About a year ago, Nell Freudenberger called Taiye Selasi’s Ghana Must Go “an ambitious first novel” in the New York Times, and observed that “ambitious” has a different meaning on each side of the North Atlantic. In the British sense, “ambitious” is a barely-buried criticism of people who would presume to rise above their station, so Freudenberger is quick to clarify that she means it in the American sense, in which it marks an ambition to succeed and better oneself that Americans have traditionally honored and revered (or to which we at least pay lip service). In Britain, you see, the ambitious are discouraged, urged to stay in their place. In the United States, ambition is a virtue. This is certainly a story that Americans like to tell themselves. But as was the case with many reviewers of Ghana Must… Read More...

When I write something, it tends to disappear from my brain; once I've blogged an opinion, I often forget that it's my opinion, and when people sometimes refer to something I've vigorously claimed, it can seem strange to recall that I once felt that strongly about it. "My thinking has evolved on this question" is a dodge, but there's also something to it. Sometimes I realize how I said it wrong, and had to say it to come to that realization. Sometimes I struggle to recognize things I wrote years ago, and if I start something and don't finish it, it can feel like trying to raise a corpse from the grave armed with a kite and a key and a bolt of lightning. And sometimes I read something I wrote, in the past, and I'm struck by how clever… Read More...

At some point Thursday, the title of Jon Ronson’s essay changed from “How One Stupid Tweet Ruined Justine Sacco’s Life” to “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life.” The change helps, because while “blew up” is figurative language—and thus, obviously not to be taken literally—the statement that Sacco’s life was “ruined” implies that it was ruined. But it wasn’t. Justine Sacco went through a rough patch and deservessympathy; she lost her job because of the Great Making Fun of Justine Sacco that occurred, and anyone who loses their job because of a joke made on twitter deserves sympathy. But not that much sympathy. Let’s have a sense of proportion. Justine Sacco has gotten another job. She’s okay, particularly compared to the many, many people in the world who are not okay. To make this point, we don’t have to rhetorically… Read More...

There is no such thing as The Court of Public Opinion. There is no such thing as The Court of Public Opinion. There is no such thing as The Court of Public Opinion. When people use the phrase, they strongly imply—even outright state—that newspaper articles, op-eds, “litigation by hashtag,” and general opinion-having by the unwashed masses constitutes a kind of parallel legal system in which “mob justice” is meted out by “villagers with torches.” In the Court of Public Opinion, they believe, “the one-eyed man with the most Twitter followers is king,” and all the checks and balances of law and order are suspended: “In the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that… Read More...

This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her. If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not. The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she… Read More...

[Text from my TED talk "West Virginia: Probably Time to Just Cut Our Losses on That One." Will upload video when available] In today's economy, West Virginia may simply be unsustainable. Can it be disrupted? Or must it simply be abandoned? Put simply: is West Virginia a luxury we can no longer afford? We have to be realistic and put aside sentimental attachment. With coal reserves on the decline and mass de-industrialization, it's hard to make the economic argument that West Virginia has any real purpose anymore. Why would you put all those towns next to chemical storage sites? Or on top of coal reserves? Or in the floodplains where valuable chemical dumping can occur? Bold Ideas We must learn from our mistakes, and fail forward. For example, many people blame deindustrialization for the immiseration of the population. But what… Read More...

Gary Southern has had a long day. Freedom means this matters. Gary Southern is thirsty. Freedom means he has water. Human beings need water, constantly, always, and desperately. Without water, people die. Without water to wash in, people become dirty hillbillies, whose water can be poisoned. Freedom means you can tell nine counties in West Virginia not to use their water for a while, not if they want to not drink and wash in poison. Freedom means Gary Southern is "not in the business of producing drinking water." What happens when you tell 100,000 people to choose not to use their water supply? Freedom means that it's their fault when a lot of them choose to use their water. Freedom means choice. Maybe the number will choose to be as high as 300,000. Maybe higher. Freedom means that the Elk… Read More...

Americans dislike and despise politics and politicians, of course—it’s virtually axiomatic—and yet alongside a generalized disgust with the swampy mash of corruption that “Washington” signifies, it would also be safe to say that when Americans actually talk, think, and do politics, a strange lack of cynicism suddenly sweeps over us. No candidate for high office will admit to being “from Washington”—especially if they want to move there—and the only candidates we will allow to take up the reins of state are those who can convince us they don’t want to do so. Therefore, since “politics” is a dirty word and politicians are dirty people, Washington’s job is to clean up Washington. Sarah Palin and Barack Obama (and every other candidate, if he or she is yours) is different somehow, or can become the vessel of hope and change, precisely to… Read More...

You know, a lot of people don't realize it, but America is actually very large when you compare it to all the other continents.             Read More...

None of us knew whom “Justine Sacco” was, before she tweeted the racism heard round the world, and so there is (or will be) the urge to step back from the text itself—the tweet in question—and talk about her. Who she is, and what she is doing, and how she will suffer, or what she meant, and all that. In fact, there is no #HasJustineLandedYet without imagining her, without picturing (and enjoying) the spectacle of this clueless racist on an 11 hour plane journey, obliviously floating through the friendly skies while the world seethes; the whole thing is only interesting because we know something she doesn’t, because of the suspense of waiting for the big reveal. And the more we make it about her—thereby transforming this event from which her absence was the crucial thing—the more we can only become… Read More...

“Emerging from prison, without force of arms, he would – like Lincoln – hold his country together when it threatened to break apart. Like America’s founding fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations – a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power.” (Barack Obama, Remarks) I. The Nelson Mandela that Barack Obama remembers seems to have not done a great many things: he did not carry old grievances forward into the present, he did not use violence or the power of the state against those who put him and his people in open-air jails (or those who accrued vast fortunes by doing so), and he did not stay in office once he had achieved it. The mark of a… Read More...

When an "Act of God" happens--a flood, a hurricane, an earthquake--it is always the least among you who suffer the greatest losses. People without money to rebuild, who live in the floodplain, who depend on interrupted services, who couldn't afford insurance, who didn't have a car to evacuate, who didn't, who couldn't, who can't. Those are the people who suffer most from "Acts of God." God makes distinctions like that. God favors the wealthy, who have the resources to prepare for the worst, to endure it, and to rebuild afterwards. For everyone else, good luck and good night. God is a mean son-of-a-bitch that way. But so is the market. When a famine happens--which is to say, when conditions of mass starvation start piling up the bodies enough so you notice--the underlying cause is never an absolute absence of food,… Read More...

ALMOST Baidoa, Baadheere, Baydhabo, Dinsur, Afgooye, Bwale, Barawe, Jilib, Kismayo and Afmadhow will be under attack continuously. The Kenya Defence Forces urges anyone with relatives and friends in the ten towns to advise them accordingly. We are doing well on the battle front, continue praying for us. – Major E. Chirchir, Kenya Military Spokesman, Operation Linda Nchi, November 2011 I touch walls and sweaters and keyboards as if they bruise easily I do not want to be touched in these charred and sizzling days when all flesh is frangible killing killing killing killing repeated enough it’s almost beautiful If there? They are enemy. The innocent were warned. No old, no infirm, no children, no sick, disabled, starving, pregnant in our war. al-shabaab al-shabaab al-shabaab al-shabaab repeated enough it’s almost prayerful Where do you run when borders are closed when sky… Read More...

In retrospect, just about everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Some of us knew it at the time; others are simply able to look back with the benefit of hindsight and regret what was done. But what have we learned from the experience? What lessons can we draw from that era of international clusterfuckery? Why did it happen? If we believe that it happened because George Bush was and is an ignorant, racist, Texan rube—a blundering cowboy endowed with a messianic sense of moral purpose and crusading resolve—then we flatter the United States by imagining that it is dumb, rather than evil. George Bush didn’t invade Iraq because he was stupid or ignorant; he invaded Iraq because people like Dr. Condoleezza Rice told him to, because a broad neo-conservative project to remake the Middle East—years… Read More...

American foreign policy is full of double standards. But if we observe the hypocrisy of our leaders and statesmen and are scandalized by it—if we look at the Clintons' personal friendship with Mubarak, John Kerry lunching with the Assads, Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein—then we actually misunderstand what “foreign policy” is and does and is for. A double standard is only a scandal if we aspire to and demand consistency and even-handedness, if we believe that we are governed by and follow a regime of impartial laws and order, applying in its majestic equality to the weak and strong alike. But if American foreign policy is anything, it is not even-handed and impartial, and international law is the least of its concerns. It is selfish, interested, aggressive, petty, and vindictive. It is a state arrogating to itself the… Read More...