Blog

Police culture

For me, the most alarming thing to come out of the Chauvin trial was the defense. We touch on the themes of police culture speculatively, all the time — gesturing at what they must know and think and be like to tolerate the rate of police killings that they do. But to take that culture, and put it on the stand, and make it articulate its beliefs clearly for the jury — we don’t get that every day.

Chauvin’s defense did not simply focus on, oh, what a terrible mistake Chauvin committed, but please focus on the required intent to sustain a murder charge. Chauvin’s defense team invited an officer up to the stand to argue that, in full light of all the evidence, witnesses — in spite of nine minutes of a helpless man crying he couldn’t breathe and bystanders shouting that he was dying — that Chauvin’s actions were justified and within the scope of permissible force.

That is, that police are authorized to use lethal force in response to a situation in which no one is physically threatened. That is the belief.

If this officer were in my community, I would not call the police on anyone, for anything. I wouldn’t remain in the same place where there was a police presence. That is just a terror.

Now, consider that those kinds of officers probably are in your community. They just haven’t been asked to take the stand yet.

Pathology of Man

Ted Cruz was in the news lately saying that leftists view humans as a disease. This is a common narrative tension in environmentalism, and it tempted my attention long enough to write a brief retort. The simple version is that while humans are not inherently disease-like, people like Ceuz are trying hard to make us function like one.

The truth is that any part of the natural world, if allowed to grow so large and careless that it wipes out all other life and degrades the ecosystem on which its survival relies, is toxic in effect. But there’s a big difference to being toxic in effect and toxic by nature.

Humans have created the sixth mass extinction in the history of the natural world. Humans are ushering in a rate of planetary change that very plausibly could trigger scarcity, migration, and war on a scale greater than anything in history. These are uncomfortable truths. These are the risks that I see defining the back half of my life, if I get more than a half-century or so.

And yet, humans are also growing in marvelous and awe-inspiring ways — reaching huge, peaceful, prosperous, increasingly tolerant and connected numbers unlike anything in history. We don’t have to go back to pre-industrial standards of living or populations. We don’t even have to marginally reduce our population numbers or standards of living. But we do have to be selective about how and where we grow in order to maintain a healthy amount of planetary biodiversity and maintain the climate system on which our civilizations rely. And yes, that requires consideration of the ways in which we could function like a disease, and avoid them. These are not complex changes: they require fuel-switching, more protected natural areas, perhaps some market reforms to help achieve these goals efficiently, and effective international accords to incentivize nations to participate. When we talk about avoiding catastrophic risk, we are not even talking about dramatic changes. We can be the dominant species and yet maintain natural systems on which we rely, preserving ourselves and our planet’s evolutionary heritage. This does not condemn our human nature over any other living system, and should not trouble you unless your moral view was so simple that all things pleasant for man even in the short term were holy and morally privileged. I do fear that this is the psychology we’re working against.

So if we do not take simple steps to control how and where we grow — if we do not consider our capacity to function like a disease on this planet and wisely correct — we will become what people like Cruz are encouraging us to be: a people so morally simple and blind to their impacts on the natural world that they overwhelm the systems they require to survive. Ted Cruz and his ideological brethren should hear their own argument and realize they are the true objects of its critique.

“He hates me, but he caught me”

I know I’m ten years late to the party, but the season 1, episode 9 storyline in Community where Jeff and Annie compete in a school debate is one of the best pieces of television writing I’ve ever seen. It is an economical, dramatic, ironic lynchpin that, in a few words, stages the show’s thesis.

Jeff is a sleazeball disbarred lawyer in his thirties whose exploits in the series to this point are mostly shallow sexual pursuits. His major crises — losing his condo and sleeping out of his car — have not really forced him to grow in the expected ways. Seeing that Jeff won’t necessarily use this humbling experience to become a more sympathetic or less materialistic person, his friends conspire to steal his beloved sink fixtures out of his repossessed condo in order to inspire him to regain his former position in life, shallow as it may be.

Annie is an 18-year old wallflower with a huge sexual confidence problem. In the very previous episode, she is so incapable of confessing her feelings for a boy that she fakes appendicitis to get his attention — a Freudian degree of repression. She later runs out of the hospital pantsless intending to stop a romantic encounter, only to falter and demand that the boy merely return her grandmother’s quilt before making out with another woman on it. It is painful to watch. Her sexual repression perhaps maps onto a larger failure of self-confidence that has inhibited her in school and life.

Jeff gets roped into joining Annie on the school’s team for a debate competition, where they’re huge underdogs. The community college they represent is, from the series’ first words, the refuge of every type of deeply flawed person. Bringing these characters into the light of self-acceptance and then growth is the show’s mandate.

Jeff and Annie compete against City College, a way better school that represents a kind of elitist purity in the world of the show. Their star debater is an almost obnoxiously sympathetic fellow in a wheelchair, and our characters despise him. The debate topic is literally whether man is good or evil. The elitist goody-goodys must argue that man is good, and the oddball fuckups must argue that man is evil. The stakes are already dramatically aligned.

In the process of preparing for the debate, Annie and Jeff both grow in surprising ways. Annie, it turns out, has some serious confident energy the moment she steps into the debate arena. This in turn attracts her to Jeff, who has a native, if somewhat repugnant, confidence in bamboozling people from his lawyer days. The age difference between the two is seriously problematic, but at the same time, that this attraction is rooted in a kinship on the debate stage, rather than childish crushes or objectification, represents real growth for both of them. It is also, because of the real moral complexity of the age difference, an unexpected match to the audience.

The debate itself is an impressive little moral survey in quick sound bites. Where the episode knocks it out of the park, though, is in the debate’s last moments.

The wheelchair-bound star debate for City College has one final rebuttal, and he knows he’s losing. In a fit of inspiration, he tears up his notes, pushes his wheelchair as fast as it will go at Jeff, and throws himself across the stage in a moment of visual absurdism that sees him almost graze the auditorium rafters in slow motion. The room is breathless.

Jeff catches him. The boy, still in Jeff’s arms, turns to the judges and says, “He hates me, but he caught me! Man is good!”

Following stunner with stunner, Annie grabs Jeff to kiss him. Jeff spins on his heels, drops the boy, and reciprocates the passionate embrace. Annie then lets go of Jeff, turns to the judges and points at the cripple lying face-down on the stage, saying, “He’s horny, so he dropped him! Man is evil!”

The underdogs win.

It is such a tight, expressive, loaded sequence, I’m still in awe. At this point, the debate takes expression not through man in the abstract, but these characters in particular, and the series uses them to punch its philosophic thesis: Jeff is not a good man, but he will catch the cripple. Jeff will kiss an eighteen-year-old, but when he does it is out of the most pure sense of respect that he’s shown for anyone in the series so far. Annie sees with full clarity that Jeff is not a good man, but she loves him in that moment in part because she sees in him a kinship through the same pursuits that are now liberating her character. She knows that tempting Jeff to drop the cripple in order to win a competition is, in a way, sharing in his callousness. But still she seizes that connection, not with fully liberated libido, but with a liberated spirit that can begin, at least, to access its libido. The moment is a repudiation of the moral dichotomy altogether, as the victors celebrate over the defeated binary still lying face-down on the stage before them.

They are each, in short, neither good nor evil, but in engaging their flaws they find their noblest moments. I think “engagement” is the correct word here — Helene Cixous lamented once that English does not have a word with the same with/against connotation as the French “contre”, but I think “engage” comes close, as we engage in war and we engage in marriage. We embrace and reorient, we dance with our flaws, we find a way to acknowledge the evils in our character that have led us to some low position in life, and then use them in a more constructive way. Every characteristic can be deployed in healthy or unhealthy ways, and we can choose between them if we first understand and accept that characteristic. We cannot simply renounce our flaws, but must, rather, engage them.

It is, in a few words, both a satisfying philosophic statement of the show’s thesis, a breakthrough moment of character growth, a dramatic seesaw confrontation on the stage, and an excellent bit of verbal and physical comedy. I marvel at what stars aligned in that writer’s mind to make it so tight and synchronous. It sits in my mind as perhaps the best bit of television writing I can remember, in either drama or comedy.

In this way, Community is a much more morally complex show than its close cousin, Schitt’s Creek — for while both are about flawed people getting better through their engagement in a community, Community doesn’t offer us any binaries to see its world through. In Schitt’s Creek, the bad people essentially get better by going and staying among the good people and unlearning their badnesses. That’s it, pretty much. The good people are slouchy and silly, but they code as morally good in all the important ways. In Community, the show takes the bold posture that the community college is, well, kind of full of bad people. It doesn’t romanticize or sanctify the hoi polloi. To be in this community college, they have probably failed themselves in life in some serious way. They must become better. But, the show insists, their growth will not be through rejecting the traits that brought them here. When Jeff tries to live in poverty, it doesn’t enlighten him. He must learn to engage with his materialism in ways that inspire him to live a better life. If he’s a sleazy bamboozler at heart, maybe he can use that to find a wholesome respect and kinship with a young woman in need of that trait in her life.

And that’s the posture of the show itself, dramatized in a little bit of debate competition, expressed through its characters’ growth in that moment, and underwritten by a tight bit of physical comedy. He hates me, but he caught me. He’s horny, so he dropped him. Thirteen words. Leap, drop, embrace, engage, reveal.

On Free Information and the Fantasy Industrial Complex

Today, the Capitol is not fallen.

But it is much harder to say that the country’s democratic culture is not broken.

While a few thousand breached the walls, perhaps a hundred million more across the country quietly indulge the core fantasy that these attackers believe: that, because their president said so, a massive conspiracy took place to manufacture fake ballots for the Democratic candidate, and that American democracy has therefore functionally collapsed and must be resuscitated. That is the takeaway from public opinion polls that find that 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. This is whole cloth fantasy. They believe this in spite of every major media outlet denying it; in spite of the conclusions of Republican judges who have reviewed the total absence of evidence; in spite of the fact that the president’s own lawyers will not repeat the true scope of this lie in court, for fear of professional censure.

This is not the first time the country has fallen apart on common understandings of reality. It is merely the most telegenic fallout in recent times.

A country that cannot find a common understanding of reality at that scale cannot govern itself. It may lurch between elections that happen towards good or bad candidates, or towards a legislative consensus on this or that issue, but it remains vulnerable at any moment to the snowballing lie that tells us that water treatment plants are injecting mind-control drugs or the planet is not warming or our parties are ruled by lizard people or pedophiles or that an archly vain pathological liar on television is the only person you can trust.

The cause and the solution to this problem are quite simple. A generation ago, technology liberated every would-be propagandist to spread lies at a scale equal with the reach of the New York Times, and we embraced this revolution with a deeply naive belief that more speech was always better speech. There is now far greater bandwidth, and far more mind-hours, devoted to processing various strains of viral garbage than to real news. We wake up twitching with anxiety and we go to bed scrolling our phones. This is the mental disability we have inflicted on ourselves.

The country — and the world — needs a good dose of the unsympathetic editorial expertise that made America’s newsrooms the center of democracy in the 20th century. We need to understand that free speech is not an inalienable right to drown the airwaves in lies. While anyone can speak a lie if they like, we, as a culture, need to affirm that producing and disseminating mass media is a privilege that should have gatekeepers, and accept that this means we restrict our own access to these platforms in view of the common good. I don’t need this blog, or my facebook page, or a twitter, to be a whole and valued member of society with a voice. I should need to work hard and make connections and build credibility with them in order to have access to mass media. We need to relearn our respect for institutions and actors with real expertise, instead of valorizing the common guy who “does his research” by unwittingly and avidly reading sufficient quantities of garbage before hopping on Youtube and spewing his preferred fantasy into vulnerable minds.

One of the more sobering cultural shifts that we can trace to the birth of the internet, I fear, is that education itself (along with many other outdated forms of institutional authority) is no longer seen as a form of social capital. We seem to mildly distrust anyone with Dr. before their name, who spends too much time in the academies and not enough time making money or noise in the media. We vaguely look down on advanced degrees and valorize the doers and shouters who simply read enough of their twitter feed to see through the lies of the mainstream discourse and aren’t shy to tell you about them. This is a deeply toxic attitude, and a significant step backwards in our cultural development.

I dream that in a hundred years time, the term “social media” (or some gaggle of near-synonyms capturing what was unique about this time) will be rightly regarded as a toxic and naive aberrance in how society speaks to itself. That, yes, the telegram will be replaced by email; and a group chat can function just like a conference line; and the Arab Spring can still be spurred by an iPhone capturing video that couldn’t have been taken in the 20th century; but the wider internet will be restricted to a few well-regulated entities, like network television once was. We will build institutions and gatekeepers to regulate the quality of the content we feed on. In that world, we won’t lose hours worrying about our personal virtual influence, or doom-scrolling through the worst opinions and lies with unjustifiable platforms, or dripping away with dread at how society can be maintained with people of such absurd beliefs as we see all around us. We will, in return, give up the freedom to spend our time in ways that were mostly toxic to us. And our children will look back on this era with a deeper appreciation of an element of human nature: that all the “common sense” and inherent rationality we once presumed would guide an unbounded discourse towards ever deeper insight is, in fact, learned; can be unlearned; is deeply dependent on the quality of the discourse that surrounds it; so that the individual stands no better chance of discriminating between a thousand competing lies online than the feral wolfchild does of discerning which is the salad fork at a dinner party.

We need to agree on the uses and limits of free information, and build the walls that a society needs to have a coherent discourse.

Lacking that, a decent-minded president in a country where a third of the population believes in the lizard people theory remains constantly on the brink of dissolution. Last week, we saw a telegenic warning. One day, they will not be warnings.

Re: King Queen Knave


If you had to learn one thing from Nabokov, it’s that sticky mingling of erotic and social tension, and how to let it linger, let it choke your reader, and defer its resolution for an entire novel.

Election 2020

I’m kinda cynical:

September 1: Biden with a 7-8 point lead nationally on Trump. With the map the way it is, he’s probable to win even with an Electoral College advantage to Trump.

October 1: Biden with a 3-4 point lead nationally on Trump. Why? Many reasons. The American right wing is very disciplined with propaganda, and traditional media has shown they’ll report whatever the right wing reports if they do it persistently enough. Trump has shown that he’s willing to do favors for autocrats if they help him lie to the American people, and the Republican party openly supports this policy. So a story drops that Biden buried a hooker when he was overseas somewhere. It doesn’t look correct, but wow, it’s media catnip, so it’s all the talk all the time anyways. In the electoral college, it starts looking like a toss-up.

Anytime: Hackers get into the voting rolls and drop little parts of the population from dense Democratic areas. We know they’ve been practicing this assault, it was the biggest alarm in the Mueller report, and the federal government has crushed every election security bill for four years. The theatre of the Trump era has been too good for anyone to worry about little technocratic bullshit like digital security.

November 1: With the second wave of the coronavirus in full swing, jurisdictions start putting in place hygienic restrictions that severely shrink their capacity to count the in-person vote. Voting centers will operate at half capacity, particularly in heavily affected (Democratic) urban areas. They do this after the mail-in deadlines, and once the second wave is credibly happening.

November 3: Biden wins the mail-in vote by something like 40%, because Democrats are far more likely to request a mail-in ballot. That means Trump wins the in-person vote by something like 30%. In-person votes are counted immediately, and there are huge delays in counting the mail-in vote. In some states, there are legitimate problems, just because they’ve never built the infrastructure to process this volume of mail-in ballots. Trump sees the partial results and gives a victory speech before 11 PM EST. He’s probably won nearly every swing state (maybe Kanye even gives him the gift of Minnesota — that could be enough to overcome losing the rest of the rust belt). “It’s now clear that no number of legitimate votes could change this outcome.” He quietly files dozens of lawsuits before midnight to stop counting the “fraudulent” votes.

November 4: The Biden camp starts countersuing. Right wing media reports that Biden is involved in a coup. State by state, they start cooking up reports of “irregularities.” Somehow, a number of ballots were sent out to people who, by the time they were sent back, no longer appeared on the rolls. This and other vague irregularities become the justification to claim there was massive voter fraud in the mail-in voting. There’s no way to count the votes without destroying democracy, they warn. The election is over.

November 5: The mess of lawsuits, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, are bigger than you could even fit into a news report if people had the attention spans to unravel it. There’s no way you’re getting a national consensus on what is happening or happened. Foreign propaganda, social media, and partisan media puts the confusion on steroids. There are accounts of massive fraud linked to social media accounts that will someday be linked to partisans or foreigners, maybe, whatever. Trump starts warning Biden that he must concede or else he’ll destroy the country.

November 6: “Bombshell” evidence that China helped Biden in the election drops.

November 10 or so: Elections do not conclude themselves. They require masses of institutional actors to certify the outcome. For Republicans, hearing that a fraudulent election has been perpetrated (which Trump warned us about, which he tried to postpone), will the story be strong enough to sway them from their course? Will they be complicit in the fraud that ended America as we know it, or will they stand with Trump to contest the result? Will Republican statehouses decline to certify their electors? Will Republican AG’s sue to stop their vote counts? Is the party going to reject their leader, or will they have his back like they have over Mueller, over impeachment, over everything else?

November 20 or so: There are armed protests over the election results. There are some casualties. Trump says Biden is responsible for every funeral. It is essential to conclude the election if we are to avoid civil war.

November 25 or so: “Continuity of government” arguments start popping up – if, because of a state of war or a pandemic, an election cannot be held, the current government may remain in power until an election can be held. In this case, an illegitimate election was held, owing to a pandemic, which is tipping the country towards war – so wowie, it’s almost overdetermined that the President cannot step aside. They ask the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion to this effect. Maybe Trump shouldn’t get a full second term, but we have to have a legitimate do-over in 2022.

December 1: The Supreme Court figures out some way of organizing the mass of overlapping legal battles before them. They take the case.

December 2: Half the media is reporting that there’s no conceivable way Trump lost the election, based on their expert analysis. This Supreme Court battle will decide whether America has a democracy or not, they say. Trump says it’s time for the Deep State to out itself.

December 10: The Supreme Court gives you an opinion that effectively decides who won the election. If it’s not Trump, Trump tweets something vague like “it’s time to take your country back.” The riot is now a militia. He tells the military to respect them.

December 11: The Trump PR machine spins into overtime telling people why the result is illegitimate. Trump encourages good patriots to do what must be done. The administration says they respect the rule of law (even though Biden would be an ILLEGITIMATE president), but are looking into the “feasibility” of handing over power in the middle of a “national conflict.”

December 14: The Electoral College due date. Just enough states refuse to certify their electors that Biden cannot claim victory.

December 15: Biden starts asking for international assistance in pushing the Trump regime to step aside. Trump casts this as Biden trying to lead a foreign coup.

December 25: Trump does some stupid thing on Christmas just because he has to own it.

January 1: The Supreme Court writes another advisory opinion stating that, no, Trump must step aside by January 20, unless there is such an event that makes “continuity of government” essential. It’s just poorly written or badly interpreted enough that partisans say the administration has wiggle room. Trump starts questioning whether the US is at war or not already. Your uncle starts writing on Facebook, “actually, it’s quite clear Trump doesn’t have a choice but to stay on.”

January 5: Hey, a foreign strike!

Dear U.S.: See You in 2021

The going assumption up here in Canada is that the border won’t reopen with the US until 2021, or maybe until the pandemic is over (whether that’s via vaccine or herd immunity, anyone’s guess).
 
Your TL;DR is that the math on how the virus is going in each country tells an interesting story, but I’d argue that the spread of COVID in the US is probably at least 4x higher than in Canada, and widening now that Canada has gotten past the first wave, while the US hasn’t.
 
Let’s take a second to consider some numbers on the impact of the whole pandemic to date. Deaths per capita are higher in the US by a ratio of 408:232. Infections are higher by a ratio of 96:28.
 
Both rates are quite off, but the death rate is considerably closer. One piece of general context is just that Canada is older: the average age in Canada (42) is closer to Italy (44) than the US (38). But to fully explain this, you have to understand precisely where and how COVID hit Canada.
 
Quebec is the epicenter of Canadian COVID. Quebec has 23% of the Canadian population, and 64% of Canadian COVID deaths. 80% of Quebec deaths took place in nursing homes. That’s probably because Quebec has a massive nursing home population, and they were completely unprepared. Almost 2% of Quebec’s population is in nursing homes, five times higher than the overall US rate of 0.4%. That’s huge, and in my mind the most underreported stat for understanding the comparative impact of COVID in these countries. In general, it’s nice that the province offers enough funding to create a lot of spots in long-term care. What the province doesn’t offer, though, and especially didn’t offer here, is regulation. A lot of contractors get a cheque per resident from the province and no meaningful oversight. So even as any common living environment was poised to become a COVID hotspot, nursing homes did little to protect themselves. They did not prepare to function as quarantines, their chronic understaffing issues were exacerbated by the crisis, and so more workers were serving multiple homes at the same time, becoming walking vectors from one outbreak to the next. For the government’s part, all the attention went to preparing hospitals, which ended up doing fine. Literally the most vulnerable population, health-wise, was left the most vulnerable to transmission. Combine that with the higher numbers of people in long-term care overall, and the death rate in Quebec nursing homes drove the death rate for the whole country. The crisis was underscored when the army was sent in to staff the worst of these homes. That’s the story of Canadian COVID: soldiers staffing nursing homes that became disease magnets.
 
In my mind, those facts are the difference between a 4:1 infection rate and a <2:1 death rate. If you could normalize for how hard COVID hit that 2% of the Quebec population in long-term care, I think you might see that the other 98% of Canada is in a much different situation, infection-wise and death wise, than the US.
 
The instinctive response to a divergence between cases and deaths is to blame testing, but I don’t think that argument has a leg to stand on here. Yes, the US is now testing more people per capita overall than Canada, but they missed the whole prevention window, not hitting reasonable testing numbers until mid-April or May. Meanwhile, Canada’s lower testing numbers right now are driven by lower demand. You see this in the positive testing rate: nationally, Canada has gotten back down under 1% positive test results, while the US is up at 8%. Anecdotally, you see this when the premier of Quebec has to plead with people to go get tested. Quebec has largely given up on hitting its testing goal, not for lack of tests, but because there haven’t been enough people a day going to the sites. So when the national curve has fallen to a small fraction of its peak and the positive rate is at 1%, you can safely say that Canada’s testing regime is doing its job.
 
That means that the situation in these two countries really is divergent, and the 7 day rolling average on cases and deaths underscores that it’s widening. The difference in the 7 day death average is about 4:1 right now. The case rate difference is wider. The US added 379,851 cases over the last week. Canada added 2,163. That’s a per capita ratio of 20:1, even as Canada gets an 8x lower positive test rate.
 
Now, 4:1 and 20:1 are also notably off, and there’s multiple ways to try and interpret that. One is that the US is at the beginning of a larger wave that hasn’t translated into deaths yet. People drag on for a month with this disease sometimes. One is that we’re developing better treatments, and the death rate is dropping faster in the US, for whatever reason, on account of that. Another is that the US is seeing a much higher percentage of its young people getting the disease as it reopens. If the newly reopened nightclubs are the largest vector, your death rate will be way lower than if it’s home health aides.
 
But if I have to explain the difference between a 4:1 ratio and a 20:1 ratio, I’ve already gotten to the point where the argument is moot, and it’s obvious that the situation is being controlled very differently in Canada and the US. And that makes me think that we might not see the end of this border shutdown until well into 2021, or until a vaccine is widely distributed.
 
In spite of all of this, I don’t think Canada got to where it did by draconian restrictions. I can walk down the street today and see many people without masks, and mandatory mask policies are generally intermittent around the country. We have picnics in the park at a 2m distance from our friends, we’ve started having small indoor gatherings with another family or two. If you’re looking for signs that Canadians individually behave massively differently or are enthralled to some COVID authoritarian, I don’t see it.
 
Rather, I think the difference you see isn’t what we’re doing today, but what both countries did in March. Both countries started in the same spot. We got our first cases the same week. We’re almost identically urbanized by population. But while nursing homes took a huge blow, the community transmission rate through the rest of Canada was just lower overall because of widespread coordination on distancing, testing, and tracing.
 
When the case numbers get as high as they are in the US, it’s not the result of how people behaved yesterday. It’s not even a result of how people behaved two weeks ago, when they caught the disease. It’s how the whole country behaved for a couple of months to allow the disease to spread far enough that you could have the conditions laid for mass community spread everywhere at once.
 
That’s why I don’t think the border is going to open up until this is over (or if it does, at least, it won’t be driven by health — I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump threaten Canada somehow to get the border open before November, so who knows). Regardless of what people start doing tomorrow or who wins the election or whatever, there’s a huge gulf in how prevalent this disease is at this point on either side of the border, and you can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

Ada

There’s this beautiful turn, about 80% through Nabokov’s Ada, where the lovers are separated, after coming tantalizingly close to reunion. This time, it will take them 17 years to find each other again. They will be past fifty. They will have lost many of their qualities. In the meanwhile, one of them will write a treatise on the texture of time.

Time compresses beautifully in Ada – the first snatches of love at 12 and 14 occupy whole chapters. As the mind ages, time speeds up. One’s thirties pass in a single section. The last few decades go in as many pages.

That turn, though, just after the lovers withdraw again, is so lovely and dense with avoidance. We launch into our protagonist’s treatise. We contemplate the fabric of time for pages on end, and whether and how it is bound up in space, and infer backwards from what it does to what it is made of. When we open our eyes again, seventeen years are gone. The loved one is returned, a little less than what she was.

The metaphysical questions give the human heart its weight, Ada insists to me. The pain of absence is more than a person’s qualia – the absence itself is probative of some mystery of the human condition. I love you, by which I mean to say, you are a marker that fathoms the depth of my own mortality. Or: I stitch my heart to yours to ascertain something about the heart itself — whether it is one or many. And all our little dramas are different shadows of a larger question, standing between us and the sun. When a character becomes conscious of what their drama means, they grow a little divine.

On Politics By Other Means

What we’re seeing in the last week is a pretty old story.

The crowd is almost a mirror. The majority of protesters showed up wanting to hold signs and chant slogans, because people are mostly good people. A handful of organizers might have had a list of concrete demands that never really penetrated the consciousness of the crowd or the media, as crowds are wont to confusion and media are wont to spectacle. A substantial minority showed up wanting to throw rocks and light fires because it reflects their sincere attitude towards the brokenness of the social compact. Another set showed up wanting to break windows and steal things because it reflected selfish anarchic glee. A small opposition group wanted to accelerate the chaos of the protests to undermine its message. All of these groups largely ignored that there was a pandemic going on, which may leave a long shadow on the communities involved. There is no telling these groups apart in the dynamics of the crowd. The audience to these acts is wide, and some will be disgusted, some sympathetic, depending on what kind of people they are prepared to see. That is the self-reflective quality of a roiling crowd.

It’s at this point in the script that leaders start directing people towards non-street-based action. The town hall on reimagining policing starts next week. The local leaders start inviting organizers to sit down with police unions for some kind of discussion. People dust off their police reform checklists and start trying to check another box or two. It’s mostly the same checklist from a decade ago, sadly. The sense that what’s happened over the last week has an unsustainable cost is sinking in, and will mostly redirect people’s energies.

This is, of course, part of the process. If the news hadn’t spent 72 hours showing burning buildings, the community meeting and legislative campaign wouldn’t have gotten any notice. When the majority is comfortable, inertia is quite inviting. Letter writing campaigns by the downtrodden are seen as a nice act of civic engagement, almost their own reward.

If the left does its job from here, a convulsion of social unrest sets the stage for a meaningful second act. That second act can accelerate some good reforms that increase trust and accountability between police and their communities — and which, frankly, I think most people would find nonpartisan if they weren’t swayed by the politics of opposition.

There is, of course, something pitiable in the fact that a substantial amount of energy has to go into conflict and destruction in order to direct a smaller amount of energy into dialogue and construction. But that’s a quality of our society. This is what political engagement looks like among people who fear the law, distrust the institutions that make and enforce it, and don’t believe that their fellow citizens sincerely hear them. Sometimes that’s a lazy posture, but sometimes, it’s with cause. Black people, specifically, have some good cause to feel that they exist on oppositional terms to American society. They are marked by 400 years of social engineering to make them into a racial underclass, with all of the social judgments that attend it. Their social alienation will likely persist until the day that you can look at a page of demographic data and not see a clear American racial underclass, and there’s not even a conversation around the reparations that would require. For now, many American blacks don’t feel heard when they cry for their own lives, much less when they do a letter writing campaign.

The people who pick up the pen and not the torch in times of crisis are themselves a privileged class because they feel they have a receptive audience. All too often, those pens don’t get busy until the torches are already on parade. If war is politics by other means, rioting is politics by another class. A deeply unequal society does not politically engage on common terms.

We’ll see what comes of this round of unrest. There have been bouts of unrest that saw rights backslide. In America, the politics of this past week certainly have value for the right. The accelerationists, the law and order crowd, those who traffic in racial antagonism all find something useful to bolster their campaigns in the last week. A highly politicized pandemic in the middle of this complicates matters, to say the least. In a tight 2020 race, the messaging to the white suburbs that carried the 2018 election takes a new tack.

But it can also, always, be a pivot towards progress. What was got in the last week was the attention of the whole country, which is rare. In this moment, the country is looking for leadership that can speak to peace between all these actors, and their audiences. If they can find it, transformative things are possible. So pray that out of all the noise of the last week and the attention that it got, people gravitate towards a signal.

The Surreal Is My Real

One of curious effects of this pandemic has been a profound feeling of coming home, for me. This crisis is just one of a series of nesting crises that define my lifespan. There’s a pandemic, which takes place during the Trump administration, which is a symptom of the larger crisis of the age of misinformation that threatens democracy, which comes along just at the right time to complicate our response to the climate crisis, which will have a million sub-crises that compound each other and threaten state failure. And there are other, lower key crises that don’t occupy much of my attention but that I wouldn’t actually bet money against either, like AI going nuts or accidentally toxifying our bodies or whatnot.

So this moment, for me, feels like a small release. Ah, the world in turmoil, as it should be. Normal, when it comes in 2022 or whatever, is a kind of segue — a brief interlude tempting the suspension of our disbelief.