Blog is Moving!

Please be advised that this blog is now defunct, and will be removed in seven days.

Regular readers are invited to keep reading at torontrealis.wordpress.com.

Thank you!

Hockey is dead, long live hockey!

So in the wee hours of this morning, a deal was finally struck to 'save' hockey for the year. Yes, the owners and the players have finally decided on a way to split their huge fat stacks between them 'equitably', and everyone is willing to lace up, open the gates, and give the crowd what they want.The thousands of ordinary Canadians, small-business owners, service employees, and others who depend on the league, and its famous Stanley Cup tournament, for their livelihoods can return to work. But this return is different: the NHL has likely shot itself in the face in a number of small markets- already in desperate competition with basketball and football, the absence of hockey this fall could very well be the last nail in the coffin for Phoenix, Nashville, and others besides.

For this lockout is different- at the start of the 2005-06 season, at least, we got some fun new rules to open up the game (eg. two-line passes, shootouts, a point for overtime losses, and the behind-the-goal safe trapezoid for goalies), and so when hockey came back there was the promise that we'd be seeing something new on the ice. Hockey game back from its break rejuvenated- if not better, at least different. Not this time, though: we left hockey at the start of the blocked shot era, and it looks like that's where we're going to pick it back up again.

Now, far be it from me to criticize the league's business model. Ill-conceived expansion south of the Mason-Dixon line aside, they seem to have done alright for themselves, and the fact that there are so many millions to be divvied up is proof of the fact. But that said, there is a malaise. In a Toronto Star poll  this morning, 31% of respondents indicate they will not watch the shortened season as they are 'no longer NHL fan(s)'- a further 38% will watch, but feel the lockout has 'soured' the season. 

This, don't forget, is Toronto- I can only imagine the results of a similar poll in Phoenix. Indeed, some serious damage has been done. We seem to have come a long way from the heady days of the Original Six era, where hockey was the thing that mattered to Canadians, where Maurice Richard's suspension could set off riots, when the Leafs needed to put a decent team on the ice to ensure their revenues, where hockey could be seen as a metaphor for our nation, rather than a perfunctory pageant populated and promulgated by the very richest. There was a time, in other words, when hockey was real, when it was visceral, when it served its ancient purpose (as with all sports) as a proxy, or metaphor, for war. Our boys versus theirs, us versus them, in the spirit of fair competition for the honour of victory itself. 

I have seen it repeated as a truism this fall that hockey players 'used to be different from other athletes': that they were motivated by love of the game, not by profit. It's worth considering where this trope comes from, as hockey players, and hockey owners, have in fairness been making money hand over fist for a good long time, well before even the Original Six. But the history of the Stanley Cup can point us in the right direction. The Canadian Encyclopedia reminds us that it was "(d)onated by Governor General Lord Stanley in 1893 for presentation to the amateur hockey champions of Canada." 

That's right, the amateur champions. In fact, the NHL gained control of the cup in 1926 only, 33 years after its dedication. The NHL at this point was recognized to be the pinnacle of hockey competition in the world, and because there were Canadian teams playing in it, it was a safe bet that whoever won the NHL championship was indeed the champion of Canada. The fact that American teams could, and can, win the Cup is an act of charity on the part of all Canadians. The fact that professional teams can win the cup is a testament to the power of commercialization.

Of course, I am not the first commentator to notice this. The following two paragraphs lean heavily on Colby Cosh's manifesto from August 23 2012. Effectively, during the last lockout, in 2004-05, the NHL was sued by Gard Shelley and David Burt, a couple of Toronto rec league players, to allow the trustees of the Cup to award it to a non-NHL team in the event that the NHL, for whatever reason, declined to organize a tournament in a given year. 

The lawsuit was settled out of court, and the result subject to a strict confidentiality agreement. In the one part of the settlement that was addressed publicly, however, Shelley and Burt's lawyer, Tim Gilbert, affirmed just that: "The current agreement…between the Trustees and NHL shall be amended to acknowledge that nothing therein precludes the Trustees from exercising their power to award the Stanley Cup to a non-NHL team in any year in which the NHL fails to organize a competition to determine a Stanley Cup winner."

There is one important element outstanding in this analysis: the Cup's origins as a challenge cup. The Champions held it as long as they could keep defeating challengers, and the trustees were responsible for ensuring the fairness and timeliness of these challenges. Thusly, small teams from small towns could put themselves together and go after it. The victory of the Kenora Thistles in 1909 was not the product of efforts by paid professionals from Russia, Sweden, the Czech Republic, and the United States- it was truly, deeply local. 

There is a certain metaphor to be seen here- just as liberal economics have opened up the world to trade, disconnecting us from the sources of things we buy, economic considerations have caused the NHL to expand to the point where maybe one player out of ten is 'local' in any meaningful sense. The NHL is a league unrooted, and maybe here we have hit on some of the problem. 

The Cup, as we've seen above, still has trustees: it is rightly the property of the people of Canada. Returning the Cup to its rightful place as a Challenge Cup, and stripping it of its corporate overtones, can only help restore some nobility to the game. In his column linked above, Colby Cosh proposes justly this: allowing any eligible Canadian hockey player to form or join a pick up team to enter a tournament for the express purpose of challenging for the Stanley Cup. The definition of an 'eligible player' is tricky, but for the moment let's limit it to any player who makes their living from hockey. 

Assuming an upper limit of 24 teams, and a lower limit of 12, such a tournament would look a lot like the world cup of hockey- a round robin with four (or two) divisions of six teams, who each play each other once (or twice), with the top two from each division advancing to the knockout round. If we're trying to condense this tournament, they can play single-elimination knockout games until someone wins. If removing the Cup causes the league to finally collapse under its own sclerotic weight, and we have plenty of time to do this, they can play best of three, best of five, or even best of seven series until the end. It would certainly take place only during winter months, as I don't think Lord Stanley ever envisioned his hardware going anywhere in June.

The advantages to such a tournament are easy and obvious. The big one is that the Stanley Cup would no longer be the personal purview of Gary Bettman or any of the other big-wigs (read: clowns) at the NHL head office. It would be awarded annually to a Canadian team comprised of only Canadians. The tournament itself would be played in many venues- any city with an AHL arena should be able to host a game or a series, and teams would decide amongst themselves or draw lots to determine who would play from which 'home' arena. It would bring top-flight hockey to places where it either does not presently go, or where it is too expensive to see. Profit from this tournament would go exclusively to funding boys' and girls' minor hockey programs from coast-to-coast- playing for the Cup, after all (in this perfect world), is about the love of the game, not making money. Professional players would thus be amateur, in the true sense, for this tournament only.

I am not an expert, but I am a hockey fan, and a proud Canadian. It pains me to see one of our national symbols, an important part of our national identity, abused and defaced and held hostage in the name of profit. Lord Stanley's Cup will be awarded this year, but its unclear whether those who hoist it will be 'worthy' of it, in the sense he envisioned: amateur, playing for the love of the game, and Canadian, playing for his countrymen. It is time to do something about this- time to make a change to reclaim our heritage. Hockey is dead- long live hockey!

An Open Letter to Stephen Harper re: Chief Theresa Spence

Dear Mr. Harper:

Where are you, man? It seems like it's been forever since you've been around. You're aware, I hope, that one of our friends, and one of your fellow citizens, Chief Theresa Spence, is literally dying to see you. She hasn't eaten since December 12, you see. She's waiting for you to come down and meet her. She doesn't want anything from you right now- just your attention. Now I can understand of course that you're a busy guy- you've got executives to shmooze with, a caucus to manage, and I'm sure your hockey book is probably taking up some time as well. I even hear that you have a family. So I can understand that you wouldn't have be able to see Chief Spence immediately, even though I'm certain that you would love to.

But Mr. Harper, it's been weeks. Three weeks. Twenty-one days. Our friend, and your fellow citizen Chief Spence has not eaten in that time. I'm sure that you, Mr. Harper, have enjoyed some tasty meals since then, surrounded by your friends and loved ones. I'm sure that you can understand the tremendous force it must take her to maintain her strike, and the serious danger she is placing herself in as the holidays fade into winter. You, Mr. Harper, and you alone, have the power to save her. I know that you know this, because you've sent faxes, e-mails, and phone calls to her office- I also know that you know, like the rest of the world, that Chief Spence is not there, that she is in a tent on an island in the Ottawa River, spitting distance from your office.

It's been three weeks, Mr. Harper, and the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you are choosing to ignore her. Presumably, you are motivated by two things. The first is the desire to prove that hunger strikes won't work, and that you are prepared to see our friend and fellow citizen into the grave rather than imply that others, too, could meet you if they showed a similar fortitude. The other thing, I assume, is the same thing that motivated Jean Charest this spring, when hundreds of thousands of young people flooded the streets of Montréal and other cities in Quebec- that you think this strike is meaningless, that your mind is made up, and that you will execute your planned agenda regardless of dissent.

Let me take the second point first. Last spring, the student strike was called meaningless by all sorts of commentators. "Who cares if the students don't go to class, they're only hurting themselves!" "Tuition fees are going up, there's nothing they can do about it!" "If we ignore them, they'll go away!" However, the one thing that is very clear, almost a year after the strike, is that ignoring the protestors was the absolute worst thing Charest could have done. It strengthened their resolve. It made them louder, it made them work harder. I was there, after all, and I can't say it more succinctly than this: "Cri haut, plus fort, pour que personne ne nous ignore!" Shout! Louder! So no one can ignore us!

And six months after the fact, Charest lost his job, and the fee increases were cancelled. The protestors understood something fundamental about a democracy that Charest, seemingly, did not: here, policy comes from the street and it's up to the politicians to implement what the people want. We do not elect someone for him or her to impose their plans- we elect them to implement ours. Charest was charged in his position with implementing policy developed collaboratively and which reflected Quebec values. Universal access to education, free assembly, and free speech are Quebec values: endebting those who simply wish to learn for learning's sake is not.

Nobody voted for you for dictator, Mr. Harper- you are a public servant. Canadians voted for your party because they trusted you to be a sound manager whose agenda would reflect the values of the country. Conservatism- the idea that we should move carefully, cautiously, do our research, listen moderately to dissenting views, and build a nest egg sustainably- this is a Canadian value. Limitless, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources for private profit on the backs of our First Nations brothers and sisters is not.

Mr. Harper, you might think that Chief Spence's hunger strike is meaningless. You might think she's only hurting herself, you might think these resources are going to be developed anyway, so who cares if she wants to starve herself to death? You might think that if you ignore her, and her allies, that we will go away. But thinking this way will lead you nowhere productive. If you don't meet her, Chief Spence will die. You don't need me to explain what type of social movement that will set off- you will be faced with hate, vitriol, and the fury of those whose loved one you could have saved, but chose to ignore.

But you have a second option. Though you want to prove hunger strikes don't work, that Chief Spence should follow the proper channels (the same 'proper channels' responsible for residential schools, land theft, and thousands of other injustices, might I remind you), you could do something different. You could leave your Mountie buddies on the shore, humbly step into a canoe, and paddle yourself out there. Have a cup of tea with our friend and your fellow citizen, and truly hear her concerns. Hear where she is coming from. If you are lucky, maybe you too will hear the rhythm of the living earth with which we have been blessed through drum circles and round dances.

Because I agree, Mr. Harper, than Canada is a blessed country, and that this can be Canada's century. All the ingredients are here. But your neo-liberal, slash and burn, for-profit mentality will not get us there, and is indeed a dogma responsible for many of the gravest injustices of the 20th century. Like the carrés rouges in the spring, like IdleNoMore now, and like the waves of protest movements to come, we are millions of Canadians demanding social and environmental justice today. You, Mr. Harper, can either join us, and help us save our shared natural environment and restore our First Nations allies to their rightful place as the senior partner of Confederation, or you can be swept aside by the tide of history.

I hope, for your sake, and the sake of Chief Spence, that you decide soon, because I don't think any of us should need to wait one more day.

Best regards,

Marc "Richard"

for a magic 2013

so it seems to be in vogue to post one of those 'end of the year', or, as I prefer it, 'start of the year' posts. i've seen some good ones, some funny ones- this one here, however, will probably be the weirdest because i want to say a few words about magic. now full disclosure up front here- i've spent the better part of the last week rereading the harry potter books. i've been immersed. it's the first time since it came out that i read the last one. it made me think; more importantly, it made me feel. now i don't mean this to trivialize what ideas will follow, but to offer them a bit of context. first things first, though: here's an anecdote.

once upon a time there was a fantasy fiction course, taught by a professor who led off with the idea that in order to serve a story- a good story- magic must be believable. sounds crazy! how can magic be believable? seeing the looks on her students'  faces, she offered to demonstrate 'real' magic to her students- she singled one out, somewhere in the middle of the auditorium, and said to him: "stand up". the student stood. "that," the professor is supposed to have said, "is magic." the professor caused action at a distance- without touching the student, without exerting any physical force on him, she caused him to stand.

this is the crux of it. we are all then wizards and witches, because we carry this power with us everywhere, at all times. we use it constantly, every day. there are some things that we make with our hands- some things we can sculpt and build and create by acting on matter. our creation is tangible and sits before us. we can point to it and there is no need for words because its form is self-evident. its characteristics and behaviour are bound by predictable physical laws which manifest identically to all observers. there are other things, however, that cannot be sculpted and built and created this way. relationships. communities. we cannot physically force each other to change our thoughts, to master our feelings- we can manipulate the body of another, but it is only magic that allows us to manipulate the soul.

this is manipulation sans malice ni rancune, in the way a carpenter manipulates her tool, and the process, obviously, works both ways. we are radically permeable to each other- every syllable, every pause, every sigh, every stutter has an impact. i speak and my words have an impact- i am spoken to and i am impacted. we are all better for what others have given us, far beyond physical objects and trinkets: the parts of themselves others have given us through their words. this magic is ancient and it is subtle. no one can predict the consequences of a given incantation, because ideas have lives of their own once uttered, and because they interact with each other and with ourselves in a complex- a staggeringly complex- web of interactions. 

there is magic in us. there is magic in the decision to attend a party, or to leave it. there is magic in the decision to go to work, or to quit it. there is magic in waking up in a lovers' arms and saying good morning- there is magic in saying goodbye. magic exists on a spectrum- we can imagine the dark arts as those ideas/words/thoughts/looks/communications which serve to isolate, knock down, destroy, and defile others, and noble magic as those incantations which unite, build up, create, and honour them. like everything this is not a binary operation, and like all magic such judgments are tied precisely to the time place and season. but while we can't describe it- can't quite put our fingers on it, can't quite nail it down in its entirety- we can perceive it.

this magic is the rush of fire in a soldier's gut when her general speaks. it is the electric thrill of learning the name of a stranger. it is the proud glory of free expression- of giving form to the abstract, of transforming an idea, without physical, independent existence, into an utterance, which forms it and allows it to propagate. words change the world. we are permeated with magic every moment of our lives: but so much of that magic which transpires around us is so banal, so uninteresting, that we stop noticing it. 

over 2012, i have been bewitched by more than a few spells. i have hurt and been hurt. i have described and been described. i have greeted and said goodbye. all of these experiences which have changed me so deeply, the ones i will always remember, were spoken. at the beginning of the year, in this space, i resolved to enter this year as a 'whole person'- leaving it, i see it is not just myself which is whole, but my surroundings as well. to borrow obi-wan kenobi's formulation: this 'discursive magic' surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds us together. 

and so for 2013 i will simply resolve to be aware of this magic, and to the best of my ability, to use it for good. i know that saying 'good morning' can be the difference between jumping in front of the metro and heading into work. i know that saying 'keep going' can be the difference between falling asleep in a snowbank and making it safely home. i know that saying 'i love you'… well, i know that that is magic of the most powerful sort. i will be conscious of it, and i hope that you, reader, will be too. tell others. you don't need to borrow my flowery incantations, but remember the spell i have cast in these lines. this conjuration you are reading, like all the millions of others conjured around you, and those which you yourself conjure, can not leave you unchanged.

i will speak the truth, even to myself. i will speak kindness, even when i am hurt. i will ask questions and embrace that hearing the answers will change me. i will know my questions will change others. i will be aware of how small my part is, but join my voice enthusiastically to the choir. we know, and have known for a long time now, that things are changing, but we are not riding into disaster unarmed. we have ourselves, and we have each other: we have big dreams, big ideas, and between us everything we need to make them real. sometimes it seems like things are out of control, and frankly for the most part they are, but that shouldn't bother us, for magic is subtle and will lead us where we're meant to go.

all my very best for 2013.

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.

Part 2: "Get Off Your Ass!"

Part 2: 'Get Off Your Ass!'

So in Part 1 we established that there is a health care system, that it costs money to run, and that its finances and service standards are currently locked into a nosedive, due to short-sighted decisions made by the people in charge. It is clear that the major stakeholders in current funding projections and procedures have important interests competing for attention with patient outcomes. Therefore, it's patients who must take a role in steering the system.

It seems impossibly hard- we all have other things to do rather than maintain and administer the health system, and we certainly are not on our own capable of actually performing medical treatments, nor paying for them (leaving aside the obvious fact that doctors and financiers alike are themselves patients, which we will return to very shortly). What many of us are able to control, however, is our own approach to our health, and our priorities for the future of the system that supports us.

The first priority for me is universal access. We all need to know that every resident of this country has access to the same standard of care. It is unconscionable that Canadians in already marginalized communities die from preventable diseases and lack of access to basic medical care. This investment will pay major economic and social dividends, especially among First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

The second is integrity of information. We need to know that our communities are making choices based on evidence and peer-reviewed practices, rather than hogwash or rhetoric. If we're to be free to choose our health outcomes, we must ensure the integrity of the information presented to the public. There are too many taboos and too many salesman, and not enough people to promote the facts about medications, interventions and treatments.

Information is not limited to basic truths like 'quit smoking', 'eat more greens!', and 'get off your ass!'. It is related to knowing what forms to fill out, who to address for different questions, and who has responsibility for what part of treatment. It's about knowing whether something is actually a health problem, rather than an ache or pain, and who should be taking charge of your care.

The third, and in my view the most important, is personal responsibility. Now, for this to be a fair and meaningful measure of health outcomes, everyone needs to be playing on a level field. Claiming that disenfranchised and marginalized communities, or vulnerable viewing audiences and web surfers, are failing themselves in the system as it stands is flatly ridiculous.

However, once we have access to universal care, and the right information, there is no excuse not to lower personal risks through diet, exercise, and healthy lifestyles, and such behaviour will have more obvious benefits. The definition of a sustainable system is one that manages costs even while growing, and if we take better care of ourselves we'll need less taking care of in the future.

In any case, the first two priorities practically require the intervention of government or financiers, but personal responsibility will certainly help the process along. Patients, who I argue should take charge of their health care system, are widely represented in both Government and private companies, and by exercising their personal responsibility for the outcomes of fellow patients, they will advance these aims significantly.

This happens at the ballot box, as it happens in Underwriting and Maintenance and Claims. The people directly involved in the operation of existing systems need to take charge of patient outcomes, and do everything in their power to care for others. It's as simple as that. Double-check the fractions, and make sure it adds up to something positive.

So Part 2. The point is taking shape. Patients must take responsibility for furthering their interests, and everyone involved in the running of the system is a patient themselves. Those who truly bear the greatest responsibility, the Ministers and Executives and Chairs, already know what action they could take- now is the time to take it. Encourage them ; make kind choices yourself, every chance that you get. 

Part 3 will talk about risk.

Part 1: Your Care is Not Free, and It's Only Getting Worse

So Part 1. Let's start with a fact- your health care is not 'free' in that it lacks cost, simply free in that access to it is not hindered by your ability to pay that cost at the point of treatment.

Healthcare, I can attest, is actually gawdamn expensive. There is the physical infrastructure to build and maintain- not just the rooms and buildings themselves of course, but the MRI machines and needles and billions of band-aids. There are highly-educated, highly-skilled people to be made- millions of them operating in concert from front-line patient care to information management to surgical specialties. 

The thing is that it has to be paid for. If prescription drugs or nurses or wheelchairs aren't paid for, they can't be had- medical consequences obviously ensue. This seems clear, but in the land of free healthcare where the point is so easily forgotten it's worth reiterating: this system's health and our health consequently are nobody else's problem but our own.

So, who pays for it? Currently, it's a combination of the federal/provincial government (which leverages a massive economy of scale) and private companies (who leverage some of the few bank balances out there equipped for the job). Consequently, it is these entities who have enormous capacity to influence the structure of the system, and contort it to pursue their goals.

The goal of the governments is easy on paper- make it run as cheaply as possible without causing noticeable problems in the delivery of comprehensive care for all patients in the order of their need. The goal of private companies is even easier on paper- make it run as cheaply as possible.

Both approaches result in patients paying more for their care at the point of treatment, a focus on short-term savings over long-term investments, and combine to contribute to a lack of overall cohesion in messaging, service, and bureaucracy. 

This won't do. The systems concerned flirt with catastrophe with every passing year. The task is not just to keep up physical infrastructure with a population which is living longer than any before, requiring investment in long-term care and assisted living, but also to manage the ever-increasing demand for a wider range of preventative and palliative care. Freezing the budget means cuts in the future. Hiking premiums will price the most vulnerable people out. Yet freezing the budget or raising premiums are the options as presented by a wide range of executives and ministers.

Political groups will navigate this period based on ideology and soundbites. Financial ones will navigate it pursuing profit and efficiency. The practitioners themselves do not pull enough strings on their own the really take control of responses to these challenges- and they're usually busy with other stuff, too.

It is patients (the most inclusive group possible) who must take control. They must speak loudly about their own experiences with the health care system, whether as ER visitors, relatives, long-term care residents, or insurance underwriters. We need to develop as clear an idea as possible of what is not working well and where has the most pressing need- and the thing that's nice about systems is that they're easier to diagnose when there is reliable data from throughout the system.

In Part 2, we'll start talking about what patients can do.