Andrew Sullivan's Blog, page 191

The Return Of Uganda’s Anti-Gay Act?

Politicians are working to bring reintroduce it after the country’s constitutional court struck it down on a technicality Friday:

On Tuesday, members of parliament supporting a new version of the measure held a press conference to announce that they would try to push a nearly identical version of the Anti Homosexuality Act through parliament within the next three days. The legislators claim to have nearly 100 of their colleagues signed up for the newest attempt to pass the law, according to government watchdog site Parliament Watch. The latest version of the law would look more or less like the old law, imposing stiff jail terms on homosexual individuals and organizations who work on LGBT rights in the country. However, there could be one addition this time: Parlimentarian Nabilah Naggayi Sempala said at the news conference that she’d like to see the law criminalize the act of heterosexual anal intercourse.

Maybe we were too quick to seize on “actual good news.” Still, Alexis Okeowo suggests things are better for Uganda’s gays now than they were five years ago:

The court’s decision reminded me of Devine, a flamboyant, self-assured general manager for a local company, whom I met two years ago. We had a drink one evening in downtown Kampala, at a neon-lit lounge staffed by a waiter who Devine gleefully told me liked to hit on him. … “The word ‘gay’ wasn’t even mentioned five years back. Now people acknowledge that we are here. It has gotten better these days,” Devine said. He explained to some of his friends that he was gay, and, after their initial surprise, they accepted it. He and his friends could now go to Mulago, a public hospital, to get free H.I.V. testing and counselling. When he went to a clinic with a transgender friend, the doctor recorded the friend’s gender as male, even though he is biologically female. “That’s how far we’ve come,” Devine told me. At the same time, he said, “You wonder who’s watching you, and you have to pretend you’re not gay.”

Looking East From Africa

President Obama is hosting 51 current and former African leaders in Washington this week for a grand summit on revitalizing American engagement on the continent. Reviewing Obama’s mixed record on this issue, Jay Newton-Small sees the summit as an attempt to make good on some of the expectations he raised early in his presidency. But like most issues in international politics these days, it’s also about China:

As the U.S. is pivoting to Asia, Asia is pivoting to Africa. China’s investments in Africa surpassed those of the U.S. in 2010 and are now five times as big—$15 billion to U.S.’s $3 billion. China’s investment in the raw-resource laden continent is expected to reach as high as $400 billion over the next half century. While, Obama says “the more the merrier,” as he told The Economist, “my advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they’re hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don’t just lead from the mine, to the port to Shanghai.”

To that end, Obama has a distinctly American message for African leaders. He has seized upon the conference to underline the power of democracy for emerging nations. It is not by accident that he invited so many former African leaders: a message to Africa’s many aging dictators that it’s okay to step aside and give someone else a chance. Obama has proven that he isn’t Africa’s savior, and there’s only so much he can do.

Max Nisen assesses how our aid, trade, and investment in Africa measure up to China’s:

Evaluating just how much China’s businesses and government have invested in Africa is tough, especially given the opacity of Chinese government dealings. Though the US still leads in UNCTAD’s tallies of direct investments in Africa, that’s declining. One study estimated that China invested as much as $75 billion in unrecorded projects alone from 2000 to 2011. That would boost the figures below from China dramatically:

China’s FDI has grown at about 53% a year since 2001, compared to 14% for the US. Less than 1% of US FDI investment goes to Africa, and $14 billion won’t do much to change that. By contrast, China invests 3.4% of its worldwide FDI stock in Africa. Its massive investments in infrastructure dwarf US efforts. Since China surpassed the US in 2009 to become the continent’s biggest trading partner, the gap has only grown. Last year, the US had about $85 billion in bilateral trade with Africa; China reported more than double that with $210 billion.

Stephen Mihm looks to history to explain why the US isn’t as robustly invested in Africa as it is in other parts of the world:

By the early 20th century, the U.S. had managed to get a foothold in places such as South Africa, but in general, its trade paled compared with that of Britain. Moreover, it was lopsided. Americans, in other words, didn’t actually buy a whole lot from Africa. The continent was instead viewed simply as a dumping ground for U.S. products. In 1901, for instance, goods from Africa constituted a mere 1.2 percent of total U.S. imports. That figure barely budged in the succeeding years.

And actual direct investment in Africa was negligible, with the exception of Firestone’s investment in rubber plants in Liberia before the outbreak of World War II. Africa, when it appeared on the radar of U.S. businessmen, was a place to sell, not a place to make long-term investments. That job fell to imperial powers such as Britain, which had little interest in, say, setting up a competing manufacturing power in a colony.

Gordon Adams explores the US-Africa relationship from a security standpoint:

The money, equipment, training, counseling, intelligence, and operating support the United States provides in Africa will only be reinforcing the militaries as institutions in their countries. These militaries already have, at best, a mixed history of corruption, political domination, and seizure of power. And U.S. military investments provide these militaries with additional arms and operational training, making it even more difficult for civilian governments to restrain the military’s assertion of political power.

This deeper issue is a central one in Africa, and the one payoff of all the U.S. investment that we should put above all others — above development, above social services, above stronger security forces — is the issue of “governance.” Governance is what this summit should be about, above all else. Supporting governance in Africa might be discussed this week, but it is a goal only weakly reflected in U.S. assistance programs in Africa.

(Chart via The Economist)

Why Is This Ebola Outbreak Different From All The Other Ones? Ctd

Jason Koebler surveys the ongoing chaos as overwhelmed health workers struggle to contain the ebola outbreak:

“Every report I’m getting from the ground has health workers in a state of fear, and they’re feeling a siege from populations who despise and loathe them,” said Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations who won a Pulitzer Prize for her on-the-ground reporting on the ebola outbreak in Zaire in 1996, on a conference call this morning. “They’re saying ‘we are terrified, we are exhausted, we want to leave, can someone take over?’” … Problem is, there aren’t many people who can take over. Already, more than 60 healthcare workers have died from the disease, and the countries’ governments haven’t been very successful at shepherding their people—who have never seen the disease before, often don’t speak the same language as relief workers, and don’t fully grasp what’s going on—to treatment facilities.

That’s why you have things like riots outside of health care clinics and patients making escapes from ebola quarantine centers. Healthcare workers have been called “cannibals” by protesters, and Garrett said that workers she’s talked to have been accused of cutting patient’s arms off and selling them on the black market. In other words, the situation is fairly out of control, and it doesn’t look to be getting better anytime soon.

Debora MacKenzie, Philippa Skett and Clare Wilson offer their take on why this epidemic has been so severe:

The overriding factor could be urbanisation.

In the past, village outbreaks remained small, unless people went to hospitals. “Population size and high mobility make it hard to do contact tracing,” says Peter Walsh at the University of Cambridge. Cities provide more chances to spread the virus, something that may also have enabled the spread of HIV. According to the African Development Bank, the continent has had the world’s highest urban growth rate for 20 years, and the proportion of Africans living in cities will rise from 36 per cent to 60 per cent by 2050.

Other factors also favour the virus. Justin Masumu of the National Institute for Biomedical Research in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, found that the increase in Ebola outbreaks since 1994 is associated with changes in forest ecosystems due to deforestation, which displaces bats. The part of Guinea where this outbreak started has been largely deforested. What’s more, wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and corruption in Guinea, have caused poverty, says [Tulane public health professor Daniel] Bausch, leading people to migrate for work and spread the virus further. It has also caused widespread mistrust of officials, even in public health – just when Africa’s cities need them most.

Julia Belluz outlines the worst-case scenario:

Even if the outbreak didn’t move across any other country border, intensification within the already affected areas is the most immediate health threat. “The worst-case scenario is that the disease will continue to bubble on, like a persistent bushfire, never quite doused out,” said Derek Gatherer, a Lancaster University bioinformatician who has studied the evolution of this Ebola outbreak. “It may start to approach endemic status in some of the worst affected regions. This would have very debilitating effects on the economies of the affected countries and West Africa in general.”

This dire situation could come about because of a “persistent failure of current efforts,” he added. “Previous successful eradications of Ebola outbreaks have been via swamping the areas with medical staff and essentially cutting the transmission chains. Doing that here is going to be very difficult and expensive. We have little option other than to pump in resources and engage with the problem using the tried-and-tested strategy—but on a scale previously unused.”

But Tara C. Smith emphasizes that the chances of an ebola outbreak in the US remain extremely low:

Ebola is a virus with no vaccine or cure. Any scientist who wants to work with the live virus needs to have biosafety level 4 facilities (the highest, most secure labs in existence, abbreviated BSL-4) available to them. We have a number of those here in the United States, and people are working with many of the Ebola types here. Have you heard of any Ebola outbreaks occurring here in the United States? Nope. These scientists are highly trained and very careful, just like people treating these Ebola patients and working out all the logistics of their arrival and transport.

Second, you might not know that we’ve already experienced patients coming into the United States with deadly hemorrhagic fever infections. We’ve had more than one case of imported Lassa fever, another African hemorrhagic fever virus with a fairly high fatality rate in humans (though not rising to the level of Ebola outbreaks). One occurred in Pennsylvania, another in New York just this past April, a previous one in New Jersey a decade ago. … How many secondary cases occurred from those importations? None. Like Ebola, Lassa is spread from human to human via contact with blood and other body fluids. It’s not readily transmissible or easily airborne, so the risk to others in U.S. hospitals (or on public transportation or other similar places) is quite low.

Cheers To Cheap Beer

In a review of Adam Rogers’ Proof: The Science of Booze, Matthew Braga sticks up for the makers of “so-called mass-market swill”:

“Just because Jack Daniel’s comes from a chemical plant,” Rogers writes, “doesn’t mean it isn’t a damn-fine-tasting chemical.” Quality means a lot of things, and to create a mass-market beverage that consistently tastes the same, year after year, you can’t—scientifically speaking—fuck around. …

Be it $12 eggs or some top-shelf bourbon, the supposed authenticity of something handmade is how some of us define quality, for better or for worse. When we pay good money for something, suggests Rogers—a fancy wine or a bottle of scotch, say—we want to know it was worth the price. As a result, many of us have lowered our expectations of what a cheap, mass-market drink can be. Surely not quality, the patio pals with which you’re splitting a pitcher might say. And definitely not as flavourful or interesting as a good craft brew, I’ll give you that. But no less of a challenge to produce on such a mass-market scale. It takes skill to make something taste exactly the same, again and again, no matter when or where or how you have it, and just because the result is cheap doesn’t make it bad, per se. If you’ve never ordered a Labatt 50 while everyone around you is drinking expensive wine, it’s an experience worth having at least once. Even if you don’t like the drink, you can savour the dirty looks.

(Photo by Scott Akerman)

Quote For The Day

“There we were, just enjoying a nice quiet Saturday night at the movies. A slow mover, Linklater’s “Boyhood.” Some popcorn. A few sodas. Nothing really happens in the film, we found. For about 90 minutes or so we stare listlessly at the screen. It’s a thinking man’s film, I say. Beautifully shot. It’s about life, and death and relationships and things of that nature. Just then, at a brief, carefully-timed cinematic pause in dialogue, an enormous fart from somewhere in the back pierces an otherwise silent movie theatre. It had the impact of a baseball bat hitting a leather couch, or George Foreman working the heavy bag. Whack. Loud, deep and masculine.The seat cushion heroically absorbed most of the blow, but not enough that each and every person in the movie theatre instantly burst into nervous laughter. The laughter continued for what felt like a good 5 minutes, until tears streamed down our faces.

Even well after the blast, we quietly chuckled to ourselves with a ‘remember the time that guy farted in the movie theatre’ gleam in our eyes. And just like that, with a soft chuckle and a deep breath, we were back into the film. Things happened, people drove around Texas, relationships came and went, there was crying, there was hope. It was as if we had all forgotten about the fart that had brought us together that night. As the sun began to set on screen, the teenage boy, no longer a boy, transitions into an adult, before our very eyes, and looks, intently, lustfully into a young girls eyes, as if to lean in for a kiss, and braaaaaaap. Another fart from the back row, like two giant hands clapping together, and the screen goes dark, roll credits. We decided, after laughing our way out of the theatre, and all the way home, that this was the best movie that we had ever seen. I imagine the lone fartist sauntering off into the sunset. His work here done.

If only I could say thank you, kind sir. You are truly a master of your craft,” – a Craigslist poster on a memorable day at the movie theater.

Teachers Should Spend Less Time Teaching

Elizabeth Green, author of Building A Better Teacher, makes a counterintuitive point:

We don’t give teachers the space to do anything but work, work, work. They have no space to learn. Whereas in Japan or Finland there are 600 hours per year of time spent teaching, in the US, it’s 1,000 hours or more. So teachers have no time to think, no time to learn, no time to study the kids, no time to study the curriculum. They have no way of seeing anything that’s happening outside their own classroom.

They have no time to see each other teach. Other countries show that time is some of the most valuable time. When you get to have a common classroom experience to look at, then you get things like figuring out that “13 minus 9″ is the very best problem to teach subtraction with borrowing. That kind of learning doesn’t happen in the US.

White Picket Fence Poverty, Ctd

Kriston Capps flags an update to Brookings’ 2011 report on concentrated poverty, which reveals that suburban poverty in particular is growing in the wake of the Great Recession:

A rise in concentrated poverty is something we might expect to see after a prolonged recession. Still, a complete picture of the 2000s shows that the impact registered the hardest in largely rural areas surrounding geographically large metro areas. While concentrated poverty is still highest in cities—where 23 percent of poor residents live in distressed neighborhoods—the slide among poor residents into concentrated poverty was fastest in the suburbs. “Between 2000 and 2008–2012, the number of suburban poor living in distressed neighborhoods grew by 139 percent—almost three times the pace of growth in cities,” according to the report.

That poses a significant challenge to policymakers everywhere. If the best tools geared toward alleviating poverty are designed for urban centers, then they may be rendered increasingly ineffective by the new geography—with poverty spreading to areas with lower density, less transit, and fewer services. By 2008–2012, in fact, the suburbs were home to almost as many high-poverty neighborhoods as cities.

Previous Dish on suburban poverty here, here, and here.

Pregnant With Depression

Lia Grainger unravels the debate surrounding antidepressant use during pregnancy:

My family doctor assured me the drugs were safe and non-habit-forming, and that for a lot of people, they helped. I left with a prescription for Effexor, and have been taking the drug ever since. Now I’m 33, and life looks a lot different than when I gulped down the first of the roughly 2,800 peach colored pills I’ve since ingested. Something new is swirling inside my mind: the idea of a child. So it was with a special kind of horror that, during an afternoon of aimless internet meandering, I happened upon the world of “Effexor Babies.” Typing in this search term reveals link after link to news reports, blogs, and forum discussions detailing a range of negative outcomes in the pregnancies of women on Effexor. Many studies reveal an increase in the risk of a range of birth defects, some of them potentially deadly. I was terrified—and shocked that no one had warned me of these outcomes when I started the drug.

Going off the meds, however, poses another set of problems:

Why? Because there is plenty of evidence suggesting that untreated depression during pregnancy can also be harmful to the child. Most of this evidence suggests a secondary connection—it’s not the depression itself that will hurt the infant, but rather the fact that a depressed mom is less likely to stay healthy and take good care of herself during pregnancy and more likely to engage in negative behaviors like drinking and smoking.

How Drugs Got A Bad Rap

“Drug addict,” “drug control,” “drug culture” – it wasn’t until around 1900 that we used these terms the way we mean them today, explains Mike Jay:

Largely couched in medical terms as it was, the whole notion of ‘drugs’ carried moral and cultural implications from the start. Within the temperance debate, intoxication was an evil in itself and abstinence a corresponding virtue. Also, a good many of the substances that caused concern in the West were associated with immigrant communities: opium in the Chinese districts of San Francisco or London’s docklands, cocaine among the black communities of the southern US. In the racially charged debates of the day, these substances were presented as the ‘degenerate habits’ of ‘inferior races’, a ‘plague’ or ‘contagion’ that might infect the wider population. Such ideas might no longer be explicit, but the drug concept certainly carries a murky sense of the foreign and alien even now.

That’s why it rarely applies to the psychoactive substances that we see as part of normal life, whether caffeine in the west, coca in the Andes, or ayahuasca in the Amazon.

During the first years of the 20th century, opium, morphine and cocaine became less socially acceptable, rather as tobacco has in our era. Their use was now viewed through the prism of medical harm, and their users correspondingly started to seem feckless or morally weak. The drugs themselves became, in a sense, ‘legal highs’: not technically prohibited but retreating into the shadows, available only under the counter or from those in the know. And then, once their sale was formally banned in the years around the Great War, ‘drugs’ became a term with legal weight: a specified list of substances that were not merely medically dangerous or culturally foreign, but confined to the criminal classes.

Putin’s Strategery

Michael McFaul views the Russian president as a failed statesman:

Putin’s failed proxy war in eastern Ukraine also has produced a lot of collateral damage to his other foreign policy objectives. If the debate about NATO expansion had drifted to a second-order concern before Putin’s move into Ukraine, it is front and center again now. Likewise, the strengthening of NATO’s capacity to defend its Eastern European members has returned as a priority for the first time in many years. Russian leaders always feared U.S. soldiers stationed in Poland or Estonia, yet that might just happen now. In addition, Putin’s actions in Ukraine have ensured that missile defense in Europe will not only proceed but could expand. And after a decade of discussion without action, Putin has now shocked Europe into developing a serious energy policy to reduce dependence on Russian gas and oil supplies. As a result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine, the United States is now likely to become an energy exporter, competing with Russia for market share. Some call Putin’s policies pragmatic and smart. I disagree.

Approaching the Ukraine conflict from a strategic studies perspective, Joshua Rovner outlines what scholars in that field can learn from it:

Ukraine raises at least two issues that may inspire new thinking on strategic theory. One is the problem of recognizing success when it involves something less than victory.

Ukraine has been on the offensive against the separatist fighters, rapidly driving them back into a handful of strongholds. But it’s unlikely the government can destroy them, given pro-Russian sentiment in the east and the possible existence of a large sanctuary for committed separatists across the border. Moreover, any durable settlement will require making concessions to groups that are extremely hostile to Kiev, as well as tacit promises to the Russian regime.

This might be a reasonable outcome, especially if Russia is badly bruised and if Ukraine comes away with increased Western economic and political support. But some Ukrainian leaders will bridle at any settlement that leaves their perceived enemies in place, especially after having lost Crimea. Not everyone will learn to live with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies, and their unease may cause them to underrate important strategic gains. Such a scenario should resonate with American observers.