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.

introduction/confession

i am going to confess a very important thing.

i work for a major financial company. it is big, the largest in Canada by some measures, and pervasive in the torontréal region. i work in the dungeon, albeit, but i am in a way complicit with a whole lot of things i don't agree with.

now, i live in a historically fortunate time, so i'm not being asked to shoot people or burn schools or anything horrendous like that. but there are times, where, to put it nicely, i'm engaging in processes that are causing needless delay and inconvenience to people in very unfortunate positions. 

you see, i work very closely with something that most people claim to be passionate about- health care. now, working for a major financial company offering services related to health care in canada seems like it should be impossible. sadly, it is not. 

your prescription drugs are not paid for by your taxes, and are thusly not covered by your province (except au Québec, mais quand-même l'adhésion au plan privé qu'offre votre employeur est obligatoire). your dental work (which i can tell you for a fact is expensive) is not covered either. if you need to see a psychologist, the government will not pay for it, a physiotherapist neither. my private company will, if you pay into a trust which acts on behalf of the largest shareholders.

now, there is the obvious argument that if the government does not fund these services, they are not necessary. in a manner of speaking, this can be considered true- leaving out rare exceptions, one doesn't die of a toothache or a bum knee. this argument, however, ignores the point- our public health system is not comprehensive, and there is significant demand for treatments outside of them, and hence private companies that fill in the void.

you don't need to be told why this is bad. companies with shareholders need to keep up their short-term profits so as not to lose value- in a financial company with relatively little physical infrastructure to back their net worth (RIM's facilities on their own are worth billions) the question is increasingly pressing. why it's financial companies, specifically, who have taken over covering medical treatments (rather than, say, a trust acting in the interest of the practitioners themselves) is left as an exercise to the reader.

pursuing short-term profits in 2011 is anathema to long-term investment, because of the sheer uncertainty in the field (uncertainty is defined here as 'things look certain to collapse, will we be stuck holding the bag?'). this financial instability and rapidly rising demands leave financial companies in a uniquely bad position to be supporting/controlling this important part of our total health infrastructure. who should fill in the void?

i have elucidated three options. one is paying into a trust that acts in the interests of the largest shareholders, two is paying into one run by elected officials deciding policy on ideological grounds, and three is paying into one that serves the interests of the practitioners alone. 

in the next five columns, over the next week, and informed by my personal experiences, observations, and anecdotes, i will discuss the fourth option at length.