’m guessing we possess a genetic chemical reaction that resists admitting the need to change. Apologizing or admitting mistakes is often accompanied by a horrible feeling of sickness in the pit of the stomach, heart palpitations and even dizziness. Stubborn steadfastness seems wired into our DNA.

As a culture, we are taught that it is more important to convince others of our competence than it is to be competent. There seems nothing more offensive than those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our point of view. This requires an egocentric desire for the other to forfeit theirs. Instead of acknowledging that multiple perspectives can be valid even when incompatible, we demand for ourselves to be right and them to be wrong. Those who are not with us, or like us, are against us.

I am not a poker player, but I can see why it appeals to a certain demographic. There are two ways to win: either by having the better hand or convincing the other players that you do. While being dealt good cards is largely luck, bluffing is a skill. It relies upon letting another know almost all the facts, but withholding the most important detail. It is important to remember that in everyday life, that important detail may remain hidden for everyone, but we will tend to assume we know what it is. Effective bluffers succeed by convincing themselves that they are telling the truth. Although this seems absurd, succeeding at pulling the wool over another’s eyes suggests that convincing another of a thing makes a thing correct.

One of the better TEDTalks is about being wrong, and the speaker, Kathryn Schulz, asks, “How does it feel to be wrong?” She receives several answers from the audience, and then declares that those answers are wrong. They answered what it feels like to realize you are wrong. Her point is sublime: Being wrong feels exactly the same as being right. Understanding this simple fact helps understand why we tend to assume we’re right. Ms. Schulz points out that, in the present tense, it is extraordinarily difficult to think of anything we’re wrong about. We dismiss contrary opinions by assuming those who possess them are ignorant, stupid or evil, in that order.

I recently overheard a white lady declare (to a black man), “Black Conservativism is on the rise, and will continue to grow. More people just need to be educated.” It is patently offensive whenever someone assumes anyone with different life experiences than theirs are ignorant. It is impossible to have a valid frame of reference for how another’s life experiences affect their point of view, and it is equally impossible to assume our different life experiences have somehow given us a more valid perspective than another’s. Those motivated to dispel their agenda are not interested in educating. They gleefully latch onto everything that supports their claims without ever objectively considering the possibility that they could be wrong by dismissively mocking anything contrary to their agenda, which inevitably leads to distortions of logic. Rush Limbaugh is a great propagandist to listen to in order to practice identifying logical fallacies. He simultaneously warns against being brainwashed by the “lamestream” media and promotes turning off programs you don’t agree with. In other words, he wants to be the one doing the brainwashing.

We often assume different is evil. In fact, the “garbage in, garbage out” excuse is actively provided as justification for avoiding anything different. Not only is this claim heavily exaggerated, but whoever is deciding for you what is and isn’t garbage is invariably full of it. The criteria for what is deemed garbage is always dependent upon the bias of the person making the judgment. Some people attempt to circumvent this by attributing their judgments to higher powers, which has proven a startlingly successful tactic for getting others to subscribe to one’s beliefs. There is moral objectivity to be found, since we are all connected by existing as human beings and should therefore treat one another as equals, which means the exploration of certain sources of enjoyment should be strictly avoided. That does not preclude the possibility that even those things could be found enjoyable, but acknowledges that there are things more important than enjoyment.

Gods and deities are unchanging. There is nothing sinister in this; it is simply a result of them representing archetypes and ideals. Tellingly, unchanging personas are also an integral element in comedies. In Christianity, the most fundamental teaching is to believe in Jesus’ divinity and obey his teachings while leaving behind our own desires. This seems to promote change, but it is revealing that the greatest desire of an all-powerful being is to be believed. Considering the utter inconsequentiality of whether or not we believe the legitimacy of the existence of one supreme creator and judge, it is absurd to think such a being would care in the least. It would seem inconceivable for there to be a real-world scenario in which the benefits of a generous or self-sacrificing act was contingent upon the recipient acknowledging the act had been done. Instead of incorporating a logical construction of a supreme being, Christianity ensures that the ideal nature everyone should aspire toward regards being believed as the single most important concern. The most fundamental teaching in Christianity is not to be right, but to believe that you’re right and persist in that belief, with asceticism proving tenacity. I can’t fathom how that ideology can be perceived as anything but frightening.

Humans tend to enjoy repeating catchy, easy-to-remember phrases, regardless of their validity.
Sound bites are highly successful at comforting us, because they make decisions seem simple and straight-forward. Our willingness to grasp onto a well-constructed sentence leads to a bandwagon mentality where we side with whoever is more eloquent or witty. People will actually prefer responses that artfully dodge questions over those that give direct answers. Anybody who has used the internet has experienced its convenience for finding and flaunting whatever echoes our perspective, and the popularity of a so-called meme’s dependence upon its clever and accessible packaging, regardless of how dubious the information it contains.

Another interesting affect of the internet which hinders change is its use of direct marketing. It suggests things we may want to purchase based on the words we type. This limits our introduction to unfamiliar ideas, interests and activities. Google, for example, prioritizes searches according to things we have clicked on in the past, which becomes an obstacle for conducting further research into unexplored internet content. This gives the impression of a small world without that much to explore.

One frequent method for defending conservatism is by placing artificial limitations on things by declaring the way they are “supposed” to be. Many styles of music can be dismissed by stating, “Music is supposed to have a melody.” The fear of bats is justified because, “Mammals aren’t supposed to be able to fly.” People will proudly, and without a shed of irony, declare what “freedom” means. These claims are humorous in part because they give the impression that a thorough scientific analysis was done before their conclusion was drawn. How can you argue with the way things are supposed to be? It’s like arguing with the way a word is supposed to be spelled without the benefit of it being verifiable.

I have heard people summarize a foreign culture by declaring, “They’ll never change.” This immediately makes me wonder when they themselves are planning on changing. We aim to improve by honing our current selves into what we currently perceive as an improvement, but we assume that the ideologies underlying our existence will remain constant. Therefore, change not only threatens to throw a major monkey wrench in our plans, but seems to render our lives up until any change a complete waste of time. Somehow, we assume persisting with our convictions justifies them, and instead of accepting the option of wasting only a part of our life, we instead waste the entirety of it.

While we desperately cling to our own convictions and encourage everyone to follow their dreams in general, we are veritably obsessed with discouraging others when their specific dreams differ from ours. The obstacles and challenges in any course of action that differs from one we have ever taken are instantly elaborated upon. If, on the other hand, someone wants to explore something that we have fond memories of, we simply tell them they’d love it and should go for it. Why is that?

Goals and priorities that contrast from ours befuddle us. When I was a motivated drummer, others with drumming styles similar to my own tended to annoy me, whereas I obsessed over those whose drumming attained what mine aspired to be. But my opinion of drummers that I couldn’t really relate to was all over the map. Since judgments tend to be relative, it is nearly impossible to make sense of things without a frame of reference that we can relate to. For example, it is widely assumed by Americans that everyone wants the “American Dream,” so there tends to be a lot of confusion in America why people from other countries would be proud of their own heritage. We assume others share our desires or are misguided. There is nobody scarier than he who is truly convinced that everyone should pursue the same goals as him, as those who value homogeneity are most willing to commit atrocities against those who don’t fit in.

We are compelled to think of ourselves as both a unique and integral member of society. We seek worth, validity and justification, without which our lives are meaningless. We want to be extraordinary and lead extraordinary lives. Basically, we want to be better and more important than everyone else. So, we create a world in which we are. We get so caught up in our world that the possibility that another would also desire worth, validity or justification is regarded as an incompatible impossibility and forgotten. In our world, we perceive the way things are while others wander aimlessly and babble incoherently. The best thing we can do, for their sake, is convince them to believe us and follow our lead.

We are so convinced of our own correctness that discovering we are wrong often feels magical. This is more comfortably experienced in an imaginary, fictional scenario, as it doesn’t threaten our actual convictions, which is why things like mystery books are so popular. It is a shame that discovering that another is right doesn’t have the same effect, but can instead lead to resentment. We tend to underestimate both others and ourselves, and in both cases we tend to blame the other. We are just as quick at passing judgment for the shortcomings of others as we are at declaring things done by others are out of our reach. Both reinforce ways in which we can’t relate to others.

If we are willing to change the paradigm from one of seeking the joys of being blessed toward the magic of finding truth, fulfilling discoveries await us. Times spent attempting to demonstrate superiority are missed opportunities of getting to know some interesting people, learn some fascinating things and experience some profound sensations.

Hard Work

There was a time when my second favorite cartoon (after G.I. Joe) was DuckTales. It was about the adventures of Uncle Scrooge and his three nephews, whom he was constantly telling, “Work smarter, not harder.” I was always suspicious of this advice, as I knew it was coming from a Disney cartoon, but was never able to quite put my finger on what it was about it that struck me as odd until now. The allure of this statement seems to be that it gives permission to avoid hard work. If it were simply an encouragement to be innovative, why not say, “Work smart while working hard”? Second, it implies everyone is capable of correctly applying intelligence to work situations, which, in my observed experience, is rarely the case.

During the same time I was watching DuckTales, I was reading Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Sherlock is famous for his unmatched perspective abilities, but the books stress that the key to his success is by using those skills toward correctly applying his tireless movements in order to secure results. He is constantly on the go, and Watson has considerable trouble keeping up with him in a physical sense as well as mental. One way this is highlighted is through the character of Mycroft Holmes, who is Sherlock’s older, and more clever, brother. Mycroft sits in a private club in which silence is required and solves crimes he reads about in the newspaper. He does not see the point in being bothered with practicalities. He does not capture villains. Mycroft Holmes is overtly intended to be the embodiment of bureaucracy. (In one story Sherlock remarks that Mycroft sometimes is the government, and explains, “The conclusions of every department are passed to him, and he is the central exchange, the clearinghouse, which makes out the balance.”)

Some people work smarter and not harder by delegating tasks. Delegating should be used to give tasks to more qualified persons and when there is more work than one person can handle, and so ideally, delegating does not eschew hard work. Unfortunately, it is too often used to enable shifting blame when work isn’t done correctly and taking credit when it is. People who aren’t working have a curious habit of telling those who are how they should be doing it. One obstacle I am trying to unlearn is the paranoia that when others suggest alternative approaches, they are suggesting that I’m incompetent. In reality, others, especially males, aren’t taking another’s competence into consideration at all and are merely demonstrating theirs, or at least attempting to. There is nothing easier than pointing out the flaws in others, so there is nothing more obnoxious than it being done smugly. Those who refuse to find a solution to a problem are responsible for the problem continuing to exist, even while they point their finger at those who caused it. There is nobody lower than he who thinks there is work beneath him. Leaving problems for whoever is blamed for causing them to fix is often not prudent or effective, but problems caused by ignorance must be addressed. A person can’t be blamed for continuously making the same mistake if nobody is informing them of the mistake being made. Deciding, “They should know better,” rather than determining if they do is just another example of ducking hard work and responsibility.

I spent a lot of time this week pulling weeds. Every so often someone would wander up to inform me that it would go much faster if I used RoundUp. If I wasn’t at work, where I’m obliged to maintain a modicum of professionalism, I’d respond it would go a lot quicker if I dropped a missile on it, too. Why use a poison that destroys everything to do a task I can perform with my bare hands? I wasn’t trying to get rid of grass or poison ivy. In order to avoid debate, I responded by saying corporate didn’t want RoundUp to be used (a great example of effectively shifting blame). They would then point out that I should get a weed-pulling tool. This tool is actually useful for using on broken-off roots, but I broke my weed-pulling tool last fall. For most weeding, though, using a weed-pulling tool would simply add an unnecessary extra step. Strangely, and tellingly, nobody pointed out that I should be wearing gloves. I wasn’t, not only because they are cumbersome and because I’ve perfected the art of kicking thistles to get to their root without getting stabbed, but because I had an ulterior motive of using the opportunity to build my grip strength for playing disc golf, which is currently my main hobby.

Anybody who appreciates The Karate Kid (1984), which was, of course, was my second favorite childhood movie, after the Star Wars trilogy, understands the necessity of dedicated hard work in obtaining any goal, even when it seems irrelevant or pointless. Hard work can be fulfilling or frustrating, depending upon whether you can see its results. Along with the motivation to improve, stubborn persistence is one of the most useful traits a human can possess. Hard work demands having faith in the process and a belief that it is beneficial in and of itself. If you can’t be proud of having the work you are responsible for completed correctly and timely, how can you exhibit any pride at all? One thing hard work does not necessarily lead to is monetary success, which is enough to make it seem pointless to many.

One maxim I have is: If you aren’t working harder than everybody else, you’re not working hard enough. Another is: If it’s not your job to worry about someone else’s job, don’t. It is difficult to remain a diligent worker without others attempting to take advantage of your willingness to contribute. It is difficult to remain a diligent worker without others attempting to take advantage of your willingness to contribute. There is certainly a limit to how much work a person can do, and a time when that fact should be voiced. How hard you work should not be tied to how much you are being paid until an actual risk to your life is involved. Aside from breaks and lunch, no employee has ever negotiated for a percentage of the work day being set aside for slacking off.

The only alternatives to working hard are to let everything fall into ruin or be dependent upon others to work hard instead. Some people seem to have been given the impression that they should only do things that are fun. The Jane’s Addiction song So What? begins, “Man wasn’t made to work; c’mon build a machine!” which always makes me wonder who should build said machine. If work was fun, they wouldn’t pay you to do it, they’d charge. However, working hard is more satisfying and enjoyable than avoiding it by doing nothing. People don’t generally exclaim, “I really love my job because I get to sit around and do nothing all day.”

The embracement of laziness leads directly to learned helplessness and incompetence. In our quest to avoid doing anything, we avoid learning how to do anything, and become increasingly dependent upon others to perform any tasks we require and produce any goods we need. As we continue to avoid doing things we feel we don’t have to know how to do, learning how to perform new tasks becomes more and more uncomfortable, until we succumb to uselessness and irrelevance. In many aspects of our everyday lives, automatons have already taken over, which I suppose is okay if our ambitions are to “sleep and make love deeper,” or at least stare at a computer screen waiting for something entertaining to appear.

Baseball Commentators Interviewing an American Soccer Player

Interview w/ Joe Corona by Dick Enberg and Mark Grant during top of 3rd inning at SF Giants/SD Padres baseball game on Fox Sport San Diego, April 27th, 2013:


Dick Enbert: Announcement made today by the Padres that Club America and Club Tijuana Xolos are gonna play here at Petco on July 6th. That’ll be a terrific, uh, soccer match and of course our friends down in Tijuana Xolos, many fans from, uh, this side of the border go down to root for the Tijuana… Champions the Champion team and with us is Joe Corona, their mid-fielder, who is a San Diegan- went to High School here at Sweetwater- and, uh, you’re a dual citizen- and you’ve got to be excited about playing here at Petco.

Joe Corona: Yeah, I mean it’s something we’re proud of, I mean, I personally feel special to be a part of San Diego and, I mean, it’ll be a very exciting game. Uh, we… we’re looking forward for the game and we’re happy with the partnership we have with the Padres.

Mark Grant: I know Joe you usually play in a big arena, you know, seats more people, but playing here at Petco Park’s gotta be pretty cool, too, in your home town.

Joe Corona: Yeah, yeah, like I said I’m in my home town. Family and friends are coming, so it’ll be very special for me.

Dick Enberg: You’re playing the team from Mexico City and they’re really good, huh?

Joe Corona: Yeah, it’s, uh, one of the biggest clubs in Mexico, I mean very exciting, exciting to play them, and I know there’s a lot of fans for them, too, here, so….

Mark Grant: Who was your guy growing up? Who was your team? Who did you root for?

Joe Corona: Uh, when I was a younger kid, uh, I used to root for Chivas.

Mark Grant: Okay.

(baseball play-by-play)

Mark Grant: So what, you started playing soccer at what age?

Joe Corona: I was, uh, 6 years old when I started, yeah, so pretty young.

Mark Grant: Who was the most influential coach for you growing up?

Joe Corona: Um, I mean, I would say, uh, growing up I … well, I was in a lot of different clubs. I would say, uh, Juan Ramos, he used to be one of the coaches I worked with the most at Aztec’s club.

Dick Enberg: But Joe, you a goal scorer?

Joe Corona: Yeah, I mean, I was always an attacking mid-fielder, so I would score some goals.

Dick Enberg: Do you have to go back on defense now and then or do you just lag up on the other side waiting for the…?

Joe Corona: Nah, I try to be defense when I can, but, offensively is my strong side.

Dick Enberg: You’re not a big man. How tall are you?

Joe Corona: I’m 5’10”

Dick Enberg: 5’10”?

Joe Corona: Yeah.

Dick Enberg: How much you weigh about 100 pounds here…

(baseball play-by-play)

Mark Grant: How many hours a day, Joe, are you kicking the ball around and conditioning, because it’s not just one of these sports to where you just wake up and, you know, expect to be good- you put a lot of hard work into this.

Joe Corona: Yeah, I mean, we train every day. We usually have, uh, the day after a game we have it off so we can get a little rest, be with our family, I mean, we practice around 2 to 3 hours every day so it gets pretty intense.

Mark Grant: Let me ask you this- serious question: Gordon [sic] Beckham, totally over-rated.

Joe Corona: (Awkward laughter) Maybe- I don’t know.

Mark Grant: No, just kidding.

Joe Corona: He’s a great player.

Mark Grant: But it is amazing to me to when I watch it on t.v. is the footwork and the, how you guys pass and to see, you know, because when you watch kids, what do they call it, the swarm of bees? Right, they just circle the ball?

Joe Corona: (Laughs) Everybody’s behind the ball?

Mark Grant: But you guys have a plan, and passing, it’s just remarkable to see the footwork that you guys have.

Joe Corona: Yeah, I would say it’s, uh, it’s more disciplined at the pro level, I mean you gotta know your position and try to…

(baseball play-by-play)

Mark Grant: Did you ever play baseball here in, uh, San Diego as you grew up?

Joe Corona: No, I was born in Los Angeles and I played only like a couple games because some of my cousins played so that was about it.

Dick Enberg: So you took to, uh, soccer... or football- do they call it soccer in Mexico or football?

Joe Corona: Futbal.

Dick Enberg: Football, yeah. World’s most popular sport.

Joe Corona: Yeah.

Dick Enberg: And, uh, when it comes to, uh, World Cup action, do you have any ambitions about making, uh, Team Mexico?

Joe Corona: Yeah, of course, I mean, I’m a US citizen so I’m part of the US Men’s National Team and, um, it’s something I’m looking forward to.

Dick Enberg: How old are you… how old are you, Joe?

Joe Corona: I’m 22 right now.

Mark Grant: Oh wow!

Dick Enberg: You’re just a baby, huh?

Joe Corona: Yeah.

Mark Grant: What’s, I mean, the life-span of a soccer player, because, you know, if you talk about an NFL player you talk about… you know, in baseball you play 20 years in the Big Leagues you’re doing something. How about for a soccer player?

Joe Corona: Yeah, for a soccer player, I mean, you play 15… 15 years or something.

Mark Grant: So like you’re 30… maybe 35?

Joe Corona: 34-35, it’s… it’s, uh, it’s not that long.

(baseball play-by-play)

Mark Grant: I’m also amazed at how much you run during a game. Has it ever been calculated how much you actually run?

Dick Enberg: That’s a good question, yeah.

Mark Grant: How many miles during a game?

Dick Enberg: 90 minutes.

Joe Corona: Not exactly, I’ve never measured myself, but I mean…

Mark Grant: You’re just conditioned to it, huh?

Joe Corona: Yeah, I mean, you play every weekend, you train every day, so, I mean, you get used to all the running.

(baseball play-by-play, during which Mark declares, This ball off the bat of Posey was almost like a corner-kick.)

Dick Enberg: If you were to, uh, judge the great superstars in your sport at this time, I would guess the man down in Argentina’s the man, huh?

Joe Corona: Yeah, I mean, uh, Messi…

Dick Enberg: Messi, yeah.

Joe Corona: …is doing good things in Europe with, uh, Barcelona, and…

Dick Enberg: He’s not much bigger than you!

Joe Corona: He’s not, he’s actually shorter than me.

Mark Grant: He’s shorter than you?

Joe Corona: Yeah. He’s a great player, though, I mean, there’s some great players out there.

Mark Grant: How much smack-talk is going on down in that field?

Joe Corona: Oh, a lot.

Mark Grant: To the opposition.

Joe Corona: There’s a lot. I mean, when it’s intense games, I mean, it gets pretty rough.

(baseball play-by-play)

Dick Enberg: 22 years of age, seems to be the right age today, Joe.

Joe Corona: Yeah, it’s great to be out here.

Dick Enberg: So I think tickets are already available for that match, uh, I think when you played over at Qualcomm it was 30,000 or so came out. I know you’re going to have a big crowd. There’s so many football, soccer fans here in this area, a lot of folks will come up from Tijuana.

Joe Corona: Yeah, I believe so, I mean, we’re trying to promote the game as much as we can, and I think, uh, the fan base here in San Diego has grown a lot for Xoloitzcuintle- there’ll be a good amount of people.

Mark Grant: How old were you when you made your professional debut?

Joe Corona: Uh, I was 19.

Mark Grant: Really?

Joe Corona: 19 when I started playing professionally.

Mark Grant: Wow.

Dick Enberg: And you, uh, did you play at San Diego State the year you were there?

Joe Corona: Yeah, I was, uh, there for a year. I played in 2008-2009. That was a year I was part of them, it was good experience as well, so…

Dick Enberg: You were an Aztec and Xolos is, uh, the Aztec dog, right?

Joe Corona: Yeah, right. (laughs)

Mark Grant: Is that was that was on the field before the game? The guy with that big, uh, mascot?

Joe Corona: Yeah, that’s what it was, yeah. It was a dog. Xoloitzcuintle.

Mark Grant: Azteca perro?

Joe Corona: Yeah. Perro Azteca.

Mark Grant: Yeah.

(baseball play-by-play)

Dick Enberg: Well, we hope fans will come out and enjoy soccer at its best. Xolos and, uh, Club America. July 6th, a 7:30 game, it’s just around the corner and Joe Corona, they’ll be able to cheer for you. Thank you for stopping by and visiting with us. Good luck to you.

Joe Corona: Thank you for having me here, and wish you the best of luck, too.

Mark Grant: Joe Corona, numero quince. Keep an eye out… keep an ojo on him. Right?

Joe Corona: Of course. Thank you.

Dick Enberg: All right, all the best.

Mark Grant: Buenas fuerte [sic], Joe.

Joe Corona: Gracias.

Dick Enberg: Joe Corona, one of the stars for Tijuana’s Xolos team, and they’ll be playing Mexico City’s Club America, again on July 6th at 7:30, tickets available here at Petco park.

Classical Chinese Mahjong Rules (Redux)

Mahjong (or Mah-jong or Mah-jongg) is a 4 player game that originated in China in the 19th Century (contrary to popular claims that it is far older). It seems there are almost as many variations as there are players. Although many of the tiles have Chinese characters on them, you don’t have to be able to read any Chinese to play the game, with the exception of knowing the numbers 1-9 and West, South, East and North in the unlikely event you are using tiles that don’t have Western letters imprinted on them.

BASIC EQUIPMENT
A complete set of Mahjong consists of 144 tiles. Originally they were made from bone or ivory, often dovetailed with bamboo backsides, but modern sets are usually plastic. The tiles are comprised of:
• 36 Circle tiles in 4 sets of 9 tiles numbered 1- 9. These are often called Dots. The picture on each shows the appropriate number of circles.
• 36 Character tiles in 4 sets of 9 tiles numbered 1- 9. These are also called Craks for short, or Numbers. The picture on each shows the Chinese character for the number represented and the Chinese character for “Thousand,” and usually a translated Arabic number in the corner. Note that these are the only tiles that contain only numbers and Chinese characters.
• 36 Bamboo tiles in 4 sets of 9 tiles numbered 1- 9. The picture on each shows the appropriate number of bamboo sticks, which often look more like bones, except for One Bamboo which acts as a maker’s mark (similar to the Ace of Spades in cards) and is usually denoted by a sparrow (the English translation of “mah jong”) or a rice-bird instead of a bamboo.
• 16 Wind tiles - 4 tiles for each of the 4 winds. Each has a Chinese character for that direction and usually the first letter of the English word for the direction it represents (North, South, West or East) in the corner.
• 12 Dragon tiles - 4 Red Dragons (called Chung, meaning “center”) denoted by a red Chinese character or dragon, 4 Green Dragons (called Fa, meaning “prosperity”) denoted by a green Chinese character or dragon and 4 White Dragons which are traditionally denoted by a completely blank tile. However, some sets denote the White Dragon with a small “P” which stands for “Po,” meaning white or pure, and some players use a tile with a blue border for the White Dragon. Some players call these Colors instead of Dragons, which is actually more accurate.
• 4 Flower tiles - The Flowers are optional; they are not used for making sets but instead give bonus points when drawn. They each show a picture of a flower and usually numbered 1-4, and these numbers relate to the player’s seat placement. 1 is East Wind, 2 is South, 3 is West and 4 is North. The depiction of the flowers varies hugely between sets (and can get kind of abstract), but they represent, in order: plumb, orchid, chrysanthemum, and bamboo. They don’t look like any of the other tiles except a beginner could possibly confuse them with One Bamboo.
• 4 Season tiles - The Seasons are also optional; they usually show a picture of something seemingly random and are usually numbered 1-4 and labeled, in order: “Spr”, “Sum”, “Aut” and “Win,” which are abbreviations for the four calendar seasons. Spring is the season of East Wind, Summer is South, Autumn is West and Winter is North. The Seasons are used the same as the Flower tiles and are only used if the Flower tiles are used. Some players choose not to use the Flower and Season tiles because they provide easy points.

Specific tiles are grouped together in scoring as follows:
• Suits: The Circle, Character and Bamboo tiles comprise the three Suits.
• Minors: The Suit tiles numbered 2 - 8.
• Terminals: The Suit tiles numbered 1 and 9.
• Honors: The Wind and Dragon tiles.
• Majors: The Terminals and Honors.
• Bonus: The Flower and Season tiles.

In addition to the tiles, two dice are required for determining where to break the Wall. (The 1 and 4 are red on traditional Chinese dice.) Some sets include a marker containing the Winds, called a Chuang-tzŭ, which is used to keep track of the Prevailing Wind. Tile trays are also often used to enable each player to balance their tiles on edge while concealed during play. Gambling sticks or chips are used if gambling. Many Mahjong games come with additional tiles used for similar games and variations.

PREPARATION
First, the seating positions of the four players must be randomly established. Then, which Wind each player begins as is randomly decided. For these tasks, one of each Wind tile, any Suit numbers one and two (or any other numbers as long as one is odd and the other even) and a pair of dice are required. Each player randomly chooses a temporary seat and the host rolls two dice. Beginning with himself, the host (either whoever’s home you are in or whose tiles are being used) counts counter-clockwise around the table the total of both dice and selects the location where East will be to begin the game.



The player in East’s seat then turns the Wind tiles upside-down, shuffles them and organizes them in a row between the even and odd numbered suit tiles. He then rolls the dice again and counts around the table as before to determine who will roll the dice a final time.



The third dice roll is counted the same as the other two, and decides which player will draw the first Wind tile. If the final roll totals an odd number, that player chooses the tile next to the odd numbered Suit, otherwise he chooses the tile next to the even numbered Suit. Then the remaining tiles are drawn as they are aligned by each player in counter-clockwise turn. Whoever draws East Wind sits in East’s seat. West sits across from East, North to his left and South to his right (NOT like a compass).



• Prevailing Wind: The designation given to the player that has the first turn. East begins the game as the Prevailing Wind.

For each subsequent round, the positions change in one of two ways:
1. If the Prevailing Wind completed Mahjong in the previous round, or the round ends in a stalemate, usually called a wash-out, then the positions stay the same.
2. If any of the other Winds went out in the previous round, all of the Wind positions rotate counter-clockwise so that the player who was South Wind in the previous round becomes East Wind, etc.

In a complete session of Mahjong, which might take a number of hours or even days to complete, the Prevailing Wind continues to be East until each player has lost as East. Then South becomes the Prevailing Wind. Once South is finished, the Prevailing Wind becomes West and finally, North. The session ends when each player has lost while as the Prevailing North Wind. Obviously, it isn't necessary to complete a session – playing only one or two complete Prevailing Wind cycles is common.

BUILDING THE WALL
Each round begins by scattering all the tiles face-down on the table. They are then shuffled thoroughly by all except the Prevailing Wind in a ritual that is called “the twittering of the sparrows.” The shuffling immediately ends when the Prevailing Wind utters, “Pow!” The tiles are then built into a square structure known as the Wall. If the Flowers and Seasons are used (for a total of 144 tiles), then each side will be eighteen tiles long; if you choose not to use them (for a total of 136 tiles), then each side will be seventeen tiles long. In either case, it is two tiles high and one tile deep. Each player builds one side of the Wall by placing the tiles face-down from right to left. A square is then formed from the sides. (The tile trays are usually sized so they can be used to push the sides together. Allowing cracks in the Wall is considered bad luck.)



BREAKING THE WALL
There are two accepted methods of breaking the Wall. To differentiate, I will refer to the chronologically earlier established method as the “Kong Box” and the more modern and familiar method as the “Dead Wall,” although in practice these terms are interchangeable. Both methods separate a part of the Wall from which replacement tiles are drawn after creating a Kong. They differ in a myriad of subtle ways, but, practically speaking, the main difference is that, with the Kong Box method, Season and Flower tiles are replaced from the Live Wall whereas with the Dead Wall method those tiles are replaced, like with Kongs, from the Dead Wall. Because it prevents Bonus tiles from being used for scoring Doublers and Special Hands utilizing Loose tiles, thereby rightfully increasing the value of Kongs, I prefer the Kong Box method, even though it is less frequently used.

The Kong Box Method
The current Prevailing Wind rolls both dice inside the Wall, and counts off the participants around the table counter-clockwise starting with himself to determine a player who must roll both dice again. (If a die lands on edge against the Wall or on top or outside of it, it must be re-rolled.) This player, after rolling, counts the number of tile stacks equal to the total of both rolls clockwise beginning at the right end of his section of Wall.



The two tiles in the stack at the last number are lifted by that player that made the second dice roll. The top tile is placed on top of the stack five places counter-clockwise and the other upon the stack three places counterclockwise from the initial location. These two tiles are called “Loose” tiles. Then, the section of the Wall that those tiles are centered upon, which totals seven stacks and sixteen tiles (including the Loose tiles), is physically separated from the rest of the Wall and called the Kong Box. (The remainder of the Wall is called the Live Wall or simply the Wall.)



Next, beginning with the Prevailing Wind and alternating turns counter-clockwise, two stacks are taken by each player from the Wall in a clockwise fashion beginning with the tiles after where the Loose tiles were taken until each player has taken three sets or twelve tiles.



Finally, the Prevailing Wind takes one more stack, or two tiles, and each other player takes one tile only, so the Prevailing Wind begins the game with fourteen tiles while the other players have thirteen.



During each round, whenever a Kong is revealed, the next Loose tile is immediately drawn as a replacement tile. Bonus tiles are instead replaced from the Live Wall so that they behave as a “draw again” tile. The Loose tile on the right is drawn first, and after the second Loose tile is drawn, the player who originally built the Kong Box immediately replaces both Loose tiles as at the beginning of the game by taking the stack from the far left of the Kong Box and centering those tiles on what remains of the Kong Box, with the top tile of the stack to the right of the other. The only way to use all of the tiles in the Kong Box would be in the highly unlikely event where all four players made four Kongs.





The Dead Wall Method
The current Prevailing Wind rolls both dice inside the Wall, and counts off the participants around the table counter-clockwise starting with himself to determine a player who must roll both dice again. (If a die lands on edge against the Wall or on top or outside of it, it must be re-rolled.) This player, after rolling, counts the number of tile stacks equal to the total of both rolls clockwise beginning at the right end of his section of Wall. The Prevailing Wind breaks the Wall to the left of the final tile counted by taking two stacks of tiles.



Then, moving counter-clockwise (so that in the first game South draws second), each player in turn takes four tiles at a time from the Wall, tearing it down in a clockwise fashion, repeating three times around the table so that everyone has twelve tiles.



Next, the Prevailing Wind takes the next tile from the top at the edge of the Wall, and also the top tile two stacks over. Each other player then takes only one tile, again in counter-clockwise order, leaving the tile under the last tile the Prevailing Wind took as the next tile to be drawn after play begins. The Prevailing Wind begins each hand with fourteen tiles while the other players start with thirteen.



Finally, the seventh stack of tiles counting counter-clockwise from the opposite end of the Wall are taken up by the player who made the second dice roll and become “Loose” tiles. The bottom tile of this stack is placed on top of the third stack (counting the same direction) and the other tile is placed on top of the first stack of the section of the Wall that has just become separated by removing the Loose tiles. These fourteen tiles separated from the rest of the Wall form the Dead Wall. (The remainder of the Wall is called the Live Wall or simply the Wall.)



Whenever a Kong or Bonus tile is revealed, the next Loose tile is immediately drawn as a replacement tile. The Loose tile on the end of the Dead Wall is drawn first, and after the second Loose tile is drawn, the player who built the Dead Wall immediately replaces both Loose tiles from the very end of the Live Wall in the same manner as was done after the original tiles were drawn. The 12 tiles in the Dead Wall under the Loose tiles are entirely out of play for the remainder of the round.



OBJECTIVE
A player generally tries to collect sets, called Melds, of tiles. The three Melds are:
• Pung (aka Pong): A set of 3 identical tiles.
• Kong: A set of all 4 identical tiles.
• Chow: A consecutively numbered run of 3 (and only 3) tiles in the same Suit, e.g. 5,6 and 7 of Bamboos. You cannot make Chows with Honors.

Melds can be formed in one of two ways:
1. Concealed: A Meld that uses only tiles drawn from the Wall.
2. Exposed: A Meld that incorporates one tile claimed from another player, either via their discard or by Robbing a Kong.

The primary goal of the game is to collect tiles that allow a player to complete "Mahjong,” often called “going” Mahjong.
• Mahjong: An arrangement of tiles that allows a player to win a hand in Mahjong. Except for (two) rare Special Hands, a Mahjong hand consists of four Melds and a pair. The pair is properly called an Eye.

The overall goal of the game is to amass a greater score than your opponents. It is theoretically possible to do this over a series of rounds without ever completing Mahjong, although completing Mahjong yields far more scoring opportunities.

PLAY
The players begin by looking at and organizing their tiles. All Bonus tiles should always be immediately revealed by laying them down and face-up on the table (or tile tray). Kongs must also be revealed in order to be scored as such, but this can be done at the start of play or on any of their turns before a player completes Mahjong. Not revealing a Kong right away can allow for Meld arrangement options, because until the tiles are shown to the opponents, they can be re-arranged at any time up until scoring the hand, but once a Meld is displayed, it becomes permanent and cannot be changed. For example, a player could have in his hand all four 6 Circles, but, if that Kong has not been revealed, separate one of those to form a Chow with 5 and 7 Circles.

If a player forms a Chow or a Pung using only tiles drawn from the Wall, he keeps it hidden in his hand during gameplay. (Not only is it worth more points this way, but it keeps the other players from knowing his tiles.)

Starting with the Prevailing Wind, a replacement tile must be drawn for each Bonus tile and revealed Kong. After the Prevailing Wind has replaced these tiles, including any further Bonus tiles or revealed Kongs formed because of replacement tiles, the player to the right of the Prevailing Wind does the same. After all four players have completed this task, the Prevailing Wind, assuming he doesn’t have the Special Hand of Heaven’s Blessing, discards one tile by announcing its name and placing it face-up inside the remainder of the Wall to end his turn.

If, at the time of their first discard, any player needs only one tile to complete Mahjong, he may alert the other players of this fact by announcing that he is “Fishing,” in order to attempt to score for “Original Call,” which is when a player declares Fishing with their first discard and then completes Mahjong using those same 13 tiles and the Last. (Forming Kongs and drawing Bonus tiles do not disqualify Original Call.) Fishing should NOT be declared aloud at any time after a player’s first turn.
• Fishing: A player that could theoretically complete Mahjong with any one tile.
• Last: The final tile drawn or claimed in order to complete Mahjong.

A player can be Fishing for more than one type of tile. This usually happens when a player has three Melds and two pairs, two consecutive numbers in a Suit and neither is a Terminal or four consecutive numbers in a Suit, but there are other examples. Trying to complete Mahjong with only one possible type of tile decreases the odds of doing so, but also scores points. For scoring purposes, Fishing for an Only Possible tile does not consider the current state of the discard pile. For example, if the Fishing hand contains two pairs, that hand is not Fishing for Only Possible even if the remaining tiles of one pair have been irretrievably discarded.
• Only Possible: Fishing hand that allows only one type of tile to complete Mahjong.

When a player is Fishing, he may claim the Last tile from any discard, whether it be to form a Pung, Kong, Chow or the Eye. Also, a player who is Fishing may claim a tile and get Mahjong by making a Chow or Special Hand with a tile that has just been drawn by another player and added to their Exposed (but not Concealed, unless it is to complete the Thirteen Orphans Special Hand) Pung. This is called “Robbing the Kong.” If multiple players could win with the same discard, then the one whose turn would come next in the normal counter-clockwise rotation gets to take it.
• Robbing Kong: Completing Mahjong by claiming a tile that was drawn and added to an Exposed Pung by another player.

After each discard, ANY player may claim that tile if they can use it to complete a Pung or Kong, even if it does not complete Mahjong. That player announces his intention, and if there is no objection (i.e. multiple claims), takes the discard and immediately displays the resulting Pung or Kong face-up on the table (or tile tray) in front of him. A claim for Mahjong always takes precedence over a non-Fishing claim. (Multiple claims for Pungs or Kongs are mathematically impossible as there are only four of every tile.) After a player has taken a discard but not for Mahjong, it is then that player’s turn to conclude with a discard; any players between him and the player that discarded are skipped.

If no other player wants the discarded tile (which should be decided almost immediately to keep the game moving), then the player to the right of the discarding player takes the next turn. This player may choose to claim the discard and use it to form a Chow, which he must immediately Expose. (No other players can claim the discarded tile to make a Chow except to complete Mahjong.) If no one takes the discarded tile, then it is out of play for the remainder of the round, and the next player simply draws the next tile (without showing it to the other players) from the front of the Wall.

A Concealed Kong that is not revealed before a player completes Mahjong is scored instead as a Concealed Pung. Also, when another player’s discard is added to a Concealed Pung and revealed as an Exposed Kong, that Meld can still be scored as a Concealed Pung for Doublers and Special Hands (only), as long as after all four tiles are displayed (and before that player has discarded), the fourth claimed tile is placed either lengthwise or face-down on the end of what had been a Concealed Pung. A Kong formed without using a claimed tile is considered Concealed for all scoring, as long as after showing all four tiles (and before that player has discarded), both ends of that row of tiles are placed either lengthwise (especially in the case of Po, the White Dragon) or face-down in front of the player to differentiate it from an Exposed Meld.

A player cannot declare Kong and Mahjong at the same time, as a replacement tile must always be drawn after revealing a Kong, with the unique exception of the Special Hand called Nine Gates. In addition, if a player previously Exposed a Pung because it incorporated another player's discard and later draws from the Wall the fourth of that tile, he may add it to the Exposed Pung (although this risks a Robbed Kong), turning it into an Exposed Kong. All four tiles of such a Kong remain face-up and can only be scored as an Exposed Meld. A discarded tile CANNOT be added to an Exposed Pung, and no Meld can ever consist of more than one discarded tile.



Each player must always finish a turn by discarding one tile, placing it face-up inside the remainder of the Wall and announcing which tile is being discard aloud, except when completing Mahjong, in which case that player cannot discard but simply reveals all tiles, keeping the Concealed tiles behind the tile rack to separate them from the Exposed tiles and demarking the Last tile by turning it length-wise (for scoring purposes). It is important not to forget to place the final Meld with the Exposed tiles if it was created by a discard or by Robbing the Kong.

If all the tiles from the Wall have been drawn with the exception of the Kong Box or Dead Wall, then the game is declared a wash-out and no scores are made. The tiles are shuffled again and game is restarted with the same player as Prevailing Wind. Just prior to that, scores can be made for completing Mahjong with the final tile possible if a player completes Mahjong with the last tile on the Wall, the discard that is made after the Wall is empty or with a Bonus tile drawn after the Wall is empty.

SPECIAL HANDS
Special Hands are unique ways of going Mahjong. In scoring, all Special Hands receive the maximum number of points allowed. Special Hands will vary depending on who you’re playing with, but the number allowed should be somewhat limited to prevent the game from becoming absurd. Following is a list of commonly accepted Special Hands, only two of which do not consist of four Melds and a pair:

• Thirteen Orphans (aka Thirteen Unique Wonders): One of each Major tile (Winds, Dragons, Ones and Nines); one of these paired. Uniquely, may Rob Concealed Kong for Last tile.
• Nine Gates (aka Nine United Sons, Nine Sacred Lamps of Lotus): Three Ones, three Nines and a run from 2-8 plus any Last tile, all in the same Suit; all but Last tile must be concealed. Uniquely, may get Mahjong by completing a Kong.

• Buried Treasure: Fully Concealed Pungs/Kongs and an Eye.
• Fourfold Plenty: All Kongs and an Eye.
• Heads and Tails: Only Terminals.
• All Symbols: Only Honors.
• Imperial Jade: Mahjong using only all-green tiles (which are the Green Dragons and 2, 3,4,6 and 8 of Bamboos.)
• Wriggling Snake: Pungs/Kongs of both Terminals, an Eye of either 2,5 or 8 and two Chows containing the six remaining numbers all in the same Suit. (There are other variants called Wriggling Snake, and since this is also the most convoluted Special Hand, I’d be heavily tempted to disregard it except that it’s so widely used.)
• Concealed Clear Suit: All one Suit, fully Concealed.
• Three Great Scholars: Melds of all 3 Dragons, any other Pung/Kong and any Eye.
• Four Blessings Hovering Over the Door: Melds of all 4 Winds and any Eye.
• Twofold Plenty (aka Kong on Kong) : In one turn, complete a Kong, draw a Loose tile which completes another Kong, draw another Loose tile with completes Mahjong.
• Gathering the Plum Blossom from the Roof: A Loose tile is Five Circles, which completes Mahjong for player that draws it.
• Plucking the Moon from the Bottom of the Sea: The Last tile on the Wall (not including Kong Box or Dead Wall) is One Circles, which completes Mahjong for player that draws it.
• Scratching a Carrying Pole: Rob Kong of Two Bamboo.
• Heaven's Blessing: Mahjong completed by Prevailing Wind before ever discarding.
• Earth's Blessing: Mahjong completed by another Wind after claiming the first discard made by Prevailing Wind and without ever discarding.
• East’s Thirteenth Consecutive Mahjong: The Prevailing Wind completes Mahjong for the 13th time in a row, not including wash-out rounds, after which Prevailing Wind is relinquished.

SCORING
When a player completes Mahjong, all players must show their hands, keeping concealed tiles below the tile rack. Sometimes concealed tiles can be arranged in different combinations to form different Melds, and all players have the freedom to do so before they are displayed, but once the Melds are chosen and displayed they cannot be rearranged during scoring.

Since a score can become ridiculously large, a maximum limit is agreed upon before play starts. The maximum is usually 1000, but can be as low as 500 and as high as 2000.

Scoring is the most complicated aspect of the game and differs widely among players, so you might have to barter an agreed upon method before gameplay begins. (There is lively debate, for example, as to whether completing Mahjong should be 10 or 20 points.) The classical method of scoring only uses even numbers. Confusion often stems from point totals being stated non-cumulatively. For example, a veteran player might state that a Last tile forming a Major Eye scores four points without bothering to explain that two of those four points come from the Last simply forming any Eye. Scoring greatly increases the level of strategy in making Melds, but it is sometimes prudent for first-time players to forego scoring altogether.

If a player creates a Special Hand, he receives the limit. Otherwise, the value of each hand is calculated by adding points and then counting “Doublers.” The entire score is doubled for each Doubler so that they affect the overall score exponentially. Some points and Doublers are available to all players while others are only available to the player that completed Mahjong.

First, each player adds points for each of the following:
Exposed Minor Pung= 2 points
Exposed Major Pung= 4 points
Exposed Minor Kong= 8 points
Exposed Major Kong= 16 points
Concealed Minor Pung= 4 points
Concealed Major Pung= 8 points
Concealed Minor Kong= 16 points
Concealed Major Kong= 32 points
(Chow= 0 points)

Pair of Dragons= 2 points
Pair of Prevailing Wind= 2 points
Pair of own Wind= 2 points
(A hand with none of the above points is called Worthless)
Each Flower= 4 points
Each Season= 4 points

Only the player that completed Mahjong also adds for:
Completing Mahjong= 10 points
Completing Mahjong with Only Possible Last tile= 2 points
Last tile forms Eye= 2 points
Last tile forms Major Eye= 2 points
Completing Mahjong by drawing Last tile from Wall= 2 points

Then, all players count Doublers for each:
Meld of Dragons= 1 Doubler
Meld of Prevailing Wind= 1 Doubler
Meld of player's own Wind= 1 Doubler
3 Concealed Pungs/Kongs= 1 Doubler
All 3 Dragons in 2 Melds and 1 pair= 1 Doubler
All 4 Winds in 3 Melds and 1 pair= 1 Doubler
3 Dragons in 3 Melds= 2 Doublers
4 Winds in 4 Melds= 2 Doublers
Own Flower and Own Season= 1 Doubler
All four Flowers= 2 Doublers
All four Seasons= 2 Doublers

Additional Doublers are applied only to the hand that went Mahjong:
Worthless Hand (Only Chows and an Eye that’s not Dragons or Prevailing or Own Wind)= 1 Doubler
No Chows= 1 Doubler
Fully Concealed= 1 Doubler
Only Majors= 1 Doubler
Only one Suit and Honors= 1 Doubler
All same Suit (called a Clear Suit)= 3 Doublers
Last is Loose tile (drawn from Kong Box/Dead Wall)= 1 Doubler
Last tile is final discard or draw possible (before a wash-out)= 1 Doubler
Robbing the Kong= 1 Doubler
Original Call= 1 Doubler

The total score is tallied by adding the points and then multiplying the entire score, including any previous Doublers, for each Doubler. This can be expressed as the equation A x 2n, where A represents the added score and n represents the Doublers. Two Doublers multiplies the added score fourfold, while three Doublers multiplies the added score eightfold, etc. Because of this exponential accumulation, having more than one Doubler is very advantageous.



As an example, forming two Exposed Major Kongs (16 points + 16 points), one Pair of Dragons (2 points) and completing Mahjong (10 points) yields an added score of 44 points. Scoring Doublers for Robbing a Kong (1 Doubler) and having all the same Suit (3 Doublers) yields 4 total Doublers, and the total score for that round would be calculated as 44x16, equaling 704 points.

GAMBLING
Mahjong is traditionally a gambling game, although it can be enjoyed without doing so. Counting sticks are traditionally used for this. There are four different sticks, with values of 2, 10, 100 and 500 points. I believe because they were usurped from another game; the markings determining the number values on these sticks is varied and seldom literal- for instance the stick with a value of 10 often has eight black dots.

Each player starts the game with 2000 points worth of sticks, which can be divided into ten 2 point sticks, eight 10 point sticks, nine 100 point sticks and two 500 point sticks. (Using this method, a full set contains 116 sticks.) Generally, if a player runs out of points, he simply continues to play until he earns some back without incurring negative debt.

The Prevailing Wind always pays and/or receives double the amount scored. The Prevailing Wind can pay up to double the maximum limit and receive the same, so if the Prevailing Wind wins with a Special Hand with a maximum limit of 1000, he will receive 2000 points from every other player (or all of their gambling sticks if they don’t have that much).

The player who went Mahjong is paid by the other players the amount scored by his hand, and does not pay out anything. This means that the player who gets Mahjong always wins the round, even if other players have scored greater amounts.

After the player that completes Mahjong is paid, each losing player also pays any other losing player with a greater value hand the difference between the two hands, with the Prevailing Wind paying and/or receiving double the difference.

INFRACTIONS
The following rules are intended as procedures for handling situations where players are confused or make mistakes. I don’t think they necessarily need to be strictly enforced with beginners, and in casual play less strict alternatives can be implemented as long as they are agreed upon by all players:

1. Short Hand: A player that is short on tiles at any time after the first discard must play out the hand and can score points even though completing Mahjong for that player is impossible. (After the first discard, replacement tiles can be taken any time during a turn until that player discards, although they should always be taken immediately after displaying a Kong or Bonus tile.)
2. Long Hand: A player which has seen a concealed tile that gives him too many in hand must accept that tile and play out the round but cannot score any points.
3. A tile drawn from the Wall the face of which has been felt or seen must be accepted by the drawing player.
4. If a tile from the Wall other than the next to be drawn is incorrectly drawn or otherwise exposed to any player, it must be shown to all players; then the side of the Wall with that tile must be shuffled and re-built.
5. A discarded tile can never be withdrawn. A tile discarded out of turn can be claimed by another player unless doing so would force a player whose turn it was to discard to have a Long Hand.
6. A player that announces a discard as the incorrect tile must forfeit his next draw and cannot participate in play until his next turn.
A. The discarded tile can be claimed for a Chow by the next player to the right on the forfeited turn.
B. If an incorrectly named discard results in an incorrectly declared Mahjong, the penalty for the incorrect Mahjong (listed below as rule #11) must be paid by the player that incorrectly named the discard.
7. A discarded tile cannot be claimed by another player after the next player has drawn unless the drawing player did not ensure all players were aware of the discard, in which case the offending player must keep the drawn tile and play with a Long Hand.
8. If a player fails to claim a tile which would have completed Mahjong, he may not go out on any identical discard until after his next turn.
9. A player that claims a tile but changes his mind before any tiles have been exposed can return it to the discard pile, but must pay 100 points to any other eventual winner.
10. Foul Hand: A player that incorrectly exposes any of his tiles is disqualified from winning the current hand.
A. Any claimed tile, after he has exposed tiles, must be accepted even if it creates a bogus Meld, unless it can be claimed by an eligible player or was an incorrectly named discard.
B. The player with the Foul Hand must play out the hand and can still score points.
11. If a player incorrectly declares Mahjong, he cannot go out until after his next turn.
A. If that hand is Long, Short, Foul or made fully exposed (for partial exposure, see Foul Hand penalty) or any part of another’s hand is consequently exposed, the offending player must pay half the limit to all players with dealer doubling applied, after which Prevailing Wind does not move unless that’s the player at fault.

INSURANCES
There are also rules that have been established to keep players from cheating or conspiring, which of course becomes more tempting when gambling is involved.

12. If a player calls attention to an error that is corrected and that correction adversely affects another player, the player that mentions the error must forfeit his next draw and cannot participate in play until his next turn (see also 6A).
13. A player who calls attention to any feature of another’s play, including his discards or apparent objective must forfeit his next draw and cannot participate in play until his next turn (see also 6A).
14. A player who scores too many points to his hand can be corrected by a player obliged to pay him until the last payment has been made, but a player who has shorted himself points cannot be helped by any other player. A player that does assist must pay the resulting difference in loss sustained by any other player. No corrections in score can be made after all payments have been settled.
15. Letting off a cannon: Playing an irresponsible, or “dangerous,” discard or allowing a Robbed Kong that helps enable another player to complete Mahjong on a big hand (not necessarily immediately). A player who lets off the cannon must pay the winner on behalf of all losers, that is, he must pay three times and the other losers do not pay, and there is no settlement among losers.
A. A player can be guilty of letting off a cannon only in the following situations:
1. If there are four or less tiles left in the Wall, and he discards any tile that does not appear in previous discards or Exposed Melds, helping another player complete any Mahjong.
2. If another player has Exposed three Melds of one Suit, and he discards or makes a Kong from an Exposed Pung of that Suit, helping that other player complete Mahjong with all same Suit.
3. If another player has Exposed three Melds of Terminals, and he discards or makes a Kong from an Exposed Pung of any Terminal, helping that other player complete Mahjong with Heads and Tails.
4. If another player has Exposed three Melds of Honors, and he discards or makes a Kong from an Exposed Pung of any Honor, helping that other player complete Mahjong with All Symbols.
5. If another player has Exposed three Melds of green tiles, and he discards or makes a Kong from an Exposed Pung of any green tile, helping that other player complete Mahjong with Imperial Jade.
6. If another player has Exposed two Melds of Dragons, and he discards or makes a Kong from an Exposed Pung of the third Dragon, helping that other player complete Mahjong with either all 3 Dragons in 2 Melds and 1 pair, 3 Dragons in 3 Melds or Three Great Scholars.
7. If another player has Exposed three Melds of Winds, and he discards or makes a Kong from an Exposed Pung of the fourth Wind, helping that other player complete Mahjong with either all 4 Winds in 3 Melds and 1 pair or Four Blessings Hovering Over the Door.
B. A player is exempted from letting off a cannon if:
1. A player claims no choice: If a player’s hand, after drawing from the Wall (but not after claiming a tile), consists only of dangerous tiles, he can briefly display his entire hand in order to be reprieved from any consequences of discarding or adding to an Exposed Pung.
2. Another player subsequently lets off another cannon affecting the same hand. (The other player becomes responsible.)
3. The discarded tile is used to form a Kong (since that does not help complete Mahjong).

SCORECARD
In order to assist in scoring, remembering terms and gambling payout procedures, I have developed a two-sided scorecard. (Its original size is 8.5”x11” landscape but I’m not sure how it will be formatted by blogspot.)




These rules rely heavily, but not exclusively, on the book The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg, by A.D. Millington. Paperback Ed. 1993.

Life Without

I don’t have particularly strong feelings regarding grocery shopping- I look at it as a necessary task, like washing dishes or taking out the trash. These things approach miserable only when postponed for too long. What I don’t like doing is price-checking, keeping track of coupons or haggling. I tend to go through a process of taste-testing every brand of a particular product and then insisting on purchasing the one I like best. If it’s out of stock, I tend to not purchase anything rather than substitute a brand I’ve already tried and don’t like.

My girlfriend and I are both vegetarians, and I usually do the shopping for both of us. We exclusively make home-cooked meals. I am competent at cooking a few things and she is quite good at a wide range of dishes. Our bill for food, beverages and toiletries, which also includes food for a large dog and food and litter for two cats, averages $128/week or $18.25/day. She thinks that’s a lot, but it doesn’t seem overly luxurious to me.

For some reason, I always seem to come home from the store with one incorrect item; something similar to what I intended to purchase but with overlooked fine (but usually large and prominent) print. Actual examples include: Pomegranate red wine vinegar instead of red wine vinegar, instant oatmeal instead of oatmeal, sweet onions instead of yellow onions, diet juice and juice drink instead of juice, stewed tomatoes instead of roasted tomatoes, diced green chiles instead of whole green chiles… the list goes on but you get the idea. “In our most trivial walks, we are constantly, though unconsciously, steering like pilots by certain well-known beacons and headlands, and if we go beyond our usual course we still carry in our minds the bearing of some neighboring cape; and not till we are completely lost, or turned round, –for a man needs only to be turned round once with his eyes shut in this world to be lost, –do we appreciate the vastness and strangeness of Nature.” –Henry David Thoreau, Walden

I dislike wasting food, and nearly always eat leftovers up until I can see mold growing. Actually, if it’s bread or cheese, I’ve been known to keep eating it after cutting the moldy parts off. “Yet, for my part, I was never unusually squeamish; I could sometimes eat a fried rat with a good relish, if it were necessary.” –Ibid.

I lived from ages 4-12 on an acreage where we raised our own crops, chickens and pigs and fostered horses. We got free hot school lunches and sometimes waited in line for big bricks of American cheese. I recently saw one of the boxes that cheese came in at a thrift store and found it very nostalgic. We shopped for toiletries and other things we didn’t produce ourselves at a strange warehouse full of damaged boxes. If there was an unopened box of something you wanted you simply found a box-cutter and got it out. I had a nice childhood. I mostly pretended to be a super hero while running around the farm or driving on the lawn mower. We went to the library once a week. I got a lot of Star Wars and G.I. Joe figures each birthday and Christmas and saved my $1-2/week allowance to buy G.I. Joe vehicles and a Swiss Army knife. We went on a one-week vacation once a year and frequently camped on weekends. I guess that’s why I’ve never been bothered by being poor. “In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we live simply and wisely.” –Ibid.

The other thing is; I feel the only ways to gain financial success are by working too much, getting lucky or being unethical. “The ways by which you may get money almost without exception lead downward.” –Thoreau, Life Without Principle

My parents taught me, by example, to value industriousness, dedication and self-sufficiency. I was also taught that conformity is a bad thing, which I’ve since discovered is rather unique. America reveres the rebel, the defining characteristic of which is a willingness to intentionally make mistakes, and Americans go to great lengths to attempt to emulate the non-conformist aesthetic. We even appreciate independent thinkers as long as they are venture capitalists. But having the integrity to not go along or agree with others is heavily frowned upon in our society. There’s this episode of South Park where Stan decides to rebel, and joins up with a group of Goth kids after they advise, “If you want to be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do.” In Hollywood, the outcast invariably aspires to become popular. Why is their rebel always insecure? I suggest it’s because they are considered nothing more than consumers.

Last night I watched Into The Wild (2007) and absolutely loved it. I remember not wanting to watch it when it came out, whining, “Oh boy, another drama about a Trustafarian kid looking like James Dean who runs off into the woods to “discover” himself- how original.” Considering my favorite book around third grade was My Side of the Mountain, I didn’t feel like I needed to see it.

Even as a child, I understood that not jumping on bandwagons, thinking with clarity, knowing how to survive alone and, perhaps most importantly, not caring whether other people liked you or not, were all part of being a true individual. Anybody motivated to impress, whether by obstinacy, audacity or originality, is a bullshitter. The non-conformist’s beliefs and actions are completely independent of others, which sometimes means doing or enjoying something despite its popularity. Demonstrating empathy can, and should, also be part of that equation; indeed that discovery in itself requires individualism, considering how heavily lobbied we are to be selfish. “I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for beside that before he has fairly learned it I may have found out another for myself, I desire that there be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father’s or his mother’s or his neighbor’s instead.” –Thoreau, Walden

An interesting choice is made in the movie that, because my favorite book is, in fact, Walden, stuck out to me like a sore thumb. The lead actor “paraphrases” (to quote the term he uses in the movie) Thoreau, and alludes to his line, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth,” but, in between love and money, he adds “faith.” WHAT? Are you fucking telling me you are going to misquote a tribute to truth? Oh, the irony. That occurrence profoundly illustrates the difficulty inherent to discovering truth- we are constantly compelled to twist it to conform to our desires. “Most with whom you endeavor to talk soon come to a stand against some institution in which they appear to hold stock, that is, some particular, not universal, way of viewing things.” –Thoreau, Life Without Principle

Perhaps the author or screenwriter intended to reflect that the main character did not realize truth without faith is unattainable, but surely that’s giving him or her too much credit and it was really just added to portray the character as an atheist and confusing atheism for nihilism. Either way, it instead portrays Thoreau as a bloviating fool. His works are already taken out of context enough as it is; afterall, his essay about economic living and enjoying simplicity within walking distance of a thriving metropolitan area is somehow taken as encouragement to run off into the wilderness and eat poison berries.

I recently spent a couple weeks unemployed. The only income I managed to gather came through selling some practically worthless items on ebay. As I had gotten rid of nearly every superfluous thing I own just over two years ago, I didn’t have much to sell. This made me contemplate the concept of needs versus wants, and how there is such a huge subjective gray area between them. It really irks me how loosely the phrase, “I have to have this!” is thrown around. I have, throughout the years, managed to scrape together the funds for indulgences such as three meals per day, hot running water, contact lenses, a used vehicle and gently used thrift store jeans. It’s been a long time since I’ve purchased a new outerwear item, but if underwear is any indication, it’s way over-priced. I think Levis are a bit of a rip-off at $5.38 and I only buy a pair or two per year.

Some things others might consider needs that I have seldom, if ever, been able to afford include doctor and dental check-ups, haircuts and television. I am fortunate to have been gifted the two computers I have owned. I can stretch a one-year contact prescription to three. I am very grateful that free public libraries exist. I long ago gave up purchasing superfluous items like hair conditioner and after-shave. I’ve never owned a vehicle with working air conditioning, and only seldom one that retained windshield washer fluid. I feel like these trivial sacrifices are pretty familiar ones to a lot of people, and yet, I feel like a lot of people are embarrassed by having to make them. That, to me, is the sad part. Shouldn’t those wastefully indulging in every little thing while lacking the capacity to imagine how they could survive without them be the ones who are ashamed? “No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in his clothes; yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience.” –Thoreau, Walden

Admittedly, a lot of these concessions have been made in order to save money for tattoos, which is ridiculous and shows how un-destitute I actually am. “If within the sophisticated man there is not an unsophisticated one, then he is but one of the devil’s angels.” –Thoreau, Life Without Principle

One fortuitous happenstance is that my unemployment coincided with my tax return, which I used to pay off the remainder of my debt. This had been incurred in December of 2009 due to plane ticket purchases coinciding with unanticipated vehicle repairs. I am very thankful I don’t have school loans, car loans or a mortgage to repay. I loathe indebtedness; it is a euphemism for indentured servitude. “Cold and hunger seem more friendly to my nature than those methods which men have adopted and advise to ward them off.” –Ibid.

Several years ago, struggling to make ends meet while living in Oakland, I walked to the mainstream grocery store across the street after work to get what I could to survive on until payday with the $20 I had left to my name. I usually got my food from the dented, damaged and expired store, but it was a bit out of the way. Among the few items I had decided to get was peanut butter, but the only brand this store sold that didn’t contain added sugar was a large jar that was over $6. I really do not care for sugar, but mulled over the options for several minutes pondering whether it was worth spending the extra money to avoid it. I decided to stand by my culinary laurels and splurge, and after receiving mere cents back from the clerk, I walked out of the store and down the sidewalk toward my car parked a few blocks away. Suddenly, I heard a crack, and looked down to see that jar of peanut butter spilling onto the sidewalk. My bag had ripped and the glass jar had shattered. I contemplated turning the jar upside-down and salvaging what I could, but quickly realized it was full of shards. The realization that I no longer had enough money to buy even the cheap, sugar-laden option hit me like bricks and I began to sob. I felt as if my entire existence was worth less than that broken jar. I thought about returning to the store and asking for a replacement, but it didn’t seem right to try and hold them responsible for my carelessness. I scooped what I could into a nearby trash can and went home.

Some months later, I moved to Portland, Oregon. I anticipated this would lead to new musical opportunities and had compiled a list of musicians to meet when I arrived, several of which were scheduled to perform at an event space a week after fitting all the belongings I could into my station wagon and driving ten hours to live with some guy I’d met on Craigslist who immediately scolded me for showing up while he was eating dinner. Traveling expenses, rent and deposit meant I would have no money at all while desperately looking for a job. Admission to this event space gig was $6, which I hoped would pay off in musician contacts possibly leading to gig bookings, etc. I still had an ash-tray full of coins in my Saturn reserved for paying parking meters in the Bay Area, and I fished $6 out of it, which ended up being mostly nickels and dimes, as any quarters that had been there had already served their purpose. I then apologetically dumped this pile of change onto the card-table at the entrance. The girl working the cash-box, I’d soon learn, was named Whitney. We would become friends and hang out often for the next several months until she moved to New York City, and is among the most genuine, generous, kind-hearted, non-judgmental and, as an aside, talented persons I have ever met.

I guess all this is to say I feel very grateful that I now have two jobs. I am lucky to be able to drive to a store and purchase food. We have a small garden that produces things like basil to make pesto with all summer. My girlfriend taught me how to make pretty phenomenal pesto. Perhaps most of all, I am glad that I don’t have to look very far to realize there are many things more important than recognition, money and the like. “The ways in which most men get their living, that is, live, are merely make-shifts, and a shirking of the real business of life- chiefly because they do not know, but partly because they do not mean, any better.” –Ibid.

Act Up

“I think that we're showing the proper compassion and concern, so I can't tell you where [the widespread feeling that our administration is not doing enough about AIDS is] coming from, but I am very much concerned about AIDS and I believe that we’ve got the best researchers in the world out there at NIH working the problem. We're funding them- I wish there was more money, but we're funding them far more than anytime in the past.... So I think the appeal is, 'Yes, we care,' and the other thing is, part of AIDS it’s one of the few diseases where behavior matters, and I once called on somebody, ‘Well, change your behavior- if the behavior you’re using [is] prone to cause AIDS, change the behavior.’ The next thing I know one of these Act Up groups is out saying, ‘Bush ought to change his behavior.’ You can’t talk about it rationally!” - George Bush, first presidential debate, 1992


I grew up in a Pentecostal church, which surrounded me with dedicated people holding strong convictions. I also grew up in America in the 80’s, when millions of lives were being lost to the AIDS epidemic. At that time, my church and my government had the same policy: AIDS wasn’t the problem, homosexuality was.

My church preached that AIDS had been allowed by God as a punishment upon immoral sinners. The only cure was for these sinners to turn from their wicked ways and accept Jesus as their eternally loving and forgiving savior. Church-goers prayed, not for the disease to be cured, but for homosexuals to stop being gay.

It seems absurd that I should even have to explain how this is totally psychotic.

I don’t know how many of these people ever got to know anyone with full-blown AIDS. I have, and let me tell you, the symptoms of the disease are absolutely appalling. You don’t sit at their bedside and think, “I hope they don’t die.” Instead, you mortifyingly find yourself thinking, “How aren’t they dead yet?” and realize death isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The experience is profound, sad and humbling. AIDS is a disease you want not wish upon your greatest enemy… unless you were totally heartless.

Heartless is a term we use the way we do because Aristotle thought the heart controlled our sensory-perceptions and movements (and that the brain regulated blood temperature), and consequently our heart both evaluated our environment and determined our actions. In fact, the single reason why Western medical practices didn’t evolve for centuries was because of a persistent, unquestioning faith in Aristotle’s works on anatomy and medicine, which, it turns out, were completely wrong. When a solution to a problem is presented by a highly regarded source, it never occurs to most to question or validate that solution, even when it is completely unfounded or doesn’t actually solve anything.

The constitutional government of the United States of America, being a direct result of the Age of Enlightenment, understood this, and was designed with a system of checks and balances in order to force it to question itself and not rely on any single authority, including religious authority. In fact, the First Amendment forbids any law to be made as a result of religious bias and grants all individuals the right to practice whatever religion they choose, as opposed to officially declaring one superior to another. There is a very simple reason why this is a good thing, and it was incidentally stated by my mother when I mentioned I was writing this: Religions do not offer the possibility that they can be wrong. This explains both why religious people don’t understand how everybody doesn’t agree with them and why non-religious people don’t understand how religious people are so persistent. (It is worth noting that the framers of the Constitution were understandably less concerned with authoritarianism than in another rebellion. Hence, it was also designed to avoid mob rule.)

There is nothing greater to be feared than an entity that does not concede the possibility it can be wrong, except for those willing to unreservedly accept its teaching. Blind obedience to authority is the quickest route to committing abominable acts, because when we are simply following orders, we do not feel as culpable for our own actions. This is not simply my opinion: it is a well-researched psychological fact demonstrated, for example, by the Milgram experiments.

Pickpockets don’t steal by distracting you from your valuables; they do it by drawing your attention to something seemingly more important than your valuables. We are incapable of perceiving things outside of our focus. The simplest method for bringing about human cruelty is to distract humans from empathy by presenting something seemingly more important.

There is a documentary by Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov, the premise of which is to ask his daughter the same five questions on each of her birthdays. This seems innocent enough, except this was being done during a time when it was illegal to shoot home movies in the Soviet Union. Mikhalkov justifies his subversion because he is convinced of the importance of an honest, uncensored understanding of how government policies affect the views of (at least one of) its citizens. At one point, however, he begrudgingly scraps the project, realizing it could be putting his daughter in danger. His explanation of this decision is sublime: “No idea is worth life of child.”

I feel the most important thing for everyone to understand is that none of our beliefs, ideologies, notions, actions, activities, pursuits, assumptions, theories, etc. should ever be considered more important or valid than any single living human being. When a human life is in the balance, every opinion is always less important than that life, and that life takes priority over every opinion. You don’t have to approve of a lifestyle, relate to a culture or agree with a point of view in order to evince unconditional respect and solidarity for humankind.

I recently heard contempt defined as displaying moral superiority, and that is precisely the person I find most contemptible. (Interestingly, the judicial use of contempt refers to someone who blatantly disregards authority.) This is a paradox I find myself struggling to reconcile, because I would have to honestly admit that I feel I am morally superior to those who feel they are morally superior. Perhaps this demonstrates a truth that we should all be wary of: everyone is capable of not only justifying but actually committing atrocities. None of us are immune to conviction’s ability to blind. I don’t know whether evil exists, but I am convinced its antonym is informed empowerment.

Dogmatic, socially conservative and exploitative people, to name a few, tend to fear education. Unfamiliar culture, art, literature, language, music, sport and food are avoided and disdained by those who want to maintain the status quo. This sort of egocentricity should never be trusted, because it is always guided by ulterior motives. It is, in fact, NOT a small world, but a diverse and complicated one, and that scares the crap out of a lot of people.

Judging the American generation that came after the baby boomers as having no wars to fight is skewed. The reality is that the privilege to choose whether or not to join in the battles their generation faced was offered to a wider percentage of Americans, especially white, middle-class, non-socialist, heterosexual males. There will always be those whose greatest concern is to avoid confrontation. There is a word for those people: cowards. This does not apply to subversives who skillfully avoid getting caught. Tact is an admirable trait that appreciates the importance of understanding the appropriate time for action. Too often, however, days, weeks, years, decades and even centuries go by with nary a person riling against a wrong. Cowards are those who feel every problem can be circumvented by patting themselves and others on the back and saying, “good job!”

Heroes, on the other hand, are those in groups like Act Up, who, in defiance of authority, sought out and negotiated ways to expedite the search for AIDS treatments, ultimately saving millions of lives.