early thesis thoughts

the high points of my thesis

for anyone curious, i'm currently preparing a master's thesis in a program called 'francophone literatures and media resonance'. in my case what this means, in layman's terms, is that i study twitter. specifically, i'm out to investigate the theory that social media reflects and interprets the social discourse in a similar way as did literature over the last 150 years.  let's define some terms.

'social media' refers to the ensemble of online communications where readers are also writers. when you read a book, you can't write content into it. when you listen to the radio, you have no control over what the station is playing. you can't control what is shown on tv, and if you try, you'll get edited out. however, on twitter, facebook, reddit, or wikipedia, for example, reader contribution is absolutely fundamental, and previous similar networks have fallen apart when contributions ceased. in traditional media, there is a production company, publishing house, or broadcast network that frames and directs (you could say 'narrates') the message. this framer/director/narrator is the simple architecture of the site- it governs the form, but not the content, of the message.

'social discourse' refers to the whole ensemble of everything said and/or written down in a society. it includes political discourse, economic, literary, judiciary, artistic, poetic, linguistic, gender, and all other discourses. this discourse can be conceived of, but not perceived, by any individual reader/writer (who is anchored to her own social-economic-political-cultural circumstances). All readers/writers contribute to it, and their contributions are informed by it, by 'that thick is communicable'. thus the social discourse informs, and is informed by, the entirety of a society's information output. 

finally, when i say 'literature' i really mean the comic novel, which, in a french context, we can trace back to about as far as the railway paperback in the mid 19th century. one critical interest of the novel is that many multiple characters speak different opinions, in different ways, leading the 'hero', the subject of the story, to or from his goal. in the case of the novel though, these characters are all created and narrated by one singular author (or a group of authors not comprising all readers), edited by a singular editor (or group of editors, again not comprising all readers). the novel, like social media, can be described as 'radically permeable' to social discourse.

so why study such a thing? it's interesting because we know a lot about the ways in which traditional media influence the way we speak, act, and think, but we have very little idea about how social media do. part of this is because they are so new- few predate the 21st century. however, if we can identify structural differences between examples of social media and equivalent examples of traditional media (eg. wikipedia v. encyclopaedia, craiglist v. classified ads, reddit v. messenger boards, and most controversially fb and twitter v. realist comic novels), we might come up with, if not answers, some more pertinent questions.

because let's be clear- social media is revolutionary, and its just as well, because we live in revolutionary times. there are big changes that need to happen in our relationships: foremost with the environment, and then with other human beings throughout the world. the last four years have shown us a social and economic system encountering its natural limits, resulting in persistent injustice. if our social discourse is read by traditional media, we are lost- repeating the same talking points, remaking the same stories, and being directed by fewer and fewer conglomerates. things will continue as they are until their inevitable collapse.

in the social media, however, there is new talk. when the structures erected by the publisher, the network, or the editor are removed, each person is free to engage on equal ground with others. there is bleedthrough from the social discourse: Barack Obama is going to be a celebrity on twitter whether his tweets are good or not. The signs and signals erected by traditional media are not evacuated from the social. They are, however, reinterpreted and repurposed.

I put together a couple of papers this fall (in French) concerning specific examples of funny things on Twitter, as well as outlining its basic format, functionality, and grammar. I reference the works of Saussure, Barthes, Bakhtine, Collot, and Genette, among others, as well as the tweets of  Donald Trump, Hurricane Sandy, the rock on Mars what Curiosity blowed up, and many more besides. I establish a) that twitter is a linguistic, if not entirely literary, system, b) that twitter is radically permeable to the surrounding social discourse, and c) that some discursive properties of Twitter are user-generated, while others emerge from the interactions of content generated by different users. 

from these conclusions, we can ask some interesting questions. what happens semantically when a profile representing a real person interacts with one representing a fictional/dead one, considering their respective places in the social discourse (when i pray to God on Twitter, does he reply?)? How can one discern the significance of a given tweet considering the multitude of ways its author could intend it (U fucking kidding me Pope?)? how do hypertext and hashtags influence the way a tweet is composed (Why do people use hashtags on Facebook?)? In short, what can social media tell us about social discourse that we could not know otherwise?

Hopefully, some answers, or at least some more pertinent questions, will follow.

Help Sami Sheikh!

Everyone should go check out www.samicheznous.ca- long story short, Sami was born in the United Arab Emirates and grew up, from the age of 12, in Montreal. He is now 24 years old: his native languages are English and French, he has completed post-secondary education, has an employer prepared to sponsor him, and pays his taxes like every other Canadian. It appears, however, that due to an omission on his parents' initial refugee application, an omission that he can in no way be held responsible for, he is to be deported imminently to Pakistan: a country whose language he does not speak, where he has no close friends or family, and where his life could potentially be in danger.

This situation is pretty outrageous, and it's obvious Sami should be allowed to stay. He is as Canadian as you or I, and has contributed just as much (if not more) to this country than either of us. Please write, tweet, wuphf or whatever Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, your local MP, and any other politician you can think of who might help him stay at home in Canada with us, and let them know that Canada welcomes Sami and wants him here.

If you like, please copy and paste the letter below, and send it to:

Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney at:  Minister@cic.gc.ca

and

Prime Minister Stephen Harper at: pm@pm.gc.ca

Please also feel free to hit up 

Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Opposition at: thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca

and if you're feeling very feisty:

Justin Trudeau, MP for Papineau (Sami's MP) at: justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

The letter:

Dear ________

I write you to call to your attention the matter of Sami Sheikh, a man who was born in the United Arab Emirates and grew up, from the age of 12, in Montreal. He is now 24 years old: his native languages are English and French, he has completed post-secondary education, has an employer prepared to sponsor him, and pays his taxes like every other Canadian. It appears, however, that due to an omission on his parents' initial refugee application, an omission that he can in no way be held responsible for, he is to be deported imminently to Pakistan: a country whose language he does not speak, where he has no close friends or family, and where his life could potentially be in danger.

Mr. ________, I ask that you take every measure possible to normalize this situation, and to allow Mr. Sheikh to remain at home with us in Canada. He is the very model of a modern, integrated, educated immigrant, and his success is a testament to the strength of our inclusive society. I am one of many voters who feel strongly about this issue, and hope sincerely that it attracts your urgent attention.

Best regards,

Why I'm a Young Anglo Immigrant Voting for Quebec Solidaire

If you're like many people my age, you are struck, from time to time, by a sense of dread about the future. The trendlines are negative- we are deforesting, cultivating, and polluting the land like no society before us. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer- traditional middle class jobs making things people need are shipped overseas, leaving many poorly-paid service and very few highly-paid management positions in their wake. Our elected officials attack each other while sweeping problems under the rug. Almost everywhere in the world, young people feel disenfranchised, ignored; sometimes they are attacked outright for having the temerity to call for the end of exploitative practices in every field.

On Tuesday, September 4, we can take a step in the right direction in Quebec. No-one needs to tell you that none of the 'three main' parties will do nothing to save us from the ongoing global economic and environmental crises. The PLQ are hopelessly corrupt and have been playing defense. They gambled that taking a hard line against the student strike would win them the election- they banked on the rentrée being bloody, to show more clearly his resolve- and lost. The students went back to class, knowing that with a new government coming soon, they will soon need a new approach.

The PQ and the CAQ are both weathervanes, although in different alloys of reactionary. The PQ have made 'identity politics' their bag this campaign, with predictable results. The people who feel most threatened in 'their identity' are members of the majority in their own communities- that is to say, white, Catholic francophones living in majority white Catholic francophone areas. Parachuting a Muslim candidate into a semi-rural riding is convenient cover, yes, but proposing to end the right to a CEGEP education in English, forcing all companies with more than 10 employees to speak exclusively French, and banning all religious symbols from public buildings (except the massive crucifix in the National Assembly) are all propositions to weaken the vitality of minority communities thereby, somehow, enriching French. This is a dangerous road to walk- most Quebeckers I know, when they think of an independent Quebec, envision a modern, progressive, pluralistic country, with respect and tolerance for all. With these the stated goals of the PQ, are they really the party to lead us to that kind of country?

The CAQ, rather than defining their campaign in terms of religious, cultural, and linguistic identity, are making their stand on 'the economy'. Their position on sovereignty is 'wait and see', but they do promise to get every Quebecker a family doctor by next year (how?), making school run from 9-5, to better suit working parents (what?) all while lowering taxes for individuals and companies! This feat of economic antigravity is possible, Mr. Legault assures us, because of all the spending currently being wasted by corruption and collusion. The only interesting thing about the CAQ is that they are the 'not-Liberal' alternative for those voters put off by Marois' heritage sideshow, and who are more interested in 'the economy' than 'independence'.

So Anglos can vote for the CAQ because they aren't really separatist, and francophones can vote 'Not Liberal' in two ways, depending on how much danger they feel Quebec society is in. Now there is an analogy to be drawn between the CAQ and the NDP, but also a distinction. The analogy is that both parties faced a decrepit incumbent out of touch with contemporary values and priorities (Charest and Harper), and an uninspiring opposition who don't propose to do anything substantively different, but who make a lot of noise about how awful the incumbent is (Marois and Ignatieff). The distinction is that NDP values are Quebec values- progressivism, communitarianism, tolerance, and fairness- whereas the CAQ's values are- elusive. Whereas voters could feel good about ticking their ballot for le bon Jack, voting for a peanut seller is harder to swallow.

So, pretty hopeless. Nothing to counteract our feeling that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, nothing looking likely to pull us out of a nosedive into calamity. But then, a challenger appears.

I have been blown away in the last four weeks at the sheer number of people who are unaware of the very existence of Quebec Solidaire. I've been asked if it's a wing of the PQ, whether it's the communist party- all sorts of ridiculous distortions. But no- QS is the progressive alternative to the three main parties, with a realistic, albeit radical platform to start taking serious steps to save our world. Let's deconstruct.

The first thing to clarify concerns sovereignty. Yes, Quebec Solidaire is a 'sovereigntist' party. Keep reading. QS is a party of diversity and inclusivity- not all members of QS are sovereigntist, and not all sovereigntists have the same ideas about the specifics of independence. QS recognizes that the process of separation should be done once, and done properly. Now, even the most hardline federalist must recognize the right of any people to self-determination, the consent of the governed being crucial to any democracy. QS have laid out the fairest possible roadmap, informed by the experiences of countless other independentist movements worldwide- elect a citizen's assembly, draft a constitution, then put the constitution to a referendum. We will have our say many, many times before anything even goes to a vote- and QS celebrates the right of all citizens to vote how they want to of their own free conscience.

This aside, the rest of the platform is exactly what we need. It's radical to build 50 000 units of social housing, and it's radical to pay for free schooling with a capital gains tax levied only on financial institutions. It's radical to do environmental assessments on big projects planned up north, and radical to suggest that our natural resources be used for the common benefit, and not the profit of speculators and shareholders. It's radical to guarantee a minimum income to all citizens to provide for their basic needs. It's radical to electrify Montreal's transit. We live in radical times, and radical solutions are needed.

QS proposes to start the real work of reforming our society. They don't just differ from the other parties in terms of policy- they differ in worldview. Close to half their candidates are women. Many work in the community and non-profit sector, giving them real understandings of the challenges faced by ordinary people. QS proposes that we all work to help each other- not just to line our own pockets, but to protect and preserve our beautiful land for generations to come. The other parties are wrapped up in the short-term thinking symptomatic of big companies, afraid to spook the shareholders with a disruptive, innovative vision of the path to come. QS is thinking about building a Quebec which can be sustained, and which can be held up as an example to the world.

QS is the party of inclusion. They will help artists and make education truly accessible, both better ways of defending the French language than banning English. They will make it a priority to integrate immigrants not by erasing their culture and overwriting it with the dominant one, but by stitching newcomers into the tapestry. They will actually take the protection of the environment seriously, and the importance of this point in 2012 cannot be overstated. And in many, many ridings, they could win. If you live in Montréal, September 4, vote for QS. In Quebec City, Sherbrooke- anywhere that people who share the progressive vision congregate, vote for QS. Don't vote against someone- vote for a positive vision of the future. Together, it can happen.

An Election Endorsement -- Quebec Solidaire 2012

An Election Endorsement

So, an election is happening in Quebec. It's now, and whether the world ends before Christmas or not we'd be best to have some idea of what we're getting ourselves into. Last election, I waited until the end to endorse, but this time, I'm getting out de l'avance. There is more at stake here than a simple checkbox, and we can't allow this opportunity to go to waste- we have marched in the thousands demanding elections, and here they are.

As always, let's make some assumptions. Assume that your personal political project is to bring about a fair, equitable society, where no-one struggles to meet their basic material needs, and where everyone has access to a robust social support network helping them achieve their personal goals over the whole course of their life. Assume that you oppose coercion, force, violence, and repression in all their forms, and that the only legitimate way to bring about lasting change is with your ballot, which cannot exist independent of a free, fair, and open electoral system.

Assume that you live in a stable, mature society which could realistically implement most or all of the projects necessary to bring it about this vision on a meaningful scale, at a meaningful pace. Assume that if you and the thousands like you fail, you risk the complete obliteration of modern civilization as we know it, and you yourself personally will watch waves wash away Miami and the clouds turning black as coal and-

Too much to assume, maybe. But assuming that you are in favour of an equitable social program, and that you do believe that we're getting into 'now or never' territory, your options might seem pretty dire. The Liberals have been in power forever, the party is mired in corruption and collusion, and a major reason we're all so sure there's going to be an election in the first place is that the really greasy stuff is going to start oozing from the Commission into this very same corruption in the Fall. His handling of the student strike was pitiful, and as several other commentators have noted, he seems to have been motivated in major part by political gain. He is out, whether he's 'the federalist' or not.

Touching the PQ in a blog post in English is like picking up a live grenade, so I'll just gently toss it along by saying that Pauline's central plank is that Quebec should separate post-haste from Canada, and that this is not an approach I favour. Your mileage may vary. The ADQ, I mean the Québécor party, I mean the CAQ, is, you guessed it, a joke. Their principal contribution to the sovereignty question is "Do nothing for ten years!" Their approach to tuition? "Raise fees by 25% less!" If these are the solutions they favour, they apparently don't understand the problems.

Which brings us to Québec Solidaire, and my endorsement. Now, don't get me wrong, in a good number of places they're both going to get creamed- that's not the point. This is the party fighting for a real change to the status quo. This is the party who understands fairness and community. This is the party stacked with folks who feel like you and I do about the future, and our place within it. This is a vote for a positive change, just like, dare I say, the NDP in 2011.

Now I hear you, this party is nominally sovereigntist, so doesn't this make them toxic like the PQ? In a word: no. QS' position is to initiate sovereignty proceedings once the social project is accomplished- once, in other words, we live in a free and fair society. Once our dream is realized, do I care about whose face is on my postage stamp, so long as that face shares my dreams for society? Besides, the point is obvious- no 'sovereigntist' politician can do anything to break up my country, because if or when the day comes, I will have my voice, my ballot, and every citizen theirs. The people will decide who will rule them, as is just and proper.

No, the PQ is not toxic because they are sovereigntist, they are toxic because they are not progressive. If QS are nominal sovereigntists, then the PQ are nominal leftists- their well-entrenched structure has an interest in the maintenance of their privileged position in Quebec society, as inheritors of the Quiet Revolution and as someday kings of their castle. The PQ is not interested in defending Quebec from the hand of international capital, with its drive towards the bottom line at a break back pace. The PQ is not interested, excuse me, in the folks like me that come to Quebec because it is the best example of a rich, modern, multicultural society, but rather they see seem to see Montréal's cultural tapestry as an aberration to be corrected, and not a model to be emulated for the 21st century.

I paraphrase myself from April 2011: My Quebec is a place where no-one wonders where their next meal will come from, how they will pay their tuition, or where they'll spend a week of January nights. My Quebec is not about unlimited material wealth, it is about unlimited opportunity. The only party I trust to fight for these goals on my behalf is Quebec Solidaire. The only party filled with people and ideas strongly connected to my communities- the arts community, the youth community, and the student community, to name a few- is Quebec Solidaire.

Over the next month, we will be harangued by shit from all quarters. Social justice will be demeaned as communism, respect will be taken for weakness, and ideas will be eaten in soundbites. We have to keep our eyes on the prize, and use what little power we have to send a message. This election campaign, let's move. Let's get our vision out there. Let's inject our voice into the debate, and amplify those who truly speak on our behalf. Let's do more, in fact, than send a message- let's win.

Quebec, together.

the part of the police

there's no easy way to say 'manifestation' in english. it is a noun rendered of a verb without object: it is not a protest (against) or a demonstration (to). it is an idea, a feeling- a chorus of emotions made manifest in shared public space. one person can manifest and indeed often does- pouting, screaming, singing, dancing, (fucking) and fighting are all physical manifestations of emotional states.

But just as there is a difference between drizzle and downpour, there is an important difference between these fleeting emotional manifestations and the more durable ones which have rolled through downtown montréal every night for the last month. The police, as we understand them, are mostly able to manage small 'domestic disturbances' or some drunks slugging each other on the Main, but how do these police responses scale?

For example, when the cops roll up to a suburban house because the neighbours heard screaming, they are walking into a situation dominated by emotion. They have no way of knowing the dynamics at work in the home they are visiting, and these dynamics are heavily influenced by cultural, linguistic, and historical factors. The police have only one real weapon in their arsenal which could avoid setting off a powder keg (if one were to be present); this being capital-R reason.

The badge, the hat, the patrol car- the sigils and signifiers of the police- all make appeal to the law of the land, which, in our constitutionally democratic belief system, is the product of sober reflection and Reason only. They make clear the legal consequences of any actions which may be taking place, and enforce those consequences as necessary. As always, for the safety of all concerned, a responsible police officer will seek to de-escalate the situation at all turns, dialling screaming down to shouting down to talking down to calm.

Again, how does this scale? It is first important to point out that the night marches are the emotional manifestation of a generation malaise- a creeping terror of the future which is being strip-mined as we speak, paired with institutions which ridicule their concerns. A sign last night read 'nous sommes devenus des bêtes féroces d'espoir'. When you ignore a child, the child will act out- the solution is neither to cave completely nor to continue ignoring, but rather to identify the problem and consider solutions.

In this context, consider now the effects of certain possible police measures on a crowd of 10 000 young people who already feel marginalized from their society's political discourse:

1. Ignore the manifestants: they will manifest harder. Certain radical elements will commit acts of violence to call attention to their demands, and as the silence from the institution persists, more and more people will join in their frustration. This will inevitably lead to:

2. Meet them with force: sound cannons, tear gas, water jets, rubber bullets- the kit. This again will do nothing but radicalize the group- as acts of physical violence are committed against individual manifestants who have not personally aggressed the police, the violent sentiment will escalate. If de-escalation promotes everyone's safety, what does escalation do?

The only sensible option is 3. Don't Panic. Encourage the main bulk of the march to keep together and keep moving, while isolating trouble spots off to the side where possible, or farther along the route if necessary, Commit to meeting violent elements with less violence than they themselves have used, in the hopes of de-motivating further violent acts by others.

It is imperative to note that the police themselves can do nothing to address the demands of the protestors. The only folks who can do anything to calm this situation are the government- they should annul the Loi 78 before it is struck down by a Charter Challenge and freeze tuition at present levels until at least Fall '13, while calling a Public Inquiry into the management of Québec's universities and the future of their funding to decide the question permanently.

Failing that, Charest démissionne- call elections and find a job up north.

So you want to leverage your student strike

Let's just say that you're a young person- a student. Let's just say that you already struggle to pay your bills and keep up with your studies. Let's add that you are a good student, and that by putting lots of time and energy into grasping new concepts you have made progress in your field, and set yourself up for future accomplishments. Let's also say, though, that you are not a great student- and that diverting time from your studies would have a serious, even fatal, impact on your learning.

Let's add to this a hypothetical proposal in the works to raise your tuition to a point where you would have to work nearly full time to afford it, while still paying for other helpful study tools like food, a bed, and papers. You, good, but not great, student, now have a choice- you can stay in school and spend less time at it, making less progress, or you can lower your admittedly high standard of living (what with your bed, your clothes, and your meat and fresh vegetables five times a week).

And so after all that, let's just say that you, hypothetical student, refuse to participate in an academic system which you feel is bound to exploit you. You strike. So let's think about this. What happens if students don't attend class? 

Well, I'll be honest, I don't know. But there will be a lot of young people milling about in the street at all hours, which the State hates. This is lucky, because the aim is justly to force State action by showing such massive popular discontent that elected officials have to respond to it. (Sidebar: Some less civically-minded people will try to force a response through violence. Don't bother: the State is better than you at violence.)

Now, this is fine. For students, the day-to-day world is the Academy. The majority spend most of their days at the academy building, and engage in most of their conversations with other academics. The topics are often academic as well. A global refusal to take part in the communion of class- in the cours magistrale where the pantomime of learning takes place- is shattering. 

But let's expand our thought experiment. It is not just in education where this hypothetical government has dominion. It directs your health care, including mental health and elder care. It defines your law, and maintains your prisons. It decides with you you are at war, and with peace. It runs the extraction and exploitation of shared natural resources. You can tear down the walls of the Academy, but there will be a lot of the city still standing.

This is the problem- by acting along one axis, the State can simply isolate your concerns and address them, without addressing the systemic causes and tangental issues. By acting along one axis, the Media can portray you as an Other, and spin your demands any which way. By addressing one problem, and one problem only, you allow yourself to be marginalized and trivialized. 

And so the trick is leverage.

You are a student, but you are not just a student. You are a protestor, but you are not just protesting tuition fee hikes, you are protesting a system which restricts access to the joy of discovery. You are a person who is interested in sharing the wealth of a society- not just its material riches, but its art, culture, history, and poetry; its psyche, energy, passion, and flow. 

You are so much more than one person protesting one issue, but the longer you are held in a box, the harder it is to break out. (You are, in fact, a node in an impossibly large web which connects all history and human experience, but that's a topic for later.) You already have the power to reach out and share the joy of learning, the joy of self-expression, to others from every walk of life. Your gift doesn't require expensive materials, or an enormous, purpose-built space- it is something instinctively passed from person to person, as knowledge always has been.

And so don't be confined. Don't let yourselves believe that only students understand your cause, and that only students share your struggle. It is not just in education where the small players are asked to pay bigger shares, while the biggest do what they will. It is not about tuition- it is not about user fees or two-tier or mandatory minimums. It is about justice. 

Use this time. Make connections, build bridges. There are people in high places sympathetic to our common cause, a sustainable society shared in by all, and they can help us. There are people in every bus, in every grocery store, in every park, who share this goal. The longer we see ourselves as isolated minorities, struggling for our principles, the harder it is to see that our struggle is universal, and that our goals are possible.

GGI 

Intermission : 2012

A brief intermission. A lot has happened.

It's happened- it's 2012 ; it's the future. It's time.

I speak to you, my fellow 'young people', my fellow, oh, eighty-fives through ninety-twos. You know the sort. We remeber distinctly our first old computers, our ensixty-fours- we remember when one went, for example, 'on the Internet'. We remember the time when we were (how does one say) discrete. When our image, our person, our 'authentic self' was tied up directly in the moment that we lived in.

Minus a few insurance databases or bank records, divided by a few celebrities and public figures, a person existed only in one place. If you wanted to know facts about about a person's life, or their tastes in shoes or experiences, you would have to have asked them. Maybe a very close friend. You could have called the fixed telephone line in their house at the absolute limit, but it was no substitute for the real thing. The earliest that this crazy far-flung intercommunication action-at-distance thing would have been reasonably possible across continents is now about a hundred years past. Call it 1912.

Too obtuse? Consider your options for attaining, say, a Bible in rural Germany in 1512 and then again in 1612. In the first case, you are paying a fortune. You need to pay someone to get your hand on a copy to transcribe, and then pay for someone to survive the task you put put for them. It probably took a long-ass time. A mere hundred years later, you can simply stroll into any Hölybookprinterßhoppe in town and buy a dozen. It took like a day to make. There's a stack of them, though it is admittedly revised. Now this is a long time ago, but it's worth reflecting on the astounding ease of the task in 2012.

In 2012, we are in constant communion. Our lives are accessed without our knowledge, we are snared within the Great Web, that web which desribes the sum total of all interactions, convergences, and breaks with all other people, and those peoples' relationships with each other. We don't communicate with our voices anymore. We communicate as we breathe. Automatically. We passively communicate more vividly, richly and in detail than any natural display. If my Facebook, or LinkedIn, or G+ or whatever other plumage doesn't convey enough, you can e-mail me or message or Skype. Fuck 1912.

God-willing, our great-grandchildren will look back on our hopeless bumbling technical helplessness and laugh. Their lives will be so comfortable, I hope, that they will know no want, or fear of the future. But in 2012, one thing is clear. This world, the world of our parents and our grandparents, set in motion by the actions of our great-grandparents who themselves were born in a world with no electricity, roads, or rails, is attacking that of our grandchildren.

Forget ourselves. We are complicit. We are complicit in the consumerist system and all it takes is ten minutes on Facebook or Friendster whatever to confirm my suspicions. We buy things made in China because they're cheaper, we put things we can't afford on credit cards. We do not exist outside the destructive system wasting our resources on trinkets and missiles while the biosphere hangs in the balance. It's ok. We didn't make this world. We inherited it.

And so, eightyfives through ninetythrees, the only question that is left is what world our great-grandchildren will inherit from us. Whether it is a blasted hellscape or cozy paradise is up to us. We can't undone what's been did, but we can stop it. We are the bridge between the century of the Self, which lost its mind in the trenches, and the century of the Whole, which we are now embarking on. Make no mistake- the whole world, not merely our species but the whole of the biosphere itself is in play.

If we are to fight for our greatgrandkids' inheritance, of cold winter nights following the long languid turning of the leaves, of truly experiencing the real natural world of our own greatgrandparents and forever back, an experience that all people, by virtue of their existence are blessed with.

If we do not strive actively, in every field, to minimize the harm we do to the world, and redirect the existing systems we are responsible for, there will be nothing else. We know that everything, everything in our modern world is unsustainble, and by definition we don't have long to correct the problem.

In 2012, I will act as part of the Whole, as a Whole being interacting with the whole world, and with trillions of feather touches steering the avalanche away from the town. I will respect and listen to others. I will give freely of my patience. I will try to understand the way the world works now the better to change it. If I do not, or if I am alone, then all is lost.