Living Oblivion

A Place At The Table

Today, A Place At The Table is released nation-wide. I was fortunate enough to catch a sneak peek earlier this week at New America NYC, where the filmmakers were also present for a Q&A following the screening.

If you don’t read the rest of this, my main point is: go see this film. 

A little background: A Place At The Table looks at the troubling issue of hunger in the US, despite our sufficient collective wealth to provide nutritious food for the entire population. Unlike the stereotype of the starving African child, hunger in this country does not look like skin and bones. On the contrary, due to high subsidies for starchy products such as wheat, corn, and soy, many malnourished people in this country are actually obese. It must nevertheless be clarified that their being overweight does not mean that they don’t suffer, quite literally, from hunger.

While the documentary is itself both moving and fascinating, the most salient point came out during the discussion following the film. (NB: The panelists included the filmmakers, Lori Silverbush and Kristi Jacobson, as well as celebrity chef Tom Colicchio, who was featured in the film.) The panelists acknowledged that this documentary would largely appeal to left-leaning people for ‘ethical reasons.’ However, they also pointed out that there are convincing arguments for people of all political backgrounds to support changes in our food and farm policies, specifically those surrounding SNAP (or, food stamps). 

The first motivation is economic. The right does not generally support higher taxes — particularly those that go toward social programs that benefit the poor. Yet programs like food stamps, in economic terms, are actually cheaper in the long-run.

The second is relating to security. A military official is quoted in the film as saying that obesity harms the ability of persons in the US to enlist and perform in the military. With a rising obesity rate, this could undoubtedly harm the strength of our military, and consequently, our national security.

The third is relating to our competitiveness. The United States is one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world. Yet each day our strength is threatened by the growth of other countries. In order to maintain our competitiveness on an international level, our entire population must be healthy in order to continue to perform and excel in everything we do.

Ultimately, the filmmakers created this documentary not only to raise awareness of the epidemic of hunger in the United States, but also to encourage people to take action. They noted that in many cases it can take as little as six phone calls to motivate politicians to work toward changes in our legislation. If sequestration takes effect today, and if the farm bill fails in November, a lot of social programs that help impoverished people to get the little sustenance they do will be cut. Therefore, the first step is to encourage legislators to support these programs. The more long-term goal is to change the nature of our food subsidies. If produce were subsidized, this would bring down the cost of healthier food options. In turn, low-income families would be saved from having to make the choice between four Big Macs that can feed the whole family and one watermelon (which is significantly lower in calories, and therefore fills you less). 

So I’ve rambled enough by now, but I want to leave you with one quote from the film that particularly stood out to me from the film:

“America has a big stigma of the family eating together at the table. But they don’t talk about what it takes to get there or what’s there when you are.” - Barbie

Playing The “Whore” In Political Reporting

I finally watched the first episode of House of Cards last night. Being a politics nerd and as a person currently working in journalism, I was obviously reeled in within seconds. (Being a huge Kevin Spacey fan doesn’t hurt either). So it’s interesting then, that The New Republic happened to publish an article today entitled “House Of Cads: The Psycho-Sexual Ordeal Of Reporting In Washington”. 

One section in particular stood out to me the most:

Studies suggest that men are more likely than women to interpret friendly interest as sexual attraction, and this is a constant hazard for women in the profession. The problem, in part, is that the rituals of cultivating sources—initiating contact, inviting them out for coffee or a drink, showing intense interest in their every word—can often mimic the rituals of courtship, creating opportunities for interested parties on either side of the reporter-source relationship to blur the line between the professional and personal.

Now, I’m not a political reporter in Washington. But, as a female who has spent time in Washington and worked in reporting, I find this to be both true and worrisome. Whenever scholars discuss the objectification of women, it tends to involve women who sexualize their gender for their profession; namely, jobs such as modeling or acting. Journalism doesn’t typically fall into this category, but maybe we need to start bringing it into the discourse.

Follow These Steps And Become A Veritable Africa Expert (note the sarcasm)

From The Guardian:

“Thinking Africa” is complicated, normally requiring years of trawling through thousands of books on economics, history, social science, anthropology and politics. No mean task, but one luckily simplified lately by numerous self-styled “Africa experts”, political spin artists, sound-bite junkies, arriviste journos, think-tankers, policy wonkers, random bankers, distant academics, market honchos, corporate suits, public relations acolytes, and self-proclaimed politicians.

So, no need to take the hard road. New pathways exist in the eternal search for Africa’s missing economic variables to explain the continent’s volatile track record over time or if you prefer recent apparent good news and presumed macroeconomics, and why this will continue for 50 years or more ?

First things first: pick a theme of unrestrained optimism. Shed any Afro-pessimism or proclivity for real politik. Use terms like “dynamic”, “emergent”, “middle class” and “last investment frontier”. Remember it’s about unrestricted growth beyond history or capacity: since both are “adjustable”, the former by revisionism the latter by “new technology”.

Go for catchy sound-bites: like “Africa is rising”, the “African Century” or “Africa’s Moment”, even if all this might have happened before and may never again. Dwell only on what is going up, not on what might go down. Remember, one’s political risk is another’s commercial treasure.

Refer to the great African economists: Bob Geldof, Bono, Madonna, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, or whoever might next walk the Hollywood red carpet.

To sound “deep and historic” cite Niall Ferguson. Always genuflect before Nepad, Transparency, Good Governance, Inclusive Growth, Peer Reviews and Mo Ibrahim: Tony Blair does, and it seems to work for him. If that fails, cite the economic wisdom of that illustrious “Africanist” Gordon Brown (who spent one whole month on the continent).

Praise economic initiatives called local content, best practice regulation, “indigenisation” (as Robert Mugabe does), empowerment, nationalisation and so on: they’re models of Nobel prize-like perfection guaranteed to boost investment, FDI and someone else’s economic growth.

Vote for “sustainability” (the glitterati do religiously). If you can’t, mention this in passing along with democratic, stable and “green”. Official buzz words cement your authenticity. Be available to fly anywhere and accept invitations to indabas, lekgotla, bosberaad, colloquia, assemblies, safaris, conferences or braai on “The Way Forward”, “Transformation” or similar Godly endeavours.

Repeat conventional wisdoms: “it’s the fastest growth region” (ignore time-scales here); “the top six (or is it seven) fastest-growth economies are in Africa” (do not question the significance of this); opportunities are “huge” (never attach contingent risks to this idea); project numbers growth is enormous (don’t mention venture size or related capital volumes); and show sage wonderment at FDI inflows (unrelated to world market investment movements).

Never mention state inefficiencies, infrastructural mayhem, proliferating parastatal behemoths, repetitive government disasters, massive institutional dysfunction, energy outages, failed or failing states which are only exceptions proving your prescient economic rule. Remember, coups d’états are passé, last century’s blip on the screen. Ignore contemporary kleptocrats in Armani suits with entourages of patronage. They reflect ancien regimes. Punt aid shamelessly, even if it is the policy wave of the past: it’s now “social capital”.

Never overcomplicate Africa: it is “one” after all (the African Union says so). Unity is the inviolate leitmotif. Complexity is your enemy. Keep your intellectual horizons a mile wide, and an inch deep. One perfect size fits “Africa”. Interlocutors will appreciate your synthesis and profundity.

Remember, Africans are “entrepreneurial” (you saw that in three places on your 10-day tour de l’Afrique). They would be more so but for colonialism, imperialism, francafrique (add Eurafrique), “unequal exchange”, foreigners (except Chinese), apartheid, prejudice against the “global south”, or other harbingers of disadvantage and victimology like anthropogenic climate change (admittedly difficult to predict, just like Africa or the weather).

Pay obligatory homage to “leadership”, local governance, public/private partnerships, newly minted growth models, Millennium Development Goals, gateways to business, dynamic commercial hubs, changed realities, the “new normal” of 5% (or even 7%) annual GDP growth forever. Endorse linear pathways to Nirvana. Never mention troubling matters like global commodity cycles. Rely on Africa’s inherent resilience. Praise Vision 2030 plans guiding the masses to economic heaven.

Do not question the obvious: drink the Kool Aid. It’s good for you, and Africa.

Pretend that corporate social “investment” is always benign (it helps CEOs, and photo-ops in annual reports) even if it contrasts with 50 years of failed “aid”. Don’t question why largesse is problematic. More is needed: ask Jeff Sachs.

Some notions are verboten in economic discourse: like, Ubuntu may be skin-deep, ethnicity may remain at issue (it was a colonial construct after all), or that NGOs have business models looking for a market (luckily, Africa provides fertile terrain for the young and restless seeking “gap year” training to shed their expertise amid tropical exotica).

Within complex economic landscapes, stress the blindingly obvious: Africa’s middle-class is “huge, growing at electric pace” (despite the inconvenience of peasants and urban underclasses), the “demographic dividend” is massive even if niggling problems of job creation will remain unresolved, and what goes up once, or for a few years (such as GDP), must always do so. This has been ordained by High Priests: the African Development Bank, World Bank, Economic Commission for Africa and well-heeled corporate spin doctors.

“Africans” should always be seen to prefer “African solutions” (and you too) even where no one knows what these might be. Speak “of them and to them” so they know they “exist”, alike vague socio-anthropological entities, notwithstanding a couple of thousand languages, 55 “nation states” in balkanising evolution, hundreds of fragile borders, multiple power-brokers, and an unfathomable mix of ethno-linguistic societies and competitive entities seeking survival under Africa’s sun.

Avoid saying Africa is or should be “one country”: even Sarah Palin knows that. Pay respect to the spaghetti bowl of regional economic cooperation and trade agreements, with their alphabet soup of acronyms (Ecowas, Sadc, EAC, Comesa, etc) even if they barely function. Maybe they will one day, to create that fictional “Africa market” with its Afro-currency and African Monetary Union, along with the rest of the bureaucratic-cum-political paraphernalia that could spell doom even before it was borne.

Your micro-anecdotes will illustrate macro-truth. Tell epochal tales of that Abidjan taxi driver, the Mombasa hotel fellow met, the Lagos market Mama, street hawkers anywhere, to depict “dynamic” Africa’s billion-plus demography. Throw in some few rich and famous (Aliko Dangote is an option) to balance matters so the breadth of your extensive Africa contacts, interviews and investigation is revealed.

History is essential to establish your savvy and emotional credentials. The “west” (a dubious bunch) should be castigated at least once in your pithy analysis. Shift your mind-set eastwards to the new fulcrum of the future, China and Brics, remembering that South Africa is its economic pivot, Nigeria is not to be trusted, while all others are inconsequential (as most are not of Africa).

Make sweeping generalisations, like “mobile telephony has transformed Africa”. Don’t mention that Africa is 2% of world GDP, its domestic savings record poor (in places non-existent), the debt profile has been heavily engineered with write-offs, and its power industry approximates Spain’s. Ignore economic shocks that might lurk ahead (Euros, drought, famine, warlords, conflict, or megalomaniac and geriatric politicians): that’s Africa-pessimism, the disease of the demented, and a brush not to be tarred with.

Economic or political failures should be ignored, airbrushed or minimised as inconvenient sideshows: Zimbabwe, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo’s Great Lakes, Azawad (that’s the “New Mali” by the way), SADR, and those dozen or more economies struggling to break even inside wicked globalisation.

Bounce your favourite themes off the utterances of the cognoscenti and recently-quoted celebrity economists, the parachute artists of economica that come and go as the rains in Africa, such as Joseph Stiglitz and random Harvard alumni.

Always say things like: “we see now that … we think that” … even when you have not seen anything, and thought even less, and mostly where this is only your own random opinion.

Join “Oprah in Africa” if possible, if not then an Oprah-styled five-minute sound-clip opportunity, say on CNBC-Africa, to articulate your insight, cast precious pearls before Africa, and talk-the-talk. Keep up with the latest clichés, the fast-moving bits and bytes of intelligence that signal depth of understanding. Invent one for your own use. Watch the Twitterati (they know what’s going on).

Move with the social tides and do not get stranded on the beach of ignorance, branded with “old thinking”. Stick with platitudes, to offend no one: you may be invited back again. After all, you are the self-selected management of Africa. Your ideas should prevail, especially so you can take the credit and allocate the blame.

Your audience may disbelieve if you don’t signal unmitigated concern for rampant unemployment, informal economies of growing desperation and Africa’s fast-expanding slum-ridden mega-cities: these are merely opportunities awaiting social entrepreneurship, bottom-of-the-pyramid marketers, and innovative urban planners – maybe even you.

For South Africans with historic guilt complexes or insecurities (where “Africa” is “over there”) parade your inherent sympathies, with empathy. Avoid saying you are “going into Africa”. Endorse Mandela-economics, whatever that might mean. Love the “development state”, even if it taxes the bejesus out of everyone, and means government of the state, by the state, and mostly for the state. You will never be part of it anyway, so reshape your strategy: “go north”. It may resolve the quandary you once had about Africa “coming south”. Whereas before, you worried about South Africa becoming like them, now they worry that you won’t.

Embed your blind optimism in models of gratuitous upliftment. Plug your inherent moral virtues. Never mention “The Hopeless Continent” except to infer that its authors were deluded.

Refrain from politically incorrect concepts like underdevelopment or economic backwardness (these are throwbacks to the 1960s – and what did they know then anyway?). Stay eminently networked and ideologically fashionable: the alternative is anachronism. Do not consult the vast literature on the continent’s economies: it could derail your critical theses. No one wants that to happen.

Above all, remember that Africa is a construct of 19th Century Europe’s imagination and Africa’s 20th Century mythologies: or is it the other way around? Sometimes it’s hard to recall.

(h/t @joybukie)

The Impossible Quest For Moral Clarity On Drone Strikes

“How will Obama get to a point of moral clarity on drone strikes? I don’t think he can, unless he is willing to say a lot more about them.

He needs to acknowledge them. He needs to explain, in some detail, why he thinks they are the only alternative. He needs to take account of the evidence (as even many pro-strike proponents do) that there is a significant social cost to them in Pakistan, and he needs to do that publicly, too.” Marc Ambinder, The Week

Colorblind? Thoughts On Race and Politics

Tonight I attended an event on the issue of race and politics at the New America Foundation. Like these sort of panels tend to do, it left me still thinking and talking more than an hour after it ended. Now I realize that it’s pretty well-recognized that Obama has been reticent on the issue of race since his election in 2008. Some of the speakers tonight even pointed out that Bill Clinton more effectively and consistently addressed race during his two terms as president than Obama has. 

It is issues like this one (not to say that there aren’t many others) that have fostered a growing disillusionment amongst Democrats, many of whom voted for Obama in 2008. In many ways, I agree with Touré, who says in his recent piece on the President that 2008 Obama was seen as superhuman, capable of anything, but today “it’s impossible to view [him] as a superhuman magical-Negro figure.” Yet is this judgement of the President really fair? Is it naive of me to think (and hope) that if given the opportunity of a second term, that this “superhuman” might come bounding back? 

I’d like to believe that our overarching disappointment with first-term Obama is surrounding three related issues. First, Barack Obama is the first African American president in US history. Yes, that’s obvious, but doesn’t it still carry some weight? Anything he does or doesn’t do is undoubtedly tied back to his race. This in turns renders his ability to push forward any even slightly contentious policy more difficult. Finally, our political system today is severely polarized. This in itself makes the passage of most policies an arduous, if not impossible, task.

Yes, Obama has dodged the issue of race more often than not. Whether that’s an attempt to perpetuate a ‘colorblind’ society or simply an effort to make people overlook his race is not all that important. Like all presidents before him, and all of us mere humans, Obama is not perfect. I think that we need to let go of these superhuman expectations and just hope that Obama gives us all he’s got the next time around.