Thank God for Donald Trump

Who’s a greater fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him?

I’m taking a break from Africa posts to ask this question, which has become quite timely in the last couple of days.

I’m the only American at my office in Kigali.  The rest are all Europeans or East Africans.  Several months ago, the day after Donald Trump announced his intention to bar all Muslims from entering the United States, there was not a single person who did NOT greet me by asking about Donald Trump.

“Man, did you hear what Trump said this time?”


“Could he really win the Presidency?”


“But could he even be the Republican nominee?”


Then a pause.

“…Who ARE these people who would vote for Trump anyway?”

I’m glad you asked.  Because by forcing us to answer this question—who ARE these Trump voters?—Trump’s apparent nomination, far from tearing our democracy apart, is actually performing a valuable public service: revealing the modern GOP’s true colors.

Now, I’m not scared of Trump.  At least not THAT scared.  For a couple of reasons:

  1. Trump is still highly unlikely to win the presidency. As numerous writers have already noted, the electoral map would not have been easy for any Republican, much less one that has made the comments Trump has about growing constituencies like women and Hispanics.  Come November, this should be a landslide for Hillary.
  2. Even if he were to win, I don’t think a Trump presidency would be as bad as people fear, because the US’s “engineered-to-prevent-radical-change” political system would probably block most of Trump’s extreme proposals. Barring Muslims from entering the United States, building a wall with Mexico, etc. would all have to pass Congress—and even if they got through, each would be swiftly challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The American system of checks and balances is designed exactly for this possibility we’re facing of an insane demagogue being elected president: to prevent someone from “shaking things up” too much.  As much as gridlock has often prevented good governments from doing good things, we will be thankful for this same gridlock in the case of a President Trump.

So I’m not scared of Trump.

But I am scared of his voters.  11 million and counting.

Everyone is hurling criticism at Trump the person.  “Trump is a racist.”  “Trump is a bigot.”  “Trump must be condemned.”

But a candidate can only be as crazy as the people voting for him.  The ominous reality of this campaign is not that there’s a candidate spewing xenophobic and misogynist nonsense—it’s that this candidate’s support has actually grown stronger as he’s spewed more and more of it.  Trump’s campaign kicked off with his calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers, which immediately catapulted him into the lead in national GOP polls.  That should have told us something.  But that turned out to be just the beginning.  After each new comment that supposedly should have turned people off—we should increase the use of torture, Muslims should be barred from entering the US, John McCain is a fraud—his lead in polls has increased.  Indeed, exit polls showed that Trump did best among voters whose top candidate quality was “tells it like it is.”

trump polls and quotes

Correlation is not causation, and you can’t say that these extreme quotes caused Trump’s rise in the polls.  However, at the least this chart shows that his extreme statements have not stopped the consistent rise in his numbers.  Certainly there are no major dips in his support after extreme comments indicating such quotes had given his supporters cause for second thought.  (source for poll chart: FiveThirtyEight 2016 National Primary Polls,; dates and lines for quotes are my addition)

Pundits are offering all sorts of explanations for how Trump pulled it off in spite of his inflammatory rhetoric and questionable credentials:

“The primary calendar favored him.”

“Party elites waited too long to rebuke him.”

“There was a crowded field that split donors and prevented rivals from mounting a strong campaign.”

But I’m going to offer a simpler, more fundamental—and far scarier—explanation for why Trump won: Republican voters agree with the things Trump says (a significant plurality at least, if not a majority).  It’s not Trump’s fault that he’s winning.  He’s just a savvy businessman giving the customer what he wants.  And what the customer wants is terrifying.

Let’s let that reality sink in.  A significant plurality, if not majority, of Republican voters believe all Muslims should be barred from entering the US.  A significant plurality, if not majority, of Republican voters believe its fine to deride female journalists for being on their period.  A significant plurality, if not majority, of Republican voters believe we should build a wall between the US and Mexico.

This isn’t just me making wild assertions: the data backs this up.  For example, an overwhelming majority of Republicans supports what is probably Trump’s most extreme proposal, to temporarily ban all Muslims entering the US: 66%, 65%, and 59% according to polls by Rasmussen, Bloomberg, and ABC News-Washington Post, respectively.  In fact, more than twice as many Republicans said Trump’s proposal made it more likely they would vote for him (37%) than less likely (16%), according to the Bloomberg poll.  Similarly, 67% of Republicans support the idea of building a wall with Mexico, according to a recent Pew poll.  And beyond these specific examples, political scientists in multiple separate studies on voters’ general temperament have consistently found an almost perfect correlation between support for Trump and various measures of racial hostility, white racial identity, and opposition to women’s rights.

And those issues are just the headline grabbers.  The truly terrifying issues are the ones on which Trump’s positions are in line with the other former candidates’.

The issues that have animated this campaign are not ones that will matter on a centuries-timescale—they’ve mainly been about identity politics, terrorism, and inequality.  But ISIS is not going to destroy the US, and decisions about who can enter bathrooms and cross borders will not end human civilization.  There are only two events within a government’s ability to control that could really do that: nuclear war and climate change.

And on these issues, Trump pretty much speaks the party line.

Yes, Trump says he would not take the use of nuclear weapons “off the table” even in Europe.  But other candidates have been equally extreme.  Ted Cruz advocated “carpet bombing” the Middle East, and Scott Walker—a supposed moderate—said he’d be willing to go to war with Iran “on day one”.

Yes, Trump says climate change is a hoax.  But so does the Republican Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 4-term Senator Jim Inhofe.  And it’s not Trump travelling the world trying to undercut the Paris climate agreement, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

So Trump’s positions on many issues are actually pretty much in line with where the Republican mainstream has moved in recent years, to the chagrin of many.  The question is, why are so many people who have held positions nearly identical to Trump’s now reacting so vehemently against him?

It all comes down to the power of language, I think.

When I was researching my senior thesis in 2006, I would always ask interviewees what they thought was the biggest issue facing the country.  I’ll never forget the response one housewife told me: “Immigration,” she said.  “I’ve been reading that with birthrates the way they are, pretty soon white people are going to be a minority in this country.  And I’m pretty uncomfortable with that.”  Then she paused and thought a moment.  “You know, now that I say that out loud, it actually sounds kindof racist!”  And she reconsidered her position.

What I think had happened is, it was not until she heard the words spoken out loud, in stark terms, that she was forced to confront the fact that some of her beliefs about right and wrong—“racism is bad”—conflicted with other beliefs about certain policies—“we should restrict immigration because otherwise white people will become a minority.”  She’d always held these two contradictory positions, but it was only upon hearing them spoken side by side that she was forced to reexamine some of her views to resolve the contradiction.

I don’t know for sure, but I think a lot of moderate Republicans and conservative intellectuals are perhaps in a similar position: being faced for the first time with the contradictions between positions they have accepted in solidarity with the base, and what they actually believe is right and wrong.

Trump has not actually changed what the Republican base believes.  The truth is, they’ve always wanted to deport Mexicans, bomb Muslims, and have women stay home from work 5 days a month (which is why, of course, they are voting for a candidate who advocates these sorts of things).  But before Trump no one was willing to say these things out loud.  Few honest politicians could actually want to build a wall with Mexico, or actually believe that climate change is a vast conspiracy, but they needed the votes of people who do.  So they couched their positions in euphemism: the proverbial “dog whistle” politics.  And as long as extreme words were never spoken, politicians and thought leaders could pretend that extreme positions were never taken.  Maybe they were even convinced by their own words.  Likewise, the media could pretend that both sides were equally wrong: if one of the two major parties took an extreme position, by definition it had to be mainstream.

Well, the words have now been spoken, and Trump has broken the seal to let reality out into the open.  It’s plain now for all to see that the Republican Party has for several years now been hijacked by a base whose views are dangerous and extreme by any measure, and need to be treated as such.  Certainly I can sympathize with the underlying reasons for the fears of Trump’s voters—the working and middle classes really have been hollowed out, economic elites really do have too much money and power, and poor whites really are falling behind—but it’s no excuse for accepting or encouraging the more extreme fruits of these fears.  I can also sympathize with those Trump supporters who don’t agree with his more racist and misogynist comments but who want to “shake things up”—the Washington establishment really is dysfunctional—but let’s sit down first and think about how much shaking we want to do.  The US government is, after all, a pretty big thing, and would crash hard if it came down too fast.

Trump is not winning in spite of his extreme statements, he’s winning because of them.  He’s not some charismatic aberration who, once gone, will enable agitated Republican voters to settle down and go back to voting for reasonable moderates—he’s the new normal.  After all, the #2 vote getter was Ted Cruz, whose views are even more right-wing than Trump’s.

For moderate Republicans, conservative intellectuals, and the mainstream media, Trump should be a wakeup call that the GOP has changed for good and should perhaps no longer be taken seriously as a mainstream party—on par with fringe groups like Britain’s UKIP or France’s National Front.  As the conservative Federalist notes, “What Trump represents is the potential for a significant shift in the Republican Party toward white identity politics for the American right, and toward a coalition more in keeping with the European right than with the American.”

I’m not saying you need to join the Democrats.  America needs a third party.  Most people I talk to in my generation (admittedly a limited and unrepresentative subset) seem to want someone who’s socially liberal but economically moderate, who believes in markets more than handouts and trade more than aid, but also knows that government is needed to regulate externalities, support infrastructure and research, and provide a basic safety net.  The Dems are moving in that direction, but there’s probably still time to outflank us.

Whatever the outcome, the important thing is that we do not individualize the Trump phenomenon.  We shouldn’t be scared of the fact that one of our presidential candidates says crazy, racist things.  We should be scared of the fact that there are millions of people who actually agree with him.

And we should all thank Donald Trump for finally revealing that.

What if Billionaires were African Countries?

I watched The Big Short last night.  It’s hard to picture just how much money, say, a billion dollars really is.  Ryan Gosling’s character at the end of the movie gets a check for $47,000,000—a lot of money to be sure, but then you think, that’s probably around what the real Ryan Gosling makes in a year or two with 4-5 movies.  Many of the characters walk away with $100 or $200 million.  Again, that’s a lot of money, but when you start comparing it to the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, as Wait But Why has, you start getting into territory that is hard to picture because, quite simply, you start running out of things that you can’t buy.

When we talk about billionaires, we often find ourselves scoffing that with so much money, you’d have to start buying countries.  I’ve sometimes joked that it’d be fun to have my own “banana republic.”  But just how realistic would that be?

More realistic than you might think, it turns out; the world’s richest people could probably buy several banana republics.  Indeed, Oxfam recently released a study which found that the world’s richest 62 individuals possessed as much wealth as the poorest 50% of humans.

So what does that actually look like?

To try to picture this, I started comparing the GDPs of African nations to the fortunes of the world’s billionaires, assigning nearly every African country to a billionaire whose net worth nearly approximates that nation’s annual GDP.  Data for GDP comes from the World Bank, and billionaires’ net worth from Forbes.  What I got was this map:

Africa billionaires final

Now before we go on, a quick disclaimer, and word on methodology.  First, I’m aware that comparing net worth to GDP is not an apples to apples comparison.  Net worth is a static summation of a person’s wealth, whereas GDP is an annual figure of production.  (As David points out in the comments, wealth is a stock while GDP is a flow [updated 01 May 2016]).  So these billionaires couldn’t actually buy most of the countries in question—that would require them to sum up the value of the countries’ discounted future GDP over the next 10-30 years.  (Though Bill Gates actually could buy Rwanda if you assume a startup-like valuation of 10x revenues.)  It’s more accurate to say that the billionaires on this map could buy all the goods and services produced in their respective countries in a single year.

And that’s still pretty impressive.  Most of us could not afford to buy all the inventory in a single Target store at any given time, but Mark Zuckerberg could walk into the Democratic Republic of Congo and buy everything that country produces in an entire year.

Congo has 85 million people.  About the same as Germany.

Second, note that the person listed on each country is not necessarily the very closest match between GDP and net worth.  When there were several billionaires of similar net worth—say, $12.5 billion compared to $12.9 billion—I would usually go with the better-known person to make it easier to visualize.  So even though Mauritania’s $5.06 billion GDP is slightly closer to Kirsten Rausing’s $5.1 billion than George Lucas’s $5.0 billion, I went with Lucas because you’ve probably heard more about Star Wars than Tetra Pak.

So what’s interesting on this map?

First, you’ll notice just how full the map is of billionaires’ names.  There were only six countries whose annual production could not be topped by a single individual’s wealth.  Those were Angola, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and South Africa.  (And if you were to add together the fortunes of the Walton heirs, they would top Angola and Morocco).  Billionaires are really rich, and African GDPs are really small.

There’s also a conspicuous absence: the world’s richest man is nowhere to be seen on the map.  That’s because #3 richest Warren Buffett’s $73 billion net worth was a near perfect fit for Sudan’s $73.8 billion GDP, and the next country up—Morocco, at $110 billion—was too far out of Bill Gates’s league to compare the two.  You can see it on this chart:

Billionaire bar chart

But even without Gates, the top billionaires do quite well for themselves in Africa.

If the infamous Koch brothers pooled their wealth ($43 billion each), they could buy Sudan’s economy for a year and still have enough left over to rank in the top 100 billionaires.  If they choose to keep their fortunes separate, they’ll have to make due with Tunisia and Tanzania, which are much lovelier countries anyway.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos gets all of Ghana’s gold, oil, and cocoa beans, and his Chinese counterpart Jack Ma gets Uganda’s coffee and fish.  Meanwhile casino magnate Sheldon Adelson can buy up everything Cameroon has to offer in a year.

Facebook is booming among young Africans, and its founders’ fortunes have grown bigger than the economies of most of the countries where these new Facebook users live.  Congo produces the lion’s share of the rare minerals that most of the world’s cell phones depend on, but Zuckerberg could buy up all of it, plus everything else Congo produces, for an entire year.  If he doesn’t want to bother with a security detail, he could camp out next door in safe and secure Rwanda with co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, whose $7.9 billion is just about equivalent to Rwanda’s $7.89 billion economy.  (But they’d better have good tax lawyers.  Rwanda charges a 30% tax on expats—which if levied against Zuckerberg’s and Moskovitz’s fortunes would bring in a one-time windfall of nearly double the country’s entire economy.)

africa billionaires - facebook

Some of the most recognizable names can be found out in West Africa.

Luke Skywalker’s home world of Tatooine was not filmed in Mauritania’s deserts, but it probably wasn’t due to the expense of filming rights: the wealth generated by George Lucas’s two film franchises is bigger than the country’s economy.  Richard Branson and Ralph Lauren don’t need to worry about ebola anymore—Sierra Leone and Guinea have recently been declared ebola-free.

africa billionaires - celebs

South African-born Elon Musk made his first fortune selling PayPal to Ebay, so it’s fitting that he and Ebay-founder Pierre Omidyar are neighbors in Mali and Niger.  What I like about these two is how they demonstrate the growth of the global renewable energy industry.  Much of Musk’s wealth nowadays is tied up in Tesla Motors and Solar City, two of the leaders of the clean economy, while Omidyar has invested in one of BBOXX’s competitors, Off-Grid Electric.  While these companies are still not as big as the global oil giants, it’s nice to see renewable energy starting to create country-sized fortunes.

Professional sports franchises are some of the most profitable businesses around, and to own one you need to be as rich as a small country in Africa, though not necessarily a well-off one.  Burundi and Malawi are perennially some of the world’s poorest countries: their economies are smaller than the bank accounts of just two Dallas sports team owners, Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones.  Swaziland is technically a middle-income country, but with only 1 million people, its economy is still smaller than the wealth of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

africa billionaires - sports

Africa has billionaires too.  With a net worth of $15.4 billion, Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, has a fortune roughly the size of Gabon’s oil-rich economy.  Gabon actually has one of Africa’s highest per capita GDPs (around $11,500 per head), though with a low population its total economy is still relatively small.

africa billionaires - africas richest

Finally, you’ll notice some colored-in countries that don’t have any billionaires’ names on them: for example, Lesotho, Eritrea, Liberia, and the big green country smack in the middle, Central African Republic.  Each of these countries has a nominal GDP of $2 billion or less.  At this level, the list of billionaires becomes so big that the Forbes’ site starts slowing down trying to load them all, and I got tired of scrolling through the list.  Sorry guys.

Considering all of this, there are two things that jump out at me.

  1. Billionaires are REALLY rich. The countries on this map are not, for the most part, small and sparsely-populated.  Ethiopia, Congo, Tanzania, and Kenya are all in the world’s 30 most populous countries (#13, #16, #24, and #29 respectively); taken together, the populations of all the countries with billionaires’ names on them total to 674 million.  But Oracle founder Larry Ellison’s wealth is so immense that you’d have to get all 92 million Ethiopians working for an entire year just to produce as much.  When you go to Mombasa port and see thousands of cargo containers stacked in huge piles, or drive for hours through the Ugandan countryside passing thousands of acres of coffee fields and tea plantations, alongside hundreds of trucks laden with produce, minerals, animals, and oil for an entire country, a single individual like Amancio Ortega or Jack Ma could buy all of it.  (Then again, two-thirds of the world’s countries have gross domestic products smaller than annual sales of the iPhone, so perhaps it’s not THAT surprising).
  1. The amount of aid or investment needed to build these countries’ economies is actually not that much. Though many Americans complain about how much of their tax money is going to foreign aid, it’s not so much that all those funds couldn’t be provided by a single person.  In fact, there are 34 individuals who could afford to provide the entire $22.3 billion requested for USAID in 2016—and #34 would still be left with $300 million.  That $300 million would get the company I work for halfway to our goal of electrifying 20 million households by 2020.  It can feel a little galling when you work so hard to raise $20 or $30 million to fund your company for a year, and there are individuals on this planet who could pull that cash out of their pockets!

And even when we start talking about truly big money – climate agreements, for instance, frequently cite a figure of $100 billion per year in clean energy investment that rich countries should transfer to poor ones – it’s still only Amancio Ortega plus one half of the Koch Brothers.

When you compare $100 billion to African economies, it sounds like a lot of money.  But when you compare it to the world’s richest, $100 billion just ain’t that much.

Reverse Culture Shock, Winter 2015 Edition (#36-43)

Another trip home is almost come and gone.  Each time I come back, I like to write down a few new items of “reverse culture shock” I’ve noticed about home—whether it’s the United States or the West in general—that I’ve only been able to notice by virtue of having been in Africa.  You can check out the master list here.

This time around the list is small—I have been gone for 4.5 years after all—but there are always a few.  Starting from #36…

36. Ice Water.

America is obsessed with ice water.  It doesn’t matter that it’s winter and 35 degrees F (about 1 degree C) outside and you’re sitting next to the door so every time it opens you get a gust of cold air.  If you order a water, it’s going to come with at least 50% ice.  Don’t get me wrong, I like my water nice and cold, but the water that comes out of the fountain is already chilled: you don’t need to make it even colder by adding ice to it.  Not to mention harder to drink—don’t you hate all those ice cubes clinking up against your teeth?

Continue reading

Thoughts on Paris, Terrorism, and Refugees: Why We Don’t Need to Step Up Counter Terrorism and Why Refugees are on Our Side

Taking a break from the usual Africa focus.  It’s been nearly two weeks since terrorists from the Islamic State massacred 130 people on the streets of Paris, and 40 more in Beirut.  Since then there’s been an outpouring of support on Facebook and from governments around the world, a lockdown in Brussels, intensified military action in Syria, and of course the inevitable calls to close the borders to scary refugees.

But there’s also been something else: Paris, at least from a distance, seems to have largely returned to life as usual.  And it’s beautiful.  Scenes of Parisians flocking back to cafes show more defiant patriotism than all the bombing raids we can ever do; I never thought it would be possible to feel patriotic by drinking coffee, but that’s exactly how I felt when I sat down at the ArtCaffe at Westgate Mall in Nairobi, scene of some of the first shots of that horrendous mass murder, a few days after it had re-opened.  Returning to the scenes of violence to eat dinner, drink coffee, and listen to music sends a clear message: terrorists’ goal in committing such violence was to change us, to goad us into doing something stupid, and they failed.

Here’s what I think we can learn from the attacks in Paris and other places around the world.

  1. There is no moral equivalency between terrorist massacres and Western military actions in the Middle East or elsewhere.

One article circulating on Facebook was a Guardian piece pointing out that perhaps 450 civilians have been killed by US- and European-led airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.  The implication is clear: yes the terrorist attacks in Paris were evil, but we’re not so great ourselves—just look at all those civilians our drones have killed.

Yet comparing the two is to conflate results with intent.  When a Western country’s actions result in civilian deaths, there was no intent to kill civilians.  Quite the opposite: we consider civilian deaths in war to be a tragedy, and actively try to minimize such casualties.  For example, a friend of mine’s mother works as a “humanitarian mapper” in the RAF: a position whose job it is to find where all the civilians live so air strikes can avoid killing them.  Think about that for a second: a military organization is employing someone whose job it is to stop it from killing people.  Indeed, Western militaries spend billions every year developing precision strike technologies to minimize civilian deaths, and it seems to be working: according to the Guardian piece, there have been more than 5,700 air strikes since the air campaign against the Islamic State began, but only 52 of these strikes have resulted in civilian casualties—in other words, 99% of Western air strikes have NOT resulted in civilian deaths.

In terrorism, of course, the intent is precisely the opposite: to maximize civilian casualties.  To gun down unarmed, defenseless people, exactly because that is what will create the most fear.  (For that matter, pretty much all other societies in human history—including western ones pre-1945—have been willing to inflict broad civilian casualties on enemy populations if it advanced the aims of the war.)

Of course we don’t always succeed in protecting civilians, and of course it is true that Western armed forces have sometimes been implicated in atrocities.  But the fact that we consider them to be atrocities matters: they are atrocities because they go against our own values, not because of them.

  1. There’s not much we can do to entirely prevent terrorism – and we probably wouldn’t want to do much more than we’re already doing.

Although reporting on the Paris attacks frequently described them as “sophisticated” and “coordinated,” I am struggling to see what is so sophisticated about eight guys getting guns and shooting unarmed people in crowded public places.  In fact, it seems incredibly easy: as long as you can get a gun (especially a fully automatic one), it’s very, very easy to walk into any crowded area and start killing people.  Indeed, lone wolves like the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook gunmen managed to kill more people per shooter than the Islamic State terrorists in Paris.

terror deaths

While the ISIS terrorists killed more people in total, there were at least 8 attackers – the lone wolves involved in America’s own mass shootings have killed more per gunmen

Could intelligence agencies have acted faster on information indicating the possibility of an attack?  Perhaps.  But of course any information before an attack is, by definition, imperfect, and can only be known to be accurate in hindsight.  So intelligence officers must make judgments about how real or likely a potential threat is based on the information they have at the time.  And inevitably, that judgment will sometimes be wrong—unless, that is, we are willing to require our intelligence agencies to act on any possible threat, which would be hugely disruptive to life and civil liberties.

If we don’t want to give indiscriminate power to intelligence agencies, what about beefing up security at “soft targets”?  For example, one conservative commentator said he was too scared to see the new Star Wars movie because there are no metal detectors at theaters.

Ubiquitous security is essentially the approach taken in many East African countries—and trust me, it’s not worth it.  Imagine having to go through airport security every time you wanted to enter your office or go shopping.  Just walking into a supermarket in Kampala, Nairobi, or Kigali usually requires a pat down and a trip through a metal detector.  At higher end shopping malls, you can face as many as three security checks: a security guard opening each car door to check inside as you enter the parking garage, followed by a metal detector and a rummage through your backpack when you enter the mall, followed by a pat down when you enter whatever store you are going to.  The car checks frequently cause traffic jams as it takes 2-3 minutes for each car to enter the garage: if there are only 10 cars, that’s a 30 minute wait.  I was happy to endure these small hassles for a few weeks after the Westgate massacre, but after a while you realize it’s not possible to live life under lockdown.

And really, does this added security actually do anything?  If you post a guard and a metal detector at the entrance to a shopping mall, all it does is force a terrorist to take out his gun outside the mall instead of inside.  The Economist points out that even airport security allows a lot to slip through, partly because the job is just so repetitive that humans checking metal detectors become numb to the routine; “A lot of what passes for security at airports is more theatrical than real.”

Unless we’re willing to go all the way and make every soft target a hard one—to require armed guards and metal detectors at the entrance to every shop, train, and bus, to post snipers on the perimeters of every mall, to subject ourselves to random police checkpoints on every road—it will always be easy for terrorists to attack.  And such a security state is not one most of us would want to live in.

  1. This huge gap between ease and frequency shows how little we have to fear from terrorism, not how much.

So it begs the question: if these attacks are so easy, and the world is full of terrorists trying to carry them out, then why aren’t these attacks happening all the time?  While I’m sure some of this has to do with the few dozen terrorist attacks that are foiled every year by our intelligence agencies, I think there’s a simpler explanation: there just aren’t that many terrorists out there trying to kill us.  If there were, you’d see a lot more Westgates and Parises.

The CIA estimates that there are 31,500 ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria.  That would just about fill the visitors’ side of Cowboys stadium.  Even if you quadruple that estimate, you’re getting into the realm of The Big House—certainly a lot of people signed up for an evil ideology, but not much compared with the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, and certainly nothing that can threaten the economic and military juggernaut of the US, Canada, and Europe.

And the results show.  With so few terrorists in the world who are trying to kill us, there are just not that many of us being killed by terrorists.  In fact, terrorism is about the least likely thing in the world to kill you—you’re more likely to be struck by lightning.


Anti-terrorism spending per death is 50,000x greater than spending on leading causes of death like heart disease and cancer.  source:

So why worry?  As the wild dog sparks panic in the gazelle, causing the herd to flee and leave behind or trample the vulnerable to make a tasty meal for the dogs, the only way terrorists can actually damage our societies is by panicking us into causing self-inflicted wounds: goading us into foreign wars that deplete our resources and push more Muslims into ISIS’s camp, or curtailing our civil liberties in the name of the illusion of security.  Indeed, more Americans have died avenging 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan than died in 9/11 itself.  How does that make any sense?

If the gazelle just stayed in their herd and kept grazing, the dogs would get close, then get scared of the herd’s sheer size and run away.  Likewise, in response to terrorism, the proper amount of change required of our societies is surprisingly close to zero.

(Yes, I know it’s a bit annoying to refer to ourselves as a herd of gazelle.  Perhaps a better analogy would be a couple of mangy hyenas trying to attack a pride of lions).

  1. The Paris attacks show us why we should let refugees in, not keep them out.

I know that several of our Presidential candidates, despite their tough talk, are actually scared of widows and orphans.  But the truth is, numerically and ideologically, the refugees are on our side.

There were at least 8 attackers in Paris, and out of them 1 had possibly posed as a Syrian refugee.  But that means the other 7 were French or Belgian.  If we’re going to ban Syrian refugees from entering the US, by this logic shouldn’t we be 7x more eager to ban the French and Belgians from our shores?

Nationalities of paris attackers

More than 700,000 refugees have entered Europe in the past year, and out of them one maybe turned out to be a terrorist.  Should we really be basing national policy on 1 in 700,000 chances?  Those seem like pretty non-scary odds to me.

But more than the numbers, look at the nature of the people who are fleeing to the West.  Two months ago I was skeptical of the calls to allow migrants into Europe; their habit of complaining that Hungary wasn’t rich enough, they wanted Germany or Sweden, sure seemed like looking a gift horse in the mouth.  But as I’ve read more, both stories from the refugees themselves and the arguments of those opposing them, I’ve become more sympathetic.  Like this one about three widows who had been forced to marry ISIS fighters and join the religious police, then fled because they couldn’t abide its cruelty or the suicidal ideology of their husbands.

The people who flee from Syria and Iraq aren’t the ISIS supporters—otherwise they wouldn’t have left.  The people who flee are the ones who hate ISIS so much that they are willing to risk everything to get out.  Finding ways to cross ISIS checkpoints.  Leaving families behind and having to figure out how to keep them alive from afar.  Searching for better lives in the West.  These guys are on our side.

It’s the people traveling the other way we need to be worried about.  And the best way to maximize that flow of people is to do exactly what many politicians are now calling for: closing the borders, bombing more indiscriminately, and isolating communities.  Such actions are sure to breed the resentment and economic stagnation that ISIS recruiters feed on.

Instead, we should be welcoming refugees who want to escape repression, integrating immigrant communities so they can join in our societies, and fostering trade with Muslim countries to promote economic opportunities beyond the $100 a month young men can earn as a fighter.

If someone is willing to risk it all to escape ISIS and settle in the West, that’s someone I want to welcome to my shores.


The Problem with Social Enterprises, Part 1: From Fair Trade Baby Seal Clubbers to “Socially” Enterprise

“I work for a company that makes money off poor people.”

That’s how a friend of mine likes to answer the “where do you work?” question at parties.  Apparently people’s reactions are pretty entertaining.

Now let’s see if I can paraphrase it to be less intentionally provocative:

“I work for a social enterprise.”

It’s happened to the best of us.  We’re good people.  We want to make the world a better place.  We don’t want to work for baby seal clubbers or oil companies, or toil away long hours figuring out how to increase ball bearing sales by 2%.  We want our work to contribute to the greater good: solving environmental problems, fighting poverty, improving health in poor countries.  But we also know that the traditional aid approach is fraught with perils of ineffectiveness and dependency, and that the private sector tends to be much more effective at delivering results.  And we definitely don’t want to be “NGO girl,” who came to Africa on her gap year and decided to start an NGO to take care of all those cute little kids she saw, but really has no idea how to run an organization.  If only there were a type of company with the heart of an NGO but the methodologies of business…

It can also go the other way around.  We’re naturally entrepreneurial, good at starting things and making money.  But we don’t want to start just any business—after all, there are real problems in the world that need fixing.  Perhaps we even feel a little bit guilty about the idea of making a profit off the poor.  We want our business to be more… social.

And now, with the “social enterprise,” you can.  At least that’s the theory.

Only, what is a social enterprise anyway?

Continue reading

The 5 Other Things You Can’t Do in Uganda

I thought that at 6 items my previous list of things you can’t do in Uganda was pretty comprehensive.  But who knew, even as I rode down the street past a boda boda whose passenger was carrying three sheep in his lap, past hawkers selling toolboxes, posters of human anatomy, and puppies through windows of cars stuck in traffic, and past butchers offering hunks of unrefrigerated meat from their small stands, it was becoming apparent that my list was not complete after all.  Thanks to the commenters for leaving their suggestions, we’ve now turned up 5 more things you’re not allowed to do in this freedom-loving country.

  1. Hold a political rally for the opposition

Poor Kiiza Besigye.  Why do you keep running for president?  You’re only going to get teargassed.

A bigger deal than Hillary's emails: Uganda erupts in riots after opposition leader is teargassed

A bigger deal than Hillary’s emails: Uganda erupts in riots after opposition leader is teargassed

In Uganda you can have an opposition party.  You can even run a campaign against the president.  You just can’t do anything publicly to support that campaign.  Uganda is set for another presidential election in early 2016.  And every day it seems, there’s another front page headline about another opposition rally being broken up, another teargas-filled police fun-fest with opposition supporters, or another opposition leader, whether perennial #2 Kiiza Besigye or former Prime Minister and now presidential candidate Amama Mbabazi, being arrested for no apparent reason.  If you put up posters for the opposition, they’ll quickly be torn down.  Always classy, President Museveni just tells it like it is:

“No one can disorganise the country. Besigye tried to disorganise Kampala, the capital city. We tear-gassed him until he cooled off. He doesn’t need bullets. Just teargas is enough for him.”

It may seem strange to view the teargassing of rivals as presidential, but some commentators have suggested that in Uganda’s own special way, many voters may actually see it like this.  In an absolutely fascinating op-ed entitled “Teargas and Beatings Show Museveni is the Man,” columnist Charles Onyango-Obbo writes:

Something strangely Ugandan is also on — the beating and teargassing of President Yoweri Museveni’s rivals.


Happening at a time when Facebook and Twitter have grown exponentially, and WhatsApp is all the rage, the images are spreading fast, and if you live outside Uganda and they keep popping up on your phone, you would think the country is sliding back into the Stone Age.


However, that is not necessarily how all Ugandans see it. The threshold for political violence in Uganda is fairly high, and many locals aren’t as horrified by it all as outsiders would be… there is a method to the madness.

As an insightful source put it, Museveni’s vote in the urban areas has largely dried up, but he is still quite popular in the rural areas where most of the votes are.

To peasants and other rural folk, power is a demonstrated thing, so seeing people like Mbabazi and other opponents teargassed and run out of their rally venues is a humiliation, one that makes them look powerless against Museveni.

It works. Unlike the elites in urban areas, fellows in the rural areas who live on the edge and don’t have much power, keep a close eye on who is holding the big stick.

Thus the political violence of recent days that makes the middle class want to hide in shame, translates into votes for the man who is seen as “the jogoo,” the strongman, and in some parts may actually encourage higher turnout.

I don’t know enough about Ugandan culture to say whether this is accurate or not, but it is a reminder of at least the possibility that our western ideals of democracy and human rights are not as universally held as we think.

  1. Put your backpack on the ground

Cafesserie is one of Kampala’s sceniest hotspots.  Walk in past the gelato stand and glass-encased shelves of chocolate mousses, croissants, and tarts, sit down under a beige umbrella at a marble table attended by professional waiters, and you feel like you could just as easily be at a café in New York, San Francisco, or Paris.  I once found myself at a table next to Uganda’s richest billionaire.

But at such a popular spot, chairs often run short.  And if you have brought a backpack with you, this is something that may cause a waiter’s head to explode as they look for a place to put your bag.  Because in Uganda, you must never put a bag on the ground.  It must always go on a chair or a shelf.

You don’t often get the sense that “properness” or “attention to details” are metrics very often used to direct activity: as long as it works, it is just fine.  In a staircase, each step is likely to be a different size from the one before it.  Meat is not so much cut as it is chopped: there is no sirloin, tenderloin, flank steak—only “meat.”  A motorcycle mechanic once repaired the fuse in my motorbike; a new fuse only costs around $0.17, but apparently those savings were enough to justify the workaround.

Not putting bags on the floor, by contrast, is something people take seriously.  Do so at a restaurant, and the waiter will with great concern search the entire premises for an off-ground place to put your bag, all the while scolding you for your mistake.  “No, place it properly.  Put it well.  The floor is dirty.”

And hence the importance of not putting things on the ground: in a place with so many dirt roads and so much dust, too frequently storing your bag on the ground will in a short time render it a different colour.  (hat tip: Waina)



A few chairs left: if your group is not too big, you could probably put your bag in one of them

A few chairs left: if your group is not too big, you could probably put your bag in one of them

  1. Criticize the food

When a Ugandan goes abroad, they will inevitably complain about at least one thing: there’s no matooke!  Very likely they will have avoided trying the native cuisine of that place and chosen instead to subsist on somewhat familiar fast food like chicken and chips, fish and chips, or burgers, but they will not be happy about it: if it’s not matooke, it just isn’t food.

Matooke, of course, is Central Uganda’s staple food: a savoury banana, steamed and mashed, and typically served with a stew of beans, meat, or groundnut sauce.  To a foreigner, it’s nothing special: you should try it once, but there’s really no need to try it again once that box is ticked.

So... heavy!  So... many... carbs!

So… heavy! So… many… carbs!

But Ugandans (at least in Central Region) have a love affair with matooke that exceeds the love borne for its traditional food by almost any other culture I’ve encountered.  A typical thing heard at mealtime in Central Uganda is “I don’t feel as if I’ve eaten if I’ve not had matooke.”  Not only is matooke not to be criticized, even the idea that matooke could be criticized is something that so completely defies the Buganda imagination that it almost didn’t make it onto this list: that is, you wouldn’t think to say something is not allowed if you did not think it was something that could be done in the first place.  When a Muganda sees you eating a meal made up of pasta, steak, salad, and three types of cheese, he will be too shocked to tell you to stop, but will only ask with great wonderment and much head shaking, “Muzungu, where’s the food?”

It’s in this context that three commenters on my last post critiqued my characterization of local food as “bland.”  I get it: every culture on earth has a special attachment to its cultural food, and no one likes their food to be criticized or altered in a major way.  If you give an Italian a pizza with chicken and pineapple on it, they will scream and run away.  Some cultures may indeed prefer bland food, and I’m not passing judgment on that particular taste.  But objectively speaking, matooke is not cooked with any seasoning or spices.  As a pure carbohydrate its taste is something akin to mashed potatoes—only without salt, butter, or pepper.  And the only objective way to describe that is “bland.”

  1. Eat while walking or standing

This one was suggested by a few people, and makes the list—but only just barely.  It’s something I’ve been told is generally frowned upon.  And indeed, if I find myself standing and eating, someone nearby will generally insist that I sit down, smiling incredulously that I have not already chosen to do something as nice as sitting.  (Which of course is much nicer than standing).  And if you eat while walking, you will get some stares.

But I think people are getting used to seeing muzungus walking around munching on groundnuts and rolex, so it’s not quite the faux pas it perhaps once was.  Bystanders do not rush to rectify your behaviour so quickly as when a waiter rushes to find a chair to rest your backpack on, or a bag girl rushes to stuff your single pen into a plastic grocery bag before you can refuse it.  (hat tip: Emma)

  1. Confront someone else about anything they’re doing.

Uganda was in a state of constant warfare for most of the 80s—and in the North, all the way up to 2006.  But when you visit Uganda and meet the people, you wonder how this was ever possible: it is one of the friendliest, most relaxed, most non-confrontational places you’ll ever visit.  Live and let live is not just a saying: it’s the philosophy of social organization that holds the place together and allows the country to work.

I often say that the best part about Uganda is that I can do whatever I want, while the worst part is that everyone else can do whatever they want.  What I mean is that–and quite unlike what we sometimes believe in the US–liberty is not something that can be wholly individualized and infinitely increased: when different people have different interests, one person’s liberty will eventually and inevitably come into conflict with another’s, as the first person tries to do something the second does not want them to do.  A classic example is noise complaints: the teenager’s freedom to have a massive party conflicts with the neighbor’s freedom to have a nice quiet evening at home.  Resolving these conflicting liberties is the central problem of politics.

In the West, we employ the Rule of Law to do this: resolving to live by a set of pre-agreed written codes that determine what is and is not allowed, and whose interests trump whose in a dispute.

On the other hand, Uganda, as a general statement, seems to employ a different philosophy: do what you want until you run up against someone else; when this happens, sometimes you fight it out, but most of the time that other person is expected to accept your behaviour and move on, even if it goes against their self-interest.

For example, my neighbors had a wedding the other day, and decided to set up the party just on the roadside with massive speakers blasting ridiculously loud music from 10am to 2am nonstop.  But I was not to confront them and ask them to turn it down.  After all, some day it might be me who wants to blast loud music, and then it will be their turn to sit there and take it.

Similarly, minibus taxis stop wherever and whenever they want to drop off or pick up a passenger—even if the passenger they want to pick up is just 30 feet from the previous stop and could just as easily have walked.  All these stops make the journey take much longer, but none of the other passengers complain—again, soon they will be the one needing to get off at the most convenient location, and will be glad to have everyone else allow them to do so.

In Uganda, order seems to be maintained by a system of mutual self-sacrifice, where the good of the One almost always outweighs the good of the Many.  For even if you’re part of the Many now, at some point in the future you’ll be taking your turn as the One.

(Note: many people suggested that there are certain personal household tasks that you cannot ask a housekeeper to do: making your bed, washing your underwear, or hanging your underwear outside, for instance.  I did not include these because I’ve never experienced this myself, regardless of whether I’ve been living with Ugandans or Americans, at home or at a hotel.  I know that it probably is a widespread cultural norm, but it seems to be not as universal as it once may have been – at least based on my own experience.  Also WordPress makes it really hard to change numbered bullet points after I’ve written them.)

Where the Streets Have No Name: How Africa Could Leapfrog the Humble Address and Lead the World in GPS-Based Shipping

Here is my address in Kampala, Uganda (with place names changed for security):

“We’re in Ntinda on Mobutu Road, near Fancy Supermarket – most of the boda drivers know Mobutu Road.  Two ways to get there.  (1) Go on Jinja Road to the Shell station just past the Airtel roundabout. Turn left on Mobutu road at Shell, and go 3.5km. If you get to Fancy supermarket you’ve gone about 50m too far.  (2) If you can get to Kabira Country Club you can also find the house.  From Kabira, go back on Ntinda-Bukoto Road toward Airtel roundabout, but turn left (“go down”) on the first tarmac road, at the busy intersection with 2 petrol stations, God Cares Supermarket, and lots of bars. Turn left again at Mobutu Road and go 3km. Again, if you reach Fancy supermarket you’ve gone 50m too far.  The house is very nondescript: it’s in a compound behind a big dirt parking lot.  Call once you’re close and I’ll come out to find you.”

I got a real kick out of entering that in the “address” field in my response to my 5-year reunion invitation.

Here is my address in Rwanda (again, with place names changed):

Me: “KG 335, house #23, Kimironko”

Delivery person: “where is that?”

Me: “Ok, it’s the same street as Rosty Club – new Rosty, not its old location.  House #23.  It’s 3 houses down from Rosty.”

Delivery person: “Ok”

[10 minutes later]

Delivery person: “I’m at Rosty.  Where are you?”

Me: “Let me come outside and find you.”

The key phrase in both of those addresses was “I’ll come outside and find you.”  At least in Rwanda the government has made nominal progress by implementing a system of street names and house numbers, but no one really uses them.

But thanks to Google, developing countries like Uganda and Rwanda may end up never needing to: they could skip the address and go straight to GPS.

Here’s what Google Maps shows me if I type in “Casablanca Pub and Restaurant, Bukoto, Kampala”:

Continue reading


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers