Quantcast
Channel: Huffington Post India
Viewing all 46147 articles
Browse latest View live

Victoria Beckham Pours Water On Hopes Of Spice Girls Reunion Tour

$
0
0

Ever since the Spice Girls announced they were working together, fans have been speculating as to whether the group could tour again. 

Rumours then went into overdrive last week, when it was claimed they would be taking a show on the road

However, Victoria Beckham has now dashed any hope of that happening.

Victoria Beckham

During a preview of her autumn/winter 2018 fashion collection, she told Vogue: “I’m not going on tour. The girls aren’t going on tour.”

Well, that answers that then. 

US website TMZ had previously claimed the girls would perform the in the UK and the States, with the action kicking off in the late summer. 

Victoria came together with Emma Bunton, Geri Halliwell, Mel C and Mel B last week, when they were pictured together at Geri’s London home for talks. They were joined by their former manager, Simon Fuller.

They later put out a statement confirming a reunion of sorts, but would not confirm any plans. 

“We are always overwhelmed at how much interest there is across the whole world for the Spice Girls,” the group said. “The time now feels right to explore some incredible new opportunities together.

“We have enjoyed a wonderful afternoon catching up and reminiscing about the amazing times we have spent together. 

“We all agree that there are many exciting possibilities that will once again embrace the original essence of the Spice Girls, while reinforcing our message of female empowerment for future generations.”


Weight Watchers: Are 'Before And After' Weight Loss Photos Motivational Or Dangerous?

$
0
0

Weight Watchers has announced it will be phasing out the use of ‘before and after’ pictures in its advertising and publications, in a move to promote weight loss as “a journey of health, with no beginning, middle or end”. 

The diet company was among the first to use ‘before and after’ as a concept, but today, the photographs are widely used across social media, with countless fitness bloggers and personal trainers posting images online. The hashtag #TransformationTuesday also gives members of the public the chance to share their weight loss experiences with others.

While fans of before and after photos say they are a way to maintain motivation and gain support from online communities, critics believe they perpetuate body image pressure and the idea that a slim body is the ideal. 

In light of announcement and the ever-growing movement of self-love, should we all be calling time on photos that compare our bodies in such a way? 

Josie Clifton

Josie Clifton has been a gold member of Weight Watchers for six years, meaning she has hit her target weight and sustained it. She has previously appeared in promotional material for the company and thinks “it’s a shame” they’ve decided to phase out transformation photos. 

“Before and after photos are a great way to remind yourself how far you’ve come, to keep motivated and inspired. I still post them from time to time on the Weight Watchers app.” she told HuffPost UK. “The photos are constantly shared between members, which is a great way to praise each other on weight loss and a reminder of how well you’ve done, even years down the line.”

A post shared by Tammy 💜 (@mrstlangford) on

Tammy Langford

A common criticism of “before” photos is the innate suggestion that a certain body type needs changing. But Tammy Langford, who also regularly shares before and after photos on Instagram, does not see old photos as a way put her former self down. Instead, she said looking at past pictures is a positive reminder of how far she’s come. 

“We all fall off [weight loss plans] at some point. Looking back on photos and comparing really helps you see the bigger picture and I find personally it helps to not ‘beat yourself up’ over the Chinese you had the night before,” she told HuffPost UK. “I also love seeing other people’s transformations, especially when you are first starting, because it helps you believe you could achieve your goals.”

In a statement to HuffPost UK, Weight Watchers said it would not be actively discouraging users from using the photos themselves.

While some may hail the positive impact of sharing such photos, Jenny Cole, a senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said they can be a “a path to body dissatisfaction” for those viewing them, as they make people compare themselves to one another. 

“It can also encourage a focus on appearance and on portraying some types of body as better than others, which can lead to body shaming,” she told HuffPost UK. “Moving away from a before and after mentality may also help those wanting to lose weight, by encouraging a focus on fuelling and moving the body so that people feel healthier, rather than punishing the body to get closer to an often unattainable ideal body appearance.”

Body image and mental health campaigner Natasha Devon said before and after photos are part of a wider “unconscious narrative which tells us that thinness equals success and happiness” and she is pleased Weight Watchers has ditched the photos. “I don’t endorse diets - I believe in the HAES (health at any size) ethos - health is a lifestyle based around eating well in a balanced way, exercising regularly and taking joy in your body,” she told HuffPost UK. 

For those who are vulnerable, before and after photos could be have serious consequences. A spokesperson from eating disorders charity Beat said while eating disorders are complex mental health issues, before and after photos have the potential to contribute to the body image pressure vulnerable people feel to look a certain way. They said they “welcome the idea” of Weight Watchers phasing out the use of such photos.

“For people affected by eating disorders, images that present an idealised body type can encourage them to continue or worsen their disordered eating,” they told HuffPost UK. They added there is a risk that when somebody posts a before and after image online, you will not necessarily get the full story of their weight loss, such as how they have lost the weight and whether they are healthy. 

Denise Hatton, chief executive for YMCA England and Wales, a founding partner of the Be Real Campaign for body confidence, echoed this. 

“Healthy is an outfit that looks different on everyone and just because someone is slimmer than before, it doesn’t mean their overall health has improved,” she told HuffPost UK. “We want people to feel more confident about who they are, so it’s important that we create a society that values health above appearance and Weight Watchers’ new approach is a great step in that direction.”

Women In Pakistan Are Calling Out The Country's Censor Board For Banning 'Padman'

$
0
0

While Akshay Kumar's Padman released all over the world on February 9 to rave reviews, Pakistan is one country where the film has been banned.

The film's Censor Board refused to certify the film, saying, "We can't allow our film distributors to import films which are against our traditions and culture."

Ironically, the ban on Padman proves the film's point -- it's a conversation that many are scared to have but it's the one that needs to be had.

The film's director, R Balki, was furious at the ban. He told The Quint, "I am very disturbed by this prejudiced pre-judgment. I believe the Pakistan censor board didn't even bother to see the film. They refused to have anything to do with it arguing that such films threaten Islamic culture and history. Pray tell, how does a film about the health concerns of women harm any culture in the world?"

His anger was shared by women in Pakistan, who were quick to call out the regressive decision and took to Twitter to rip it apart.

Also see on HuffPost:

The Next Recession Is Really Gonna Suck

$
0
0

WASHINGTON ― When the next recession comes, many people who lose their jobs will have a harder time getting unemployment insurance, an important lifeline for most Americans. In several states, these people could have to pee in cups just to qualify.

Those who don’t get benefits will have to settle for the sort of fake jobs our economy produces in abundance — a contract job in an Amazon fulfillment center, say, or a gig delivering groceries to people who still have careers.

Talk of a recession is in the air again after the recent wobble in the stock market. It’s highly likely the next recession will occur in the coming three years, while President Donald Trump is still in office. Maybe it’ll happen as a result of his inflation-baiting tax bill. Maybe it’ll have something to do with excessive consumer debt. We don’t know what the cause will be, but we do have some idea of how Americans will experience the next sustained economic slump. Since the Great Recession, during which the GOP repeatedly if grudgingly went along with former President Barack Obama to extend unemployment insurance, Republicans on both the state and federal level have pushed to make benefits less generous and harder to get. 

Meanwhile, the holes they’ve created in the safety net will be filled by so-called “alternative work arrangements” — gigs — which offer fewer protections for workers than full-time jobs.

By design, America is ill-prepared for its next recession, and it’s going to suck.

The president of the United States will deny that the bad jobs numbers are real.

It’s the U.S. government that measures economic growth and the unemployment rate, but it’s actually up to a private nonprofit organization called the National Bureau of Economic Research to tell us when a recession has begun. Since the 1920s, this organization has had a committee of eggheads looking at a variety of indicators, especially personal income levels, unemployment rates and the gross domestic product, to determine when a recession has started.

A recession starts after economic activity has reached its peak. Right when things are better than ever is when they’re about to get worse. The decline in business conditions has to affect the whole economy; it can’t just be a single-sector slump, like the one Amazon has wrought among retailers. But you won’t know the recession has started until later, because the NBER waits until the government has finished its data revisions, which happens over a period of months. It wasn’t until 2008 that the organization announced that the last recession had begun in 2007.

There have been 11 recessions since World War II. The current economic expansion began in mid-2009, making it the third longest in history, and it can’t last forever.  

Expansions don’t just die of old age. One thing that can trigger recessions is the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates to quell inflation. The Federal Reserve is currently in the process of raising rates, but inflation is still low and most economists see no cause for concern in the immediate future ― though economists are not exactly great at predicting what will happen.

“When wage and price pressures develop, that’s when the clock starts to tick,” said Mark Zandi, an economist with Moody’s Analytics, a financial analysis provider.

Upward pressure on wages has begun to develop. The official unemployment rate is still falling, and it has been at or below 5 percent for about two years ― a level that has traditionally triggered inflation fears. But economists can point to a range of other measures, such as reduced labor force participation, that suggests the labor market is still out of whack. With interest rates already very low, the Fed has wanted to bring them up partly to ward off phantom inflation and partly just so it can lower them again when the next recession comes around. Because it will.  

One possible table-setter for a recession, Zandi said, is a huge tax cut that increases the size of the federal budget deficit — something very much like the contents of the Republican tax bill that Trump signed in December. In such a scenario all the extra money in taxpayer’s hands could cause the economy to overheat, leading the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates faster in an effort to stave off inflation.

“If the tax cuts are deficit financed, that is going to juice the economy and it will overheat, significantly raising the odds of a recession early in the next decade,” Zandi said.

Most economists are less confident the tax cuts will juice the economy quite so much, but they generally do anticipate an aggressive Fed response. “Interest rates are projected to rise in the short term because the legislation would boost aggregate demand and output, leading the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates to avoid a surge in inflation,” the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said in its December 2017 analysis of the economic effects of the new law.

Outgoing Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, for her part, kept the Fed’s plans cryptic in the wake of the tax bill. “I think my colleagues and I are in line with the general expectation among most economists that the type of tax changes that are likely to be enacted would tend to provide some modest lift to GDP growth in the coming years,” she said.  

Republicans on both the state and federal level have pushed to make benefits less generous and harder to get. 

While federal and state governments run an array of programs that respond to economic need, nothing is more important when mass layoffs roll around than unemployment insurance, which is not handed out to just anyone. Only people who are laid off through no fault of their own, and who have well-established work histories over the previous year, are eligible. Benefits are designed to replace about 46 percent of the person’s lost wages.

The average unemployment benefit ranged from $330 to $350 per week since 2016, according to The Department of Labor, making it more valuable than other programs responding to economic need. Food stamps, for instance, might provide that much money over the course of a month. The generosity of the benefit serves two purposes: one is to protect layoff victims themselves, and the other is to prevent a broader deflationary spiral caused by desperate people accepting terrible wages at jobs for which they’re not really suited.

After the Great Recession got underway, while hundreds of thousands of people were losing their jobs each month, Congress started increasing the duration of unemployment insurance for people who’d used up the standard 26 weeks of benefits that states provide. Republican foot-dragging over the cost of the benefits led to a huge fight in 2010, with former Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) infamously responding to Democratic pleas by saying “tough shit” on the Senate floor.

Since then, Congress has quietly allowed those benefits to expire while statehouse Republicans ― aghast that Barack Obama gave their constituents up to 99 weeks of combined state and federal unemployment insurance ― have hacked away at their own unemployment programs. Nine states reduced benefit duration from the usual 26 weeks, and many others have apparently gotten more aggressive in checking up on claimants to make sure they’re continuing to look for work, which has always been an eligibility requirement.

As a result, the rate at which unemployed Americans receive layoff compensation overall has fallen from about 36 percent in 2007 to about 28 percent in 2017, according to data from The Department of Labor. Wayne Vroman, an associate with the Urban Institute, said a big reason for the decline is that states are finding ways to kick unemployed people off benefits after they’ve already been deemed eligible. His research shows a big increase in “nonseparation determinations.” These are instances of states investigating whether someone is continuing to meet eligibility requirements by doing things like writing down the names and addresses of businesses where they’ve applied for work on forms to state work agencies. 

“When agencies have undertaken nonseparation determinations in recent years, the outcome has become much more likely to be a denial than in 1989 or 1999,” Vroman wrote in a paper that will be published this year. For instance, denial rates for determinations examining a person’s availability for work ― their willingness to take a job ― which is a requirement of benefit receipt, were 64 percent in 1989 and 83 percent in 2016.

Unemployment compensation is a state-federal program financed by payroll taxes on employers. When a lot of people lose their jobs and state unemployment trust funds run dry, states have to borrow money and sometimes increase payroll taxes ― something that makes Republican lawmakers enthusiastic about trimming benefits. (Most extra weeks of federal benefits are fully funded by the federal government and created by Congress on an ad-hoc basis.)

States are still smarting from the Great Recession. At the beginning of last year, only 21 state trust funds had achieved what the Labor Department considers a minimum level of solvency. If they can’t catch up before layoffs hit, there will be political pressure to follow the new path that other states have taken to reduce benefits. Lawmakers in Kentucky, which has a poor solvency rating, are currently considering proposals to make the state’s unemployment system more like Florida’s, currently one of the worst.

It’s an old pattern. After the recession of the early 1980s, changes in state benefits helped reduce the proportion of unemployed workers receiving compensation from 50 percent in 1980 to 37 percent in 1990, according to political scientist Paul Pierson’s 1994 book Dismantling the Welfare State?

Josh Bivens, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, said the country isn’t well prepared for the next recession.  

“We have managed to make UI incredibly non-protective,” Bivens said. “If we want the UI system to not be a complete joke in the next recession, it’s going to depend on Congress and the president.”

But Congress and the president might be more interested in urine tests than UI. Since about 2011, Republicans at the state and federal level have been trying to make drug tests a requirement for welfare, food stamps and unemployment insurance. In 2012, Congress passed a law giving states the right to drug test some unemployment claimants, but the measure let the Obama Labor Department decide who would be subjected to the test, resulting in a narrowly written regulation that Republicans said wouldn’t catch anybody.

Republicans scrapped the regulation last year, and the Trump administration has said it will release a new one sometime soon. Wisconsin, Texas and Mississippi have already passed drug test laws and are just waiting for a green light from the Labor Department.  

Republicans at the state and federal level have been trying to make drug tests a requirement for welfare, food stamps and unemployment insurance. 

How will a new recession play out under this new unemployment benefits regime? The recent hurricanes offer a preview. Storms that battered Texas and Florida threw tens of thousands of people out of work. Storm victims are supposed to be eligible for unemployment benefits and can file through the regular process.

In Florida, it’s not an easy process. The state overhauled its unemployment system in 2011, requiring layoff victims to file claims online and even (for a time) take a math and reading test. Since 2007, before the last recession started, the percentage of unemployed Floridians who receive compensation plunged from 32 percent to 9 percent, almost the lowest rate of coverage in the nation. 

Anthony Di Biagio is the co-owner of a residential and commercial cleaning service in Cape Coral, Florida. In the aftermath of Hurricane Irma he was unable to work because some of his clients’ homes and businesses were inaccessible. As a business owner, Di Biagio was ineligible for regular unemployment compensation, but perfectly eligible for the special disaster assistance provided through the state unemployment system.

After spending 40 minutes initiating his application online, Di Biagio learned it would take some real vigilance to actually receive the benefits. He’d have to request payments every two weeks and register with an online service called “Employ Florida Marketplace” as though he were looking for a job ― which, as a business owner, he was not.

“Unfortunately, this is counterproductive for me because I know that my unemployment is temporary and I’ll most likely only need benefits for 1-2 months,” he said in a Facebook message. “Even if I found a job with EFM, I couldn’t commit to it because I already own a company which plans to be fully operational as soon as possible.” 

The problems stem partly from the state’s apparent desire to discourage people from obtaining benefits and partly from plain old private sector incompetence. Florida hired Deloitte Consulting to overhaul the website and complained loudly about the contractor’s work, which in 2013 and 2014 the state blamed for claimants being unable to receive benefits in timely fashion. Handling claims through an automated system is supposed to save money on staff, but two other states that hired the firm to overhaul electronic benefits delivery have also encountered massive benefits delays and other problems.

(A Deloitte Consulting spokesman said unemployment system in all three states have been fully functional since 2014. “Unemployed workers in all of the states in which we have worked are receiving the unemployment benefits for which they’re eligible, in a timely fashion and in accordance with state and federal laws,” he said.)   

“The states that run these really threadbare programs, it’s not the economic stabilizer you would want for a family facing job loss for their main wage earner,” George Wentworth, a senior staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project, said in an interview. “It’s the most important program for the average American who loses their job. That’s why there are standards [in federal law] saying as soon as you’re eligible you should be getting payment within three weeks of filing that claim.” 

The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity declined to comment.

***

One thing that could actually make the next recession less miserable than its predecessor is “work sharing.” Thirty states currently offer work-sharing or “short-time compensation” programs that allow companies to reduce a group of employees’ hours instead of doing layoffs. The state then uses its unemployment insurance trust fund to compensate the workers for the missing hours.

Congress doled out $100 million for states to set up work-sharing programs in 2012, and several states designed new programs as a result. A Labor Department-commissioned study released in 2016 found that of the more than 2,000 businesses that enrolled in a state work-sharing program from 2008 through 2013, most had a favorable experience and more than 80 percent said they would sign up again.  

It’s such a good idea that of course nobody has heard of it.

Economists who are familiar with work sharing say it’s ridiculous how unfamiliar the concept is to most people considering its bipartisan backing. One flaw of the policy is that it’s entirely up to employers to sign up for the state-sponsored programs, even though its workers whose livelihoods are at stake.

“It would be neat if employees could initiate this as well,” economist Lonnie Golden of Penn State Abington said. “The information is just not out there.” 

Alternative work arrangements are more commonly along the lines of those Amazon warehouse jobs than they are for online platforms.

Another distinguishing feature of the next recession will be the prevalence of fake jobs with no benefits. Since 2005, the percentage of the workforce toiling in “alternative work arrangements,” such as freelance or subcontractor gigs, has risen from 10 to almost 16 percent, according to 2016 research by Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, economists at Harvard and Princeton, respectively. Less than 1 percent of jobs are for online platforms like Uber or TaskRabbit; alternative work arrangements are more commonly along the lines of those Amazon warehouse jobs where you don’t actually work for Amazon.  

This kind of work accounted for all of the net employment growth from 2010 to 2015 and has spread throughout occupations. The advantage is that these jobs are easier to get. The disadvantages are that they’re less likely to come with benefits; they’re less secure; and the schedules are more erratic.

And people working in such jobs may be ineligible for unemployment, since if they’re not actual employees of the firm they work for their state won’t have W2 forms on file reflecting their earnings. For people who don’t have benefits, the “flexibility” of contract work may be their only lifeline.

Katz and Krueger found in a follow-up paper that people who’d suffered unemployment were significantly more likely to find themselves in an alternative work arrangement after the Great Recession ― something that will happen even more next time the economy tanks.

“We would certainly expect a jump in people, as they lose out on possibilities of more traditional jobs, moving into alternative work,” Katz said.

I haven’t believed a word they told me in years. Donald Witkowski, former paper mill worker

Then there’s the Trump factor. When the mass layoffs return and the unemployment rate rises the newly jobless will discover that not only have they lost their livelihoods, but they have also become fake news.

The president of the United States will deny that the bad jobs numbers are real. Just as candidate Trump insisted the official unemployment rate was 10 times higher than the Obama administration said, President Trump won’t hesitate to cast doubt on his own government’s rate when it starts rising.

Who cares? Well, the tens of millions of Americans who will churn through the unemployment system are going to care. One of the worst things about being unemployed, aside from the fact that you have no money, is that you lose a routine that essentially connects you to society through daily interactions with other people. And since American culture closely links your value as a human to your career, it can be difficult to maintain self respect ― which helps explain the link between joblessness and suicide. Massive numbers of alienated and vulnerable people already living a surreal existence will be explicitly told they’re not even real.

Ask anyone who suffered more than a brief spell of joblessness in the wake of the Great Recession, which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, how it felt to keep hearing that the economy was improving. Ask Donald Witkowski.

“I haven’t believed a word they told me in years,” Witkowski told HuffPost. And that’s how he felt even though the president at the time took pains to say that, despite economic progress, many people had been left behind ― a kind of nuance Trump doesn’t do.

Witkowski, 59, lost his job in 2011 when the paper mill in Whiting, Wisconsin, closed down. He’d worked there for decades. Now, still unemployed and receiving disability benefits, he’s alienated from his government even after having gotten nearly a year of unemployment insurance thanks to a series of federal extensions. Whatever goes wrong with the next recession, he said, will be worse than whatever the statistics say. He has a prediction for the next downturn, and it’s based less on economics than on his experience of the last one.

“It won’t be a recession,” he said. “I think it will be a total collapse.”

Correction: This article initially stated the Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to January 2009. It lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

The Next Recession Is Really Gonna Suck

$
0
0

WASHINGTON ― When the next recession comes, many people who lose their jobs will have a harder time getting unemployment insurance, an important lifeline for most Americans. In several states, these people could have to pee in cups just to qualify.

Those who don’t get benefits will have to settle for the sort of fake jobs our economy produces in abundance — a contract job in an Amazon fulfillment center, say, or a gig delivering groceries to people who still have careers.

Talk of a recession is in the air again after the recent wobble in the stock market. It’s highly likely the next recession will occur in the coming three years, while President Donald Trump is still in office. Maybe it’ll happen as a result of his inflation-baiting tax bill. Maybe it’ll have something to do with excessive consumer debt. We don’t know what the cause will be, but we do have some idea of how Americans will experience the next sustained economic slump. Since the Great Recession, during which the GOP repeatedly if grudgingly went along with former President Barack Obama to extend unemployment insurance, Republicans on both the state and federal level have pushed to make benefits less generous and harder to get. 

Meanwhile, the holes they’ve created in the safety net will be filled by so-called “alternative work arrangements” — gigs — which offer fewer protections for workers than full-time jobs.

By design, America is ill-prepared for its next recession, and it’s going to suck.

The president of the United States will deny that the bad jobs numbers are real.

It’s the U.S. government that measures economic growth and the unemployment rate, but it’s actually up to a private nonprofit organization called the National Bureau of Economic Research to tell us when a recession has begun. Since the 1920s, this organization has had a committee of eggheads looking at a variety of indicators, especially personal income levels, unemployment rates and the gross domestic product, to determine when a recession has started.

A recession starts after economic activity has reached its peak. Right when things are better than ever is when they’re about to get worse. The decline in business conditions has to affect the whole economy; it can’t just be a single-sector slump, like the one Amazon has wrought among retailers. But you won’t know the recession has started until later, because the NBER waits until the government has finished its data revisions, which happens over a period of months. It wasn’t until 2008 that the organization announced that the last recession had begun in 2007.

There have been 11 recessions since World War II. The current economic expansion began in mid-2009, making it the third longest in history, and it can’t last forever.  

Expansions don’t just die of old age. One thing that can trigger recessions is the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates to quell inflation. The Federal Reserve is currently in the process of raising rates, but inflation is still low and most economists see no cause for concern in the immediate future ― though economists are not exactly great at predicting what will happen.

“When wage and price pressures develop, that’s when the clock starts to tick,” said Mark Zandi, an economist with Moody’s Analytics, a financial analysis provider.

Upward pressure on wages has begun to develop. The official unemployment rate is still falling, and it has been at or below 5 percent for about two years ― a level that has traditionally triggered inflation fears. But economists can point to a range of other measures, such as reduced labor force participation, that suggests the labor market is still out of whack. With interest rates already very low, the Fed has wanted to bring them up partly to ward off phantom inflation and partly just so it can lower them again when the next recession comes around. Because it will.  

One possible table-setter for a recession, Zandi said, is a huge tax cut that increases the size of the federal budget deficit — something very much like the contents of the Republican tax bill that Trump signed in December. In such a scenario all the extra money in taxpayer’s hands could cause the economy to overheat, leading the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates faster in an effort to stave off inflation.

“If the tax cuts are deficit financed, that is going to juice the economy and it will overheat, significantly raising the odds of a recession early in the next decade,” Zandi said.

Most economists are less confident the tax cuts will juice the economy quite so much, but they generally do anticipate an aggressive Fed response. “Interest rates are projected to rise in the short term because the legislation would boost aggregate demand and output, leading the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates to avoid a surge in inflation,” the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said in its December 2017 analysis of the economic effects of the new law.

Outgoing Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, for her part, kept the Fed’s plans cryptic in the wake of the tax bill. “I think my colleagues and I are in line with the general expectation among most economists that the type of tax changes that are likely to be enacted would tend to provide some modest lift to GDP growth in the coming years,” she said.  

Republicans on both the state and federal level have pushed to make benefits less generous and harder to get. 

While federal and state governments run an array of programs that respond to economic need, nothing is more important when mass layoffs roll around than unemployment insurance, which is not handed out to just anyone. Only people who are laid off through no fault of their own, and who have well-established work histories over the previous year, are eligible. Benefits are designed to replace about 46 percent of the person’s lost wages.

The average unemployment benefit ranged from $330 to $350 per week since 2016, according to The Department of Labor, making it more valuable than other programs responding to economic need. Food stamps, for instance, might provide that much money over the course of a month. The generosity of the benefit serves two purposes: one is to protect layoff victims themselves, and the other is to prevent a broader deflationary spiral caused by desperate people accepting terrible wages at jobs for which they’re not really suited.

After the Great Recession got underway, while hundreds of thousands of people were losing their jobs each month, Congress started increasing the duration of unemployment insurance for people who’d used up the standard 26 weeks of benefits that states provide. Republican foot-dragging over the cost of the benefits led to a huge fight in 2010, with former Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) infamously responding to Democratic pleas by saying “tough shit” on the Senate floor.

Since then, Congress has quietly allowed those benefits to expire while statehouse Republicans ― aghast that Barack Obama gave their constituents up to 99 weeks of combined state and federal unemployment insurance ― have hacked away at their own unemployment programs. Nine states reduced benefit duration from the usual 26 weeks, and many others have apparently gotten more aggressive in checking up on claimants to make sure they’re continuing to look for work, which has always been an eligibility requirement.

As a result, the rate at which unemployed Americans receive layoff compensation overall has fallen from about 36 percent in 2007 to about 28 percent in 2017, according to data from The Department of Labor. Wayne Vroman, an associate with the Urban Institute, said a big reason for the decline is that states are finding ways to kick unemployed people off benefits after they’ve already been deemed eligible. His research shows a big increase in “nonseparation determinations.” These are instances of states investigating whether someone is continuing to meet eligibility requirements by doing things like writing down the names and addresses of businesses where they’ve applied for work on forms to state work agencies. 

“When agencies have undertaken nonseparation determinations in recent years, the outcome has become much more likely to be a denial than in 1989 or 1999,” Vroman wrote in a paper that will be published this year. For instance, denial rates for determinations examining a person’s availability for work ― their willingness to take a job ― which is a requirement of benefit receipt, were 64 percent in 1989 and 83 percent in 2016.

Unemployment compensation is a state-federal program financed by payroll taxes on employers. When a lot of people lose their jobs and state unemployment trust funds run dry, states have to borrow money and sometimes increase payroll taxes ― something that makes Republican lawmakers enthusiastic about trimming benefits. (Most extra weeks of federal benefits are fully funded by the federal government and created by Congress on an ad-hoc basis.)

States are still smarting from the Great Recession. At the beginning of last year, only 21 state trust funds had achieved what the Labor Department considers a minimum level of solvency. If they can’t catch up before layoffs hit, there will be political pressure to follow the new path that other states have taken to reduce benefits. Lawmakers in Kentucky, which has a poor solvency rating, are currently considering proposals to make the state’s unemployment system more like Florida’s, currently one of the worst.

It’s an old pattern. After the recession of the early 1980s, changes in state benefits helped reduce the proportion of unemployed workers receiving compensation from 50 percent in 1980 to 37 percent in 1990, according to political scientist Paul Pierson’s 1994 book Dismantling the Welfare State?

Josh Bivens, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, said the country isn’t well prepared for the next recession.  

“We have managed to make UI incredibly non-protective,” Bivens said. “If we want the UI system to not be a complete joke in the next recession, it’s going to depend on Congress and the president.”

But Congress and the president might be more interested in urine tests than UI. Since about 2011, Republicans at the state and federal level have been trying to make drug tests a requirement for welfare, food stamps and unemployment insurance. In 2012, Congress passed a law giving states the right to drug test some unemployment claimants, but the measure let the Obama Labor Department decide who would be subjected to the test, resulting in a narrowly written regulation that Republicans said wouldn’t catch anybody.

Republicans scrapped the regulation last year, and the Trump administration has said it will release a new one sometime soon. Wisconsin, Texas and Mississippi have already passed drug test laws and are just waiting for a green light from the Labor Department.  

Republicans at the state and federal level have been trying to make drug tests a requirement for welfare, food stamps and unemployment insurance. 

How will a new recession play out under this new unemployment benefits regime? The recent hurricanes offer a preview. Storms that battered Texas and Florida threw tens of thousands of people out of work. Storm victims are supposed to be eligible for unemployment benefits and can file through the regular process.

In Florida, it’s not an easy process. The state overhauled its unemployment system in 2011, requiring layoff victims to file claims online and even (for a time) take a math and reading test. Since 2007, before the last recession started, the percentage of unemployed Floridians who receive compensation plunged from 32 percent to 9 percent, almost the lowest rate of coverage in the nation. 

Anthony Di Biagio is the co-owner of a residential and commercial cleaning service in Cape Coral, Florida. In the aftermath of Hurricane Irma he was unable to work because some of his clients’ homes and businesses were inaccessible. As a business owner, Di Biagio was ineligible for regular unemployment compensation, but perfectly eligible for the special disaster assistance provided through the state unemployment system.

After spending 40 minutes initiating his application online, Di Biagio learned it would take some real vigilance to actually receive the benefits. He’d have to request payments every two weeks and register with an online service called “Employ Florida Marketplace” as though he were looking for a job ― which, as a business owner, he was not.

“Unfortunately, this is counterproductive for me because I know that my unemployment is temporary and I’ll most likely only need benefits for 1-2 months,” he said in a Facebook message. “Even if I found a job with EFM, I couldn’t commit to it because I already own a company which plans to be fully operational as soon as possible.” 

The problems stem partly from the state’s apparent desire to discourage people from obtaining benefits and partly from plain old private sector incompetence. Florida hired Deloitte Consulting to overhaul the website and complained loudly about the contractor’s work, which in 2013 and 2014 the state blamed for claimants being unable to receive benefits in timely fashion. Handling claims through an automated system is supposed to save money on staff, but two other states that hired the firm to overhaul electronic benefits delivery have also encountered massive benefits delays and other problems.

(A Deloitte Consulting spokesman said unemployment system in all three states have been fully functional since 2014. “Unemployed workers in all of the states in which we have worked are receiving the unemployment benefits for which they’re eligible, in a timely fashion and in accordance with state and federal laws,” he said.)   

“The states that run these really threadbare programs, it’s not the economic stabilizer you would want for a family facing job loss for their main wage earner,” George Wentworth, a senior staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project, said in an interview. “It’s the most important program for the average American who loses their job. That’s why there are standards [in federal law] saying as soon as you’re eligible you should be getting payment within three weeks of filing that claim.” 

The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity declined to comment.

***

One thing that could actually make the next recession less miserable than its predecessor is “work sharing.” Thirty states currently offer work-sharing or “short-time compensation” programs that allow companies to reduce a group of employees’ hours instead of doing layoffs. The state then uses its unemployment insurance trust fund to compensate the workers for the missing hours.

Congress doled out $100 million for states to set up work-sharing programs in 2012, and several states designed new programs as a result. A Labor Department-commissioned study released in 2016 found that of the more than 2,000 businesses that enrolled in a state work-sharing program from 2008 through 2013, most had a favorable experience and more than 80 percent said they would sign up again.  

It’s such a good idea that of course nobody has heard of it.

Economists who are familiar with work sharing say it’s ridiculous how unfamiliar the concept is to most people considering its bipartisan backing. One flaw of the policy is that it’s entirely up to employers to sign up for the state-sponsored programs, even though its workers whose livelihoods are at stake.

“It would be neat if employees could initiate this as well,” economist Lonnie Golden of Penn State Abington said. “The information is just not out there.” 

Alternative work arrangements are more commonly along the lines of those Amazon warehouse jobs than they are for online platforms.

Another distinguishing feature of the next recession will be the prevalence of fake jobs with no benefits. Since 2005, the percentage of the workforce toiling in “alternative work arrangements,” such as freelance or subcontractor gigs, has risen from 10 to almost 16 percent, according to 2016 research by Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, economists at Harvard and Princeton, respectively. Less than 1 percent of jobs are for online platforms like Uber or TaskRabbit; alternative work arrangements are more commonly along the lines of those Amazon warehouse jobs where you don’t actually work for Amazon.  

This kind of work accounted for all of the net employment growth from 2010 to 2015 and has spread throughout occupations. The advantage is that these jobs are easier to get. The disadvantages are that they’re less likely to come with benefits; they’re less secure; and the schedules are more erratic.

And people working in such jobs may be ineligible for unemployment, since if they’re not actual employees of the firm they work for their state won’t have W2 forms on file reflecting their earnings. For people who don’t have benefits, the “flexibility” of contract work may be their only lifeline.

Katz and Krueger found in a follow-up paper that people who’d suffered unemployment were significantly more likely to find themselves in an alternative work arrangement after the Great Recession ― something that will happen even more next time the economy tanks.

“We would certainly expect a jump in people, as they lose out on possibilities of more traditional jobs, moving into alternative work,” Katz said.

I haven’t believed a word they told me in years. Donald Witkowski, former paper mill worker

Then there’s the Trump factor. When the mass layoffs return and the unemployment rate rises the newly jobless will discover that not only have they lost their livelihoods, but they have also become fake news.

The president of the United States will deny that the bad jobs numbers are real. Just as candidate Trump insisted the official unemployment rate was 10 times higher than the Obama administration said, President Trump won’t hesitate to cast doubt on his own government’s rate when it starts rising.

Who cares? Well, the tens of millions of Americans who will churn through the unemployment system are going to care. One of the worst things about being unemployed, aside from the fact that you have no money, is that you lose a routine that essentially connects you to society through daily interactions with other people. And since American culture closely links your value as a human to your career, it can be difficult to maintain self respect ― which helps explain the link between joblessness and suicide. Massive numbers of alienated and vulnerable people already living a surreal existence will be explicitly told they’re not even real.

Ask anyone who suffered more than a brief spell of joblessness in the wake of the Great Recession, which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, how it felt to keep hearing that the economy was improving. Ask Donald Witkowski.

“I haven’t believed a word they told me in years,” Witkowski told HuffPost. And that’s how he felt even though the president at the time took pains to say that, despite economic progress, many people had been left behind ― a kind of nuance Trump doesn’t do.

Witkowski, 59, lost his job in 2011 when the paper mill in Whiting, Wisconsin, closed down. He’d worked there for decades. Now, still unemployed and receiving disability benefits, he’s alienated from his government even after having gotten nearly a year of unemployment insurance thanks to a series of federal extensions. Whatever goes wrong with the next recession, he said, will be worse than whatever the statistics say. He has a prediction for the next downturn, and it’s based less on economics than on his experience of the last one.

“It won’t be a recession,” he said. “I think it will be a total collapse.”

Correction: This article initially stated the Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to January 2009. It lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

All The Funny Faces You Need To See From The Olympics' Figure Skating Events

$
0
0
China’s Yan Han competes in the figure skating team event men’s single skating short program during the Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Olympic Games at the Gangneung Ice Arena in Gangneung on Feb. 9, 2018.

Figure skating is an incredible mix of athleticism, grace and strength. But much like diving and tennis, the sport occasionally produces some pretty funny faces.

Already, the figure skating events at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea, have provided some pretty great content and unforgettable looks.

Photographers captured the world’s best figure skaters hurling themselves into the air, twirling into a tizzy and gliding around on the ice. Though skaters mostly make their dizzying jumps looks effortless, their faces sometimes say otherwise. 

Take a look at all the incredible looks below. And keep in mind most of us could never ― and will never ― attempt anything this difficult.

  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Mirai Nagasu of the United States.
  • ROBERTO SCHMIDT via Getty Images
    Mikhail Kolyada, an olympic athlete from Russia.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Evgenia Medvedeva, an Olympic athlete from Russia.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Nagasu of the U.S.
  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Adam Rippon of the U.S.
  • John Sibley / Reuters
    Nicole Schott of Germany.
  • John Sibley / Reuters
    Bradie Tennell of the U.S.
  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Meagan Duhamel and Eric Radford of Canada.
  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Alexei Bychenko of Israel.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Alina Zagitova, an Olympic athlete from Russia.
  • Jean Catuffe via Getty Images
    Kaori Sakamoto of Japan.
  • John Sibley / Reuters
    Cha Jun-hwan of South Korea.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Shoma Uno of Japan.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Cha Jun-hwan of South Korea.
  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Kolyada, from Russia. 
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Bychenko of Israel.
  • Harry How via Getty Images
    Patrick Chan of Canada.
  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Yu Xiaoyu and Zhang Hao of China.
  • XIN LI via Getty Images
    Keiji Tanaka of Japan.
  • MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images
    Tanaka of Japan.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Li Xiangning of China.
  • John Sibley / Reuters
    Natalia Zabiiako and Alexander Enbert, Olympic athletes from Russia.
  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
    Nagasu of the U.S.

Chrissy Teigen Has 2 Words For Hater Who Insinuated She's A Gold Digger

$
0
0
Chrissy Teigen took some time out of her day to roast a hater on Twitter.

Given that cookbook author Chrissy Teigen is a clapback queen, it’s amazing Twitter users still try to egg her on. 

On Sunday, the supermodel and “Lip Sync Battle” commentator drew the attention of a disgruntled Twitter user after she posted a lighthearted tweet. The tweet included four pictures that showed her cooking ― and later dropping her entire dinner on the floor. 

One of Teigen’s followers asked her what she did with the food on the floor. She replied, “oh I ate it I don’t care.” 

Since the Cravings author regularly posts pictures of her cooking adventures, the tweets weren’t really anything out of the ordinary.

But they certainly got the attention of one Twitter user who wrote, “All you do is eat, sleep, shit, and spend other people’s money. My perfect partner,” paired with a laughing face emoji. 

Teigen roasted the user with two simple words ― and a photo that said everything else for her. 

“My money,” she wrote, alongside a picture from a Forbes article about the world’s highest-paid models of 2017. It lists her income for the year from June 2016 to June 2017 at $13.5 million.

The exchange is reminiscent of one of Teigen’s similarly delicious Twitter burns. In July 2017, the model tweeted that she was finally blocked by President Donald Trump on Twitter. 

“After 9 years of hating Donald J Trump, telling him ‘lol no one likes you’ was the straw,” she wrote. One user replied, telling her, “And that’s probably the best thing you’ll ever have happen to you. Congrats on peaking.” 

Teigen, who eventually deleted this tweet, responded by listing other great things in her life: “I have a best selling book, great boobs, a family I love, am literally eating pasta on a lake in Italy and I married rich.” 

Though she jokes about marrying rich, we known she spends her own money. 

No, #MeToo Is Not Ruining Valentine’s Day

$
0
0

As the first Valentine’s Day in the #MeToo era approaches, you can almost smell the hot takes starting to sizzle. They’ll use the word “chilling,” and fret about the fate of ardor. They will wonder aloud if our most “romantic” holiday can even survive this onslaught of angry women. They are, in some instances, already here. Reuters invoked the frosty “c” word last week in the first line of their well-syndicated article (in which, full disclosure, I’m quoted): “#MeToo movement means changes for Valentine’s Day romance.” The movement to call out harassment and end assault, it seems, is killing sex.

Let’s talk about chilling experiences, shall we? The most profoundly chilling experience of my life was the night a guy I knew climbed into my bed when I was very drunk and decided, as I was slipping in and out of consciousness, to use my body for his own purposes.

That happened a long time ago, and these days, most of the time, I feel like I’m pretty thawed. But I still sometimes have trouble sleeping with someone else in the bed. And my body still goes into a deep freeze now and then, when something — a particular feeling of drunkenness, someone waking me up suddenly from a deep sleep — reminds me of that night. After I read the news about Aziz Ansari, I fell asleep with bile in my throat, thinking of every one of us whose bodily desires have been viewed as an obstacle course, trampled by men who forget we’re actual people. The next morning I couldn’t bear for my boyfriend to touch me.

If you haven’t experienced it, it can be hard to describe the hollow left behind when someone else’s violent decision separates you from the pure joy that your body can be. Even when, at the cost of years of grueling emotional labor and thousands and thousands of dollars in therapy and lost wages and school tuition, we are able to find real healing from the trauma, it’s never fully gone.

Every time I read one of those very concerned “contrarian” think pieces, I wonder if the “thinkers” have ever once stopped to consider the sexual appetites of those of us saying #MeToo. One way or another, those of us who have endured sexual violence will be shadowed by it our entire lives.

What about all the delicious sex we’re missing out on? What about our sexy fun? Why does no one bravely speak up about our sexual rights? Oh, right, that’s what #MeToo is actually trying to do.

You wouldn’t know it from the media coverage, but a some of us have been doing this work long before #MeToo as well. For years, I’ve been writing and teaching about how transforming the sexual culture can prevent sexual assault and make sex better for everyone (except those who enjoy using it to do harm). And for just as long, I’ve been told I “don’t understand how sex works” or that I’m trying to “criminalize male heterosexuality.” But that’s only true if you think sex is a zero-sum game in which one side emerges victorious and the other side is at best humiliated and at worst profoundly hurt.

The only way a movement of (mostly) women standing up against male abuses of power looks like it’s anti-romance is if you see romance as a literal pursuit, in which men must be free to hunt. If you think sex is primarily for men and about men’s appetites, that the real pleasure women should derive from it is the pleasure of being selected as the favored object of consumption, I can see how this reckoning could look like a crackdown on seduction.

It would even be understandable if you did see sex this way — it’s the way sex is commonly conceived of by both “liberal” Hollywood (which sells stalking as the height of romance) and the right-wing religious forces that control what passes for sex ed in far too many U.S. public schools, teaching young people that boys can’t control themselves when it comes to sex, leaving girls at “fault” for both consensual sex and male sexual violence.

So I’ll say it plainly here: Good sex isn’t what you can get away with. Good sex is never the result of wearing someone down. Good sex is a creative collaboration between two or more people. Between people who want to play, to connect, to explore their mutual fantasies, to enjoy each others’ enjoyment. You like to be seduced, dominated, ravished? Great. There are plenty of people who like to play that way consensually. You just have to talk about it with them first. But you can’t demand that the entire culture conform to your particular kink at the expense of women who don’t share it.

The only people for whom #MeToo is making the world less sexy are abusive men and their enablers. For the rest of us, it opens up a world of erotic possibility free of fear, shame, pain and trauma. If you think we’re ruining the fun with our insistence on consent and respect, it’s time to ask yourself whose “fun” you’re really defending.

Jaclyn Friedman is the author of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape and Unscrewed: Women, Sex, Power and How to Stop Letting the System Screw Us All. She hosts the podcast “Unscrewed.”


How This Coastal Odisha Village Has Drastically Reduced Water-Borne Diseases Through Simple Interventions

$
0
0

Water from ponds and tube wells made safe for consumption through simple and easy to maintain solutions have reduced water-borne diseases in coastal Odisha and has enabled village women to utilise the saved time more productively.

By Rakhi Ghosh*, Puri, Odisha

Soudamini Palai of Ogalpur village in Kanas administrative block of Puri district is happy that her 5-member family now gets sufficient safe water for drinking, with no effort. But, a few years ago things were quite different. It was a strenuous work for the women of the village to provide clean drinking water to their families.

The groundwater of the village that is less than 15 km away from Chilika Lake, a brackish water lagoon, is saline and contains iron. Makhara, a tributary of Daya River flowing near Ogalpur, is polluted. Still, the villagers, especially the women, who are responsible for collecting water, were dependent on these two sources to meet the family's needs of drinking, cooking and other household purposes.

In Suhagpur village, 35-year-old Kuni Pradhan narrated a similar story. Women and young girls of the village endured the same arduous labor every day to draw water from the village pond, the only source for potable water. Villagers used the pond for washing utensils and clothes, and also for bathing. Open defecation near the pond added to the biological contamination, especially during rains.

Disasters and water-borne diseases

Puri district, with almost 150 km of coastline, is prone to cyclones, floods and water logging; hence epidemics are common. Kanas block is more prone to floods as the block is near the Chilika coast and is surrounded by six tributaries, including Daya River.

During floods, the river water turns muddy and gets contaminated. Lack of access to safe drinking water during and after disasters leaves the entire population vulnerable to water-borne diseases like cholera, typhoid, jaundice, dysentery and diarrhea. Urban waste and sewage drained into rivers added problems for villagers as it carries loads of harmful bacteria.

In October 2013, Cyclone Phailin hit the entire coastal belt of Odisha. Almost all the villages in the Kanas block were severely affected by water from Chilika and floodwater from the rivers.

The villagers shifted to a nearby cyclone shelter as the villages lay inundated in floodwater for nearly a month. "When the flood water receded, we came back to our villages to restore our houses and salvage our belongings," Soudamini told VillageSquare.in. "But the most challenging work was getting clean water for drinking, cooking and other purposes."

Water tankers could not reach remote villages and the villagers did not get sufficient drinking water sachets. So they brought water from the river, left it undisturbed for a few hours for solid impurities to settle. "We transferred the clear water in the top to another container, boiled it and put chlorine tablets to make it suitable for drinking," recounted Soudamini. Every day women spent hours to make polluted river water potable.

Ogalpur villagers did not use water from the tube well because of its bad taste and smell. Since they were dependent on river water, almost all the villagers frequently fell ill from water-borne diseases and stomach ailments. "Every alternate week a few children would be down with diarrhea and most women would complain of stomach pain, skin aliments and allergies," Amari Samantray of Ogalpur told VillageSquare.in. Lack of safe drinking water not only affected the health but also the education of children.

Treating tube well water

Though iron is not as toxic as lead or arsenic, it has an unpleasant taste and odor and turns red after a few hours. "The salinity and iron content were so high that containers used to store groundwater turned red," Dhani Parida told VillageSquare.in. "So we used to draw water from river that was again unsafe for drinking."

Seeing vulnerable conditions of villagers in getting safe drinking water during and after disasters, SOLAR, a non-governmental organization (NGO) with support from Oxfam India installed iron removal plants (IRPs) for the existing tube wells in Ogalpur. "As the tube wells also get easily contaminated during floods, we raised the height of hand pump above the highest flood level of the area," Harish Chandra Das, secretary of SOLAR, told VillageSquare.in.

The IRP has a capacity of 2,000 liters and is filled four times during the day to cater to the 800-odd population of Ogalpur. The motor pump lifts the water into the top chamber of the IRP and the filtered water is collected in lower chambers. The tube well water that gets filtered through the IRP is free of bad smell and taste.

Pond to potability

In Suhagpur, the villagers were dependent on the pond water for drinking and cooking. "The pond water caters to the 1000-odd population of the entire village," Pradhan told VillageSquare.in.

The pond water is made safe for consumption through pond sand filtration units. (Photo by Rakhi Ghosh)

After the cyclone, SOLAR and Oxfam India set up a flood-proof pond sand filtration (PSF) unit in Suhagpur to provide the villagers with safe drinking water. The tank is divided into six chambers containing stone chips, sand and charcoal. Villagers draw the filtered water from the last chamber.

There are five IRPs and two PSFs set up in different villages in Kanas block. "Initially, we ran the units with electric motors, but due to erratic supply of electricity we have attached solar pumps now," said Das.

Positive impacts

The community says diarrhea, typhoid and jaundice has reduced drastically after they started drinking filtered water. In Suhagpur, before setting up of PSF, 11 cases of diarrhea were reported; after installing the filters, there was only one such case reported in the village. In Ogalpur too, there has been a drastic drop in the incidence of water-borne diseases. This was corroborated by data collected by the auxiliary nurse midwives (ANM) of two panchayats.

With the setting up of IRPs and the PSFs the women of these villages were relieved from the strenuous labor of purifying the water to make it fit for drinking. "Now we collect water from the taps in the morning and evening and use it for drinking, without any further purification process," Sarita Parida told VillageSquare.in.

The village women have more time for other activities that they used to spend in collecting water and making it potable. (Photo by Rakhi Ghosh)

The women said that they get more time for other household work and also get time to rest. "The girls who used to skip school to help their mothers during rainy seasons are now attending classes regularly," said Sarita Parida, a mother of two.

Earlier, women were drinking lesser amount of water as the cleaned water was insufficient for consumption of the entire family and men got priority. "Now the water intake by the women and girls of these villages has also increased," Ritima Parida, a young woman, told VillageSquare.in.

As the easy availability of clean water has reduced the drudgery of the village women, they have taken up the task of maintaining the units. They have formed a Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) committee. Every Sunday they clean the tanks and the filters. "Though village funds are used for the upkeep of the tank, a nominal fee of Rs 5 is collected from each household towards these costs."

The water is currently being used for drinking purpose only. The women seek more such units to meet cooking requirements, as they still rely on water from the ponds and rivers. Women from neighboring villages come to draw water from these units as the water is safer than other sources. "With IRPs and PSFs in our villages, now we have access to safe drinking water all the time", said Soudamini, and the other women agreed in unison.

Rakhi Ghosh is a Bhubaneswar-based journalist.

This article was first published on VillageSquare.in, a public-interest communications platform focused on rural India.

(The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.)

They've Been Married A Decade. She's A Sex Worker. Here's What It's Like.

$
0
0
Eva Sless and her husband, Justin, have been married almost 11 years. “I don’t know if the life we live is for everyone, but it works for us,

For Eva Sless, sex isn’t just something she enjoys — it’s a job. The 40-year-old Aussie is a sex columnist, a sex educator anda sex worker who engages in consensual sex for money

She’s also married. Sless’ husband, Justin, 43, is completely supportive of her work, though they’re both aware it’s an unconventional life. 

“I know we are a rare couple. Our life and marriage is built on a foundation of strong friendship, trust, love, and respect,” she told HuffPost. “I don’t know if the life we live is for everyone, but it works for us. I love our world.”

Below, they tell us more about Sless’ work, how it affects their marriage and what Justin thinks of his wife’s clients. 

How long have you been together? Were you already involved in sex work when you met? 

Eva: We’ve been married almost 11 years. We’ve been a couple for around 18 years and we met around 30 years ago. We’ve always been in each other’s lives.

I have worked as a sex worker on and off for about 15 years, so I already knew Justin when I started. We’d talked about it for years and it was something I’d always wanted to try and explore.

Sex and sexiness and being desired and being paid for it was always something I thought about, before I think I even knew it was something people did. I’d worked as a receptionist and manager at a brothel for a few years before I decided to jump over the desk and work the other side of it. It was a mutual decision. He gave me the courage to actually do it. And it’s been amazing.

Justin, what was your response when Eva told you she wanted to become a professional sex worker? What do you do for work?

I told her, “Cool! Go for it. You’d be freaking great.”

I build and fix mountain bikes for work. I used to race them, and then I got old and realized crashing really hurts. I still do the occasional endurance racing, but I’ve hung up my downhill pads. 

Eva, in general, what does your work with clients entail?

That’s a really tricky question to answer, because everyone is different and each job is different. I guess a basic rundown for what would be: chat, hang out, have sex, shower, chat and go home.

But really, it’s far more than that. I don’t like reducing it down to just sex because it’s the personal interactions that are the key and what I enjoy and what my clients enjoy. We laugh. We discuss interesting things. I have cried with clients who have lost partners or pets or family members. I have played board games all night and watched movies. I’ve gone to museums and dinner. I’ve had jobs that were supposed to last hours, that actually lasted about 15 minutes and ended in tips over $100. It’s impossible to reduce my job to plain generalizations, because life and sex and the reasons people might call a sex worker can’t be generalized.

What does your husband think of your clients? Has jealousy ever been an issue?

Eva: I don’t think he ever really thinks about them. I mean, no more than I think about the people he deals with at work. Jealousy rarely comes into our lives. We have an open marriage and swing and play and share and enjoy sex together and with others. There have always been those safety concerns that come with the job, but we’ve always had great systems and security in place, and it’s really never been an issue.

Justin: Jealousy has been an issue; I’m jealous that it’s a job I can’t do myself! I mean, maybe I could, but it’s a lot harder for guys to get into. But no. I’m never jealous of punters. It’s just a job.

What’s your work/life balance like, Eva?

Well, at the moment, I do less sex work due to the fact that all my other work keeps me busy. Plus, we used to live in Victoria, where the laws on sex labor are more open. We moved to Queensland about four years ago. It’s actually one of the reasons I don’t work as often as I would like to; the laws, stigma and religious groups make Queensland a bit scary for independent sex workers. Well, for me anyway. [Editor’s note: Sex industry laws in Australia are determined by state and territory governments.

I miss it sometimes. I have three regular clients I see now, but apart from that, I don’t really do it as much. I just don’t have the time. When I did work regularly, I was also studying, so I’d do maybe three nights or days a week or special request bookings. But it never took over or took time away from us.

Couple time.

What, if any, impact does your work have on your sex life? 

Eva: I really don’t think it has. Not in any negative ways, anyway. But my life and work, regardless of sex work, is within the sex industry. I am a sex columnist, a sex toy reviewer and a sex educator, and all of that has been my world for around 20 years. 

Justin: I don’t think it has an effect. Our sex life is excellent. It has been before, during and since she’s slowed down on the work.

You have a 14-year-old daughter together. What does she know about what you do for a living, Eva?

She knows I work in sex and sex education and that I am very politically motivated to create a better world for women, and my focus is often on sex workers and the industry in general.

She gets very cross at me when we’re watching TV, because I will point out everything problematic about it! We had a deal recently where we would binge-watch each other’s shows, so I got her into “Star Trek” and “Doctor Who,” and she got me to watch “How I Met Your Mother,” one of the most sexist shows I’ve seen in a while. Her main comment to me while watching was, “Mom! Do you have to make everything political?” I’m like, “Yep, kiddo, because everything is political.”

She’s unlike me in almost every respect, especially me as a 14-year-old. She’s quiet and academic and doesn’t give a flying flip what anyone, especially boys, think of her, but she’s very open-minded and understands that everyone deserves respect and that sex work is work. 

What “rules,” if any, do you have in your relationship related to your job?

Eva: Basic security rules. Having “check in” people and support networks for when I meet clients, for example. But we aren’t very rules-heavy in that sense. Again, it’s just a job. I treat it like a job, as does he.

Justin: Exactly, it’s just a job. It’s like if your partner was a massage therapist, there’d be what most people consider personal intimacy with others during your partner’s work hours. We are very good at separating love and sex. It’s a physical thing rather than an emotional one. There are certainly emotions involved, it’s very intimate, but it’s not love or permanent connection. It is what it is. 

Justin, what are people’s reactions when you tell them your wife is a sex worker? 

They’re often surprised I’m OK with it, but it hasn’t changed any friendships or their attitudes toward us. It’s just a job. A kind of cool job, but just a job. I guess people are surprised sometimes that she does it by choice and she enjoys it and it’s a well-paying job.

Clearly, you’re very open-minded and honest in your marriage. That said, what’s one deal-breaker you couldn’t stand for in the relationship?

Eva: Dishonesty. The truth is power, and in power there is strength. Take away that strength and what is left? 

Justin: Same for me: Dishonesty. What’s the point of being in a committed relationship if you can’t be honest? Everything is easier with honesty. The good and the bad. 

Critics Of Aadhaar Say They Have Been Harassed, Put Under Surveillance

$
0
0
A man goes through the process of eye scanning for the Unique Identification (UID) database system, also known as Aadhaar, at a registration centre.

Researchers and journalists who have identified loopholes in India's massive national identity card project have said they have been slapped with criminal cases or harassed by government agencies because of their work.

Last month, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the semi-government body responsible for the national identity project, called Aadhaar, or "Basis", filed a criminal case against the Tribune newspaper for publishing a story that said access to the card's database could be bought for 500 rupees.

Reuters spoke to eight additional researchers, activists and journalists who have complained of being harassed after writing about Aadhaar. They said UIDAI and other government agencies were extremely sensitive to criticism of the Aadhaar programme.

Aadhaar is a biometric identification card that is becoming integral to the digitisation of India's economy, with over 1.1 billion users and the world's biggest database.

Indians have been asked to furnish their Aadhaar numbers for a host of transactions including accessing bank accounts, paying taxes, receiving subsidies, acquiring a mobile number, settling a property deal and registering a marriage.

The Tribune said one of its reporters purchased access to a portal that could provide data linked to any Aadhaar cardholder.

The UIDAI complaint, filed with the police cyber cell in the capital, New Delhi, accused the newspaper, the reporter, and others of cheating by impersonation, forgery and unauthorised access to a computer network.

Media associations sharply criticised the action - the Editors Guild of India said UIDAI's move was "clearly meant to browbeat a journalist whose story was of great public interest. It is unfair, unjustified and a direct attack on the freedom of the press."

In response, the agency said "an impression was being created in media that UIDAI is targeting the media or whistleblowers or shooting the messenger."

"That is not at all true. It is for the act of unauthorised access, criminal proceedings have been launched," it said in a statement.

Osama Manzar, the director of the Digital Empowerment Foundation, a New Delhi-based NGO, called the government's prickliness "a clear sign that rather than it wanting to learn how to make Aadhaar a tool of empowerment, it actually wants to use it as a coercive tool of disempowerment".

DATA LEAKAGE

Last May, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an independent Indian advocacy group, published a report that government websites had inadvertently leaked several million identification numbers from the project.

UIDAI sent the CIS a legal notice within days, said Srinivas Kodali, one of the authors of the report.

The notice alleged that some of the data cited in the report would only be available if the site had been accessed illegally. The UIDAI wrote that the people involved had to be "brought to justice."

According to Kodali, two more notices followed, addressed to the group's directors and two researchers, containing more accusations. "They said it was a criminal conspiracy, and demanded that we send individual responses," he said.

CIS then received questions about its funding from the home ministry section that grants NGOs permission to receive foreign funding, said a source in the group who saw the letter. CIS viewed this as a threat to its funding, the source said.

CIS declined to comment on the notices or on the questions about funding.

UIDAI did not reply to multiple e-mails seeking comment on the accusations about CIS and similar complaints by other activists and journalists, and officials could not be reached by phone. Officials at the Ministry of Information Technology that supervises UIDAI were unreachable by phone.

In a column in the Economic Times newspaper in January, Ajay Pandey, the head of the UIDAI, wrote: "The data of all Aadhaar holders is safe and secure. One should not believe rumours or claims made on its so-called 'breach'."

RS Sharma, the head of India's telecom regulatory body, said there was an "orchestrated campaign" against Aadhaar as it was against the interests of those who operated in the shadow economy with fictitious names, or were skimming off subsidies.

"It is going to clean up many systems," Sharma told a television channel last month. "That's probably one of the reasons why people realise that this is now becoming too difficult or too dangerous for them."

"THAT TRIP TO TURKEY?"

A Bangalore researcher who contributed to the CIS report said scrutiny by police and government officials was a common occurrence, but harassment was stepped up after it was published.

"Sometimes people from the police station visit you. Other times from the Home Ministry. It was intimidating," the researcher said.

The person, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal, said police officers asked questions like "How was that trip to Turkey?'," to make it clear the subjects were under surveillance.

When Sameer Kochhar, a social scientist and author of books on Aadhaar, demonstrated how the system's biometrics safeguards could be bypassed last year, UIDAI filed a police report in New Delhi, a person familiar with the matter said.

Subsequently, Kochhar received at least three notices from the Delhi Police alleging that he had violated 14 sections under three separate laws, the person said.

Kochhar's lawyer declined comment. Delhi Police officials declined comment.

Critics have warned Aadhaar could be used as an instrument of state surveillance while data security and privacy regulations are still to be framed.

Former central bank governor Raghuram Rajan said last month that the government needed to prove it would protect the privacy of Aadhaar.

"I do think that we have to assure the public that their data is safe," Rajan said. "All these reports about easy availability of data are worrying and we have to ensure security. We cannot just say trust us, trust us, it's all secure."

#InWakanda Hashtag Brings The Blackest Of Nations To Life

$
0
0

Since reports about Marvel’s “Black Panther” first came out, Black Twitter has been, for lack of a better word, hype. And this weekend, the community has expressed that excitement through the viral hashtag #InWakanda. 

The hashtag, created by  Michael Harriot, a writer at The Root, imagined what Wakanda, the uncolonized black utopia and home to Black Panther, would look like in real life. Users ran with the idea and began creating a country that, through law and custom, reflected blackness at its best.

Some began with simple details like “Who made the potato salad?” and others gave shoutouts to classic African-American Vernacular English, such as “the itis.” Harriot was also sure to point out how the dangers of ashiness aren’t a problem in this perfect society.

The hashtag also addresses some of the basic struggles black people experience while living in predominantly white countries. For example, one tweet stated that in Wakanda there simply isn’t a need for STEM programs to teach science, tech, engineering and math to black girls because they already “go together like greens and cornbread.” A few others noted that the only Donald Wakandans acknowledge is Glover and that cultural appropriation might as well be a capital offense.

The hashtag takes, from the cookout-inspired to the socially conscious, all point back to a larger narrative that has encompassed black audiences’ “Black Panther” anticipation. They feel seen.

When Shuri, princess of Wakanda and head of the country’s technological advancements, casually flaunts her new inventions on screen, black women in science become a tangible idea. And as T’Challa, a.k.a. Black Panther, navigates his newfound status as king, audiences see themselves reflected as both leaders and royalty.

In these tweets, Wakanda becomes more than a fictional utopia. It is, as Harriot pointed out, where black lives and black culture intrinsically matter.

See Barack And Michelle Obama's Official Portraits

$
0
0

Former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama’s official portraits were unveiled Monday at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.

Michelle Obama’s portrait, painted by Amy Sherald, was unveiled first:

Michelle Obama and artist Amy Sherald unveil the former first lady's official portrait at the National Portrait Gallery.A detail of artist Amy Sherald's portrait of Michelle Obama.

Then came the former president’s portrait, painted by Kehinde Wiley:

Artist Kehinde Wiley and Barack Obama unveil the former president's portrait.Barack Obama's portrait by Kehinde Wiley in further detail.Barack and Michelle Obama with their portraits.

Each of the Obamas spoke during Monday’s event. The former first lady spoke of her late father, who she says “sacrificed everything to give me and my brother the opportunities he never dreamed for himself.”

She also said she was “thinking about all of the young people, particularly girls and girls of color, who in years ahead will come to this place and they will look up and they will see an image of someone who looks like them hanging on the wall.”

Both Obamas chose black artists who’ve been praised by Kim Sajet, director of the National Portrait Gallery.

“Both have achieved enormous success as artists, but even more, they make art that reflects the power and potential of portraiture in the 21st century,” Sajet said.

Former President Obama praised Sherald for her work on his wife’s portrait, which he said captured “the grace, intelligence and charm and hotness of the woman I love.”

Obama also praised Wiley, saying he’s “in awe” of the artist’s gifts.

What Is It Like To Live In The World’s Biggest Experiment In Biometric Identity?

$
0
0

Siddharth Singh was supposed to be in school this year. Instead, the five-year-old is stuck watching television all day in his family's small house in the slums of West Delhi, India. His mother, Radha, tried to get him into the local government school, but Siddharth can't get the education he's entitled to—because he doesn't have an Aadhaar card.

Aadhaar is the world's largest, most ambitious digital identity scheme, and its plastic cards are central to daily life across India: they drive news cycles, spark political debates, and are the subject of conversation from Mumbai to Kolkata. Aadhaar, which was launched by the Indian government nearly a decade ago, aims to give each of the nation's 1.3 billion citizens an official, verified identity, eventually making it the largest biometric ID system in the world.

In the past decade, the scheme has exposed a host of issues, from identity theft to the erosion of privacy rights. Poverty is widespread across India, and Aadhaar's role in giving—or denying—people access to government services has sparked a great deal of controversy. Ideally, one simple system should grant everyone the rights and services that they're entitled to. But if you're locked out of that system, you can lose access to everything.

Delhi is a city full of migrants. Siddharth's mother and his grandmother, Laxmi, both emigrated from Nepal more than 30 years ago. Nepalese citizens are allowed to work in India, and they don't need ID for so-called "unorganized" work, including domestic help. But they do need ID to access welfare schemes that subsidize housing, food, and fuel, and ID is a necessity if they want to try to get better-paid work, open a bank account, or buy a house—the things people need to climb above the poverty line.

Siddharth Singh.

Radha and her husband, Joginder, both have Aadhaar cards. After years arguing with officials over older forms of ID like ration cards, Aadhaar's simplicity and legitimacy are a welcome relief. But getting Siddharth his card was more complicated—because they never applied for a birth certificate when he was born.

"We left it too late," says Radha. "And now it will cost anywhere between ₹3,500–6,000 (about US$50–100) to get the certificate made. It's such an additional, unnecessary expense." In India, a lost or damaged birth certificate can leave you in a catch-22: birth certificates are often the way to "seed" other kinds of ID, but without those other forms of ID, you can't replace your birth certificate.

Siddharth's older sister, Sia, goes to a private school. There's a perception among many in India that private schools—which teach in English, rather than the less-prestigious Hindi—are better than government schools. The Singhs can only afford to send one child to private school; unless their finances change dramatically, they need to rely on the government for Siddharth's schooling—but the government doesn't think that Siddharth exists.

The Singhs' experience is a common one—and one that predates Aadhaar. People so often fear losing hard-won ID documents that they tend to store them with their most valued possessions—both because a lack of ID can mean being cut off from vital services, but also because of India's notoriously opaque and inefficient bureaucracy. Re-registering with a government authority or getting a duplicate ID is a frustrating process: days of waiting, jumping through hoops, or even paying bribes.

Radha, with her children Siddharth and Sia Singh.

Today, something as simple as a missing document or a faulty fingerprint reader can mean an elderly person is denied a vital pension, or a child, like Siddharth, is denied an education. Many essential services are currently linked to Aadhaar, and many more will be in the near future. India is relying on the comprehensive reach of this universal digital ID system—but what about the people who fall through the cracks?

Each individual Aadhaar card and its unique identity number is part of an enormous digital system. Every record in the centralized database includes a person's basic demographic and biometric information, including a photograph, ten fingerprints, and two iris scans. This data is collected and managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which was founded in 2009 and was given stronger legal powers under a 2016 law passed by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As of October 2017, India had issued 1.18 billion identity cards. There are big differences between states, but across the entire country, Aadhaar now covers 99 percent of the adult population, 75.4 percent of children between five and 18 years old, and 41.2 percent of children between zero and five. The system is meant to make it possible to "target delivery" of essential government services; there are least 87 different schemes linked to it, including education access, pensions, scholarships for minorities, farming subsidies, school meals, and healthcare.

Before Aadhaar, people had to use different IDs, from birth certificates to ration cards, to access these services. The result was inconsistent and highly fallible. If the new bureaucrat behind the government office window didn't believe you were the person on your old, tattered ration card, you wouldn't get rations for the month. Basic tasks like opening a bank account or applying for a utility like water have been impossible for millions of Indians because they can't prove who they are.

Aadhaar's promise is that, by absorbing every existing kind of ID into one database, it will close gaps in service and welfare provision, and empower poor people by removing many of the barriers to escaping poverty. Since the system is completely digital, it opens up the possibility of integrating new kinds of ID that haven't even been proposed yet—a new kind of online banking service, for example—without massive upheaval. It's meant to future-proof the concept of official identity in India.

It could have an impact in other countries, too. The Aadhaar experiment is being studied by governments in other countries, eager to see if this system solves many of their own service provision problems. The World Bank estimates that one in seven people globally can't prove their identity, most of whom are in Africa and Asia and are under the age of 18.

The truth, however, is more complicated. In closing old gaps in service provision, Aadhaar has opened new ones, and the system has thrown settled lives into disorder and confusion. Many of those who need government services the most are also the most likely to fall through these new gaps in the system: poor migrants, children, the rural elderly, caste and tribal minorities, the visually impaired, the physically disabled, and more.

Leprosy sufferers are a prime example: there are reports of people without fingers or sight being refused welfare payments because they physically cannot prove their ID with fingerprints or iris scans. In one village in Haryana, 65 people with leprosy reported losing their monthly rations for the same reason. There are at least 86,000 people in India with leprosy—and that's only one illness, out of innumerable other situations that can preclude someone from being able to give the information that the system demands.

India's vast population and dozens of distinct cultures—not to mention the wide ranges of literacy and wealth—makes a one-size-fits-all ID scheme all the more difficult to implement. For poor people, disabled people, or for people who are illiterate, the bureaucracy is tough enough to navigate—but Aadhaar compounds these existing inequalities.

In the slums of Delhi, children beg at traffic lights, or sort through landfills looking for scrap metal to resell. Sanjay Gupta, the director of Chetna, a Delhi-based NGO that works with children in poverty, has helped hundreds of these children apply for ID over the years. Their addresses are not so much homes as indicators of poverty: addresses like "Under Moolchand Flyover" or "Under IIT Flyover."

"An Aadhaar is sort of an entry card to the dignified life," says Gupta. "But it's not easy to get." Gupta acts as a child's "introducer," a kind of witness who can vouch for the child to a local official. But the system is entirely informal, and whether his introduction is accepted varies from officer to officer. "Aadhaar has become a very powerful document," says Gupta. "It has left the passport behind. But [these officials] need to be trained not to refuse anyone."

Their addresses are not so much homes as indicators of poverty: addresses like "Under Moolchand Flyover" or "Under IIT Flyover."

Even successfully registering for and getting an Aadhaar number doesn't guarantee things will be easy. Opening a bank account requires proof of address—like a utility bill—but people who live in the slums are often unable to apply for utilities because they don't have an address. All new bank accounts need to be linked with Aadhaar numbers, but payment errors are common. Gupta often hears from people who never receive money they're entitled to, and don't know how to challenge it. "The poor have very little financial literacy and no bank officer has the patience or inclination to explain finances to a poor person," he says.

Of the more than 500 children Chetna has helped over the last two years, by far the most common problem was getting—and keeping—the physical Aadhaar card. "You forget that these are homeless people," Gupta says. "They roam around in kaccha-banyan (rags). This is a document that needs safekeeping. Where will they keep it?"

Woman jostle to enrol themselves for Unique Identification (UID) database system in the outskirts of the western Indian city of Ahmedabad February 14, 2013.

Vishal and Bhavna, whose names have been changed on request, are teachers who work for a government school in Delhi. They spend their spare time working with children in the slums, helping them get ID so they can enroll in school. "It is absolute hell here," says Vishal. "There is no water or electricity. There is no sewage connection. There are open drains. You cannot even imagine it."

Vishal and Bhavna write letters of recommendation to try and convince officials to register children, or even whole families, with Aadhaar numbers. Many government schools have recently made an Aadhaar number mandatory for children seeking admission. Bhavna, who has been a teacher for 18 years, says she's had to refuse 50 percent of applicants since the new rule was implemented. Both Bhavna and Vishal have asked their superiors not to implement the new Aadhaar requirement.

If he has to spend three to four days running around getting an Aadhaar card, it will mean that he probably doesn't eat on those days. Would you do it?

"Why do you need an Aadhaar for education for the least privileged?" Bhavna asks. "Imagine a daily wage laborer who has moved here from Bihar with his family. He has nothing and probably lives in a shack. He has no papers. He can barely fend for himself and his family. Whatever he earns in one day lights the cookstove for dinner at night. If he has to spend three to four days running around getting an Aadhaar card, it will mean that he probably doesn't eat on those days. Would you do it?"

The new rule is all the more frustrating because there is an open question over whether the schools are breaking the law in making Aadhaar compulsory. The first successful case to be brought to the Supreme Court, in 2012, was won on the basis that the system violated the fundamental rights of privacy and equality—different social groups being denied services they are entitled to—and that the government has a constitutional obligation to provide free education to all children between ages six and fourteen.

Since then there's been a running battle between civil society groups and the government. Compulsory Aadhaar in schools was challenged in the Supreme Court again in October 2015, in a case brought by a coalition of government school teachers, parents, parents' associations, and NGOs. The plaintiffs won, and the ruling clearly stated that access to welfare services should not be tied to Aadhaar registration. But the federal government continues to introduce compulsory Aadhaar registration for all kinds of things that exist in a legal grey area, from senior rail passes to applying for government jobs.

At the state and city level, many schools still demand Aadhaar cards, and some have proposed making Aadhaar compulsory to receive free school meals. India's Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that its earlier ruling still stands, leading to an ongoing game of cat-and-mouse between the executive and judicial branches of government—with the country's most disadvantaged citizens caught in the middle. And in a country with widespread illiteracy and a broad range of languages, mixed messages about whether Aadhaar is mandatory or not have led to mass confusion.

Children from government school protest at Shastri Bhawan against making Aadhar card mandatory for mid-day meal on March 17, 2017 in New Delhi, India.

The Indian government provides small scholarships and stipends to groups like caste and tribal minorities, or female students—but you need a bank account linked to Aadhaar to receive it. Many teachers have had to take up what is effectively an unpaid second job, handling distressed parents upset about their struggles trying to put their children through "free" school. "We have to send reports on how many identities and bank accounts have been linked to Aadhaar every single Friday," says Vishal.

"This is not a teacher's job, is it?"

The story of Aadhaar is increasingly the story of identity systems across the globe. In the coming decade, identity will become increasingly digitized, centralized, and integrated with our lives online. As other countries—particularly lower income ones—look to Aadhaar as a potential model for the future, they're watching the system's growing pains as well.

Throughout history, identity systems—from the first paper passports to modern digital programs like Aadhaar—have been used to define people in different ways. Who's eligible for government welfare, and who isn't; who gets treated with humanity by the state, and who doesn't. They define individuals as either acceptable or unacceptable in the eyes of people with power.

The story of Aadhaar is increasingly the story of identity systems across the globe.

Over the course of this series, we'll be examining modern identity systems and the individuals struggling with them, from asylum seekers in Ireland to indigenous tribes in Japan. Today's identity systems have the potential to reach more people—and, in turn, to help more people than ever before. But what happens when these systems make lives worse? Can we design a system that ensures that no one falls through the cracks?

This piece is part of The ID Question, a series examining how identity is changing in the modern world—from ID cards to Facebook profiles, work life to indigenous rights. You can explore the whole series, including videos, a reading list, and more, at How We Get To Next.

The Invisible Victims Of #MeToo

$
0
0

When my neighbor Daphne was 15, she walked into her house and interrupted her father having sex with a woman who was not her mother. The woman jumped from the bed screaming and ran out the front door that Daphne had just walked in through, leaving her alone with her father’s rage.

Her father advanced toward her in the hall and raped her. Afterward, he took a shower, and Daphne was frozen against the wall, staring at the door she had just entered, shamed and humiliated.

The Daphne who walked through that door wasn’t a character created to fulfill a story arc in a violent movie, where the hero saves her at the end. She was a girl. She was raped by her father. He later went to jail, but she was still a girl raped by her father. No one was going to save her.

The Daphnes of the world are acutely neglected. Not white enough, not wealthy enough, not pretty enough ― just not enough. They were the motivation behind Tarana Burke’s activism and her original Me Too campaign. But the image of Me Too in its current iteration, #MeToo, is white and elite. It has endorsed the privileged survivor and ignored the brown one. It has re-traumatized the very girls Burke was determined to help, making them feel insignificant and excluded.

In 1997, when Burke was working at a youth camp in Alabama, she met a 13-year-old girl named Heaven. Heaven was considered “difficult” and “troubled.” She spoke privately to Burke and told her she was a sexual assault survivor. Burke wanted to say, Me too. Me too. Me too. But she didn’t. Heaven never returned to the camp. Feeling guilty for her lack of support for the teen, Burke organized programs aimed at girls of color who were surviving sexually violent spaces. She wanted them supported, validated, nurtured and comforted.

More than a decade after Burke started the Me Too campaign, elite women in Hollywood, publishing and media industries had their turn taking an ax to the door of sexual manipulation. Stories were shared. Names were spoken. Trauma was revealed. They dug crater-sized holes in the unquestioned intersection of gender and power and male toxicity. Female musical artists carried white roses with them as they attended the Grammy Awards as an expression of solidarity.

But solidarity with whom?

Daphne and Heaven and girls like them are invisible stakeholders and, often, they are just mentioned in passing. They have been reduced to an asterisk because they lack the financial capital to speak without the threat of revenge.

The Time’s Up Legal Fund is a lifeline for women without resources. But they only provide assistance to survivors of workplace sexual violence and harassment. Teenage abuse survivors like Daphne and Heaven are still on the outside looking in. They are not professional women. All silence isn’t the same.

The survivors in Hollywood become heroes while the black girls of Compton and the black girls living in the West End of Atlanta and the black girls in Hyde Park in Chicago are faceless and nameless.

Silence is the norm in many black families, passed from mother to daughter with the expectation that trauma is to be endured and not spoken about. The truth is buried. I remember when I was a teenager, my mother brought home a woman she identified as “Omi.” All my mother told me was that she and Omi worked together, and Omi was going to be staying with us. She did for three days, and then she left. I never much thought about Omi again, other than reflecting on her beauty. She was Cuban, with handsome eyes and jet-black hair and a reserved way of speaking.

About 10 years after Omi left, I asked my mother what had happened to her. My mother paused and said, “She died. She was staying with us because her boss forced himself on her and she was pregnant. She died of a messy abortion.” I asked my mother why she kept this to herself for so many years. After all, I was a young teen girl and this was a powerful story about poisonous masculinity and its warped consequences; if nothing else, it was a cautionary tale. My mother replied, “Certain things you don’t talk about.”

The survivors in Hollywood become heroes while the black girls of Compton and the black girls living in the West End of Atlanta and the black girls in Hyde Park in Chicago and the black girls in the Queensbridge housing project in New York City and the black girls in Allegheny West in Philadelphia and in Cherry Hill in Baltimore and the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans are faceless and nameless. Their silence isn’t fearless or strategic. It is strained. The #MeToo originals have become the #MeToo props and the #MeToo ghosts.

Not long ago, actress Jane Fonda noted, “So many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and white and everybody knows them. This has been going on a long time to black women and other women of color.” Her words felt as if someone had just taken a mirror and angled the glass toward the sun, generating a bright heat the way only truth can.

Ignoring the numbers can’t erase the impact. Native American women endure the most sexual violence, followed by black women. But the faces of #MeToo are actresses like Alyssa Milano and Rose McGowan and the multiplicity of Weinstein accusers, most of whom are white. 

“The reality of seeing everyday people ― friends, neighbors, co-workers, family ― disclosing their various experiences with sexual violence has been jarring for many and enlightening for most,” Tarana Burke wrote in The Washington Post, one month before she was excluded from the Time magazine cover that honored #MeToo survivors. “I started this work with the intention of reaching young Black and Brown girls but fully believing in its potential to move the world. Some people call it a watershed moment, and there definitely feels like a shift is happening but it feels incomplete.”

Incomplete and unbalanced. There is the #MeToo adult table and the #MeToo kids’ table. White roses are for the former, while social neglect is given to the latter.

The #MeToo invisibles have been overlooked for celebrities because we glorify the aristocracy Hollywood has created; one where beauty reigns and whiteness and fame mean you are special. #MeToo changed perception and opened a wound and empowered women to speak about the sexual and emotional damage that happened to them. But #MeToo isn’t completely virtuous. The movement has fallen into the predictable patterns of exclusion and omission, of separate but equal nonsense, as it favors one type of survivor and re-traumatizes and neglects the other.

Valerie Morales is a nonfiction writer who covers gender, race/culture and sports. She is a content editor for the blog The Committed Generation.


Former Employee Sues Vice Media For Allegedly Underpaying Female Staffers

$
0
0
Shane Smith, chief executive officer of Vice Media Inc., is seen in September 2016.

Vice Media, a company that has been accused of fostering a hostile workplace environment for women, is now facing a lawsuit from a former employee over alleged equal pay violations.

In a case filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Monday, former Vice Media employee Elizabeth Rose accused her onetime employer of a pattern of paying female employees less than their male peers. The practice, the lawsuit argues, is in violation of the Federal Equal Pay Act and similar state acts in New York and California ― the two states where Rose lived while working for Vice from 2014 to 2016. 

According to the filing, Rose obtained an internal memo in 2015 showing her the salaries of about 35 other employees. She allegedly discovered that overall, the men were being paid significantly higher salaries than their female counterparts for essentially the same work. 

Rose says she discovered a particularly egregious pay discrepancy between herself and a male employee she’d hired. Per the lawsuit:

Plaintiff hired her male subordinate, but she learned that this male employee earned approximately $25,000 per year more than her. This male employee quickly rose through the ranks and was later promoted to a position as Plaintiff’s supervisor by the male executive overseeing the Live Nation joint venture, who told Plaintiff that the male employee was a “good personality fit” for male clients at Live Nation.

The lawsuit alleges that hundreds of women employed at Vice Media were affected by the equal pay violation. Rose’s lawyers are seeking class-action certification.

In a statement to HuffPost, Vice said it’s still reviewing Rose’s complaint, and noted that it’s studying workplace equality concerns.

“We have just been made aware of the complaint and are reviewing it,” the statement read. “As a company, we have made a significant commitment to a respectful, inclusive and equal workplace. That commitment includes a pay parity audit started last year, a goal of 50/50 female/male representation at every level by 2020, and the formation of a Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Board.”

Former Vice News writer Alice Speri tweeted in support of Rose’s claims on Tuesday:

In December, a bombshell New York Times report explored the toxic workplace culture for women at Vice Media. Two men alleged in the report to have engaged in sexual misconduct at work, company President Andrew Creighton and Chief Digital Officer Mike Germano, were subsequently placed on leave the following month. After the launch of an internal investigation, Germano was permanently dismissed. The company is still investigating claims against Creighton. 

Ahead of the Times piece late last year, The Daily Beast and BuzzFeed News also published investigations into toxic behavior by male employees at Vice Media. 

People Who Swear May Be Happier, Healthier And More Honest

$
0
0

Consider this the next time someone chastises you for dropping an F-bomb or two.

While swearing may have once been considered an unsavory habit, research has found there are some benefits to using more colorful language. Not only does cursing come with some mental and physical health perks, it also could positively affect how you converse with others. In other words, it’s pretty darn good for your overall well-being.

Need some evidence? Below are a few science-backed reasons why it isn’t so bad to incorporate a few swear words into your lexicon:

Swearing is an effective way of communicating.

Research has shown that cursing might increase the effectiveness and persuasiveness of an argument. Not only that, swearing can communicate how you feel about a certain subject without explicitly explaining it or resorting to a physical altercation, the BBC reported:

By swearing, we not only communicate the meaning of a sentence, but also our emotional response to the meaning — our emotional reaction to something. It also allows us to express anger, disgust or pain, or indicate to someone that they need to back off, without having to resort to physical violence.

It might mean you’re more honest.

A recent study found that people who swear often lie less and have higher levels of integrity. Researchers examined participants’ profanity use and had them do a lie scale, which is a series of evaluations that ask redundant questions to determine a person’s truthfulness. The study found a positive relationship between those who cursed and their honesty levels.

It improves your pain tolerance.

If letting out a few expletives helps when you stub your toe, there might be a reason for that. A study published in 2011 found that swearing can increase your ability to withstand pain. Researchers hypothesized that cursing can activate your body’s release of natural, pain-relieving chemicals that have a similar soothing effect to drugs like morphine, Time reported.

Swearing is a sign of intelligence.

Just call yourself a smarty pants. Studies have suggested that a fluency in taboo words is associated with possessing a larger vocabulary in general. Researchers who have studied swearing also say that the habit may be linked with a higher IQ.

It may make you perform better during exercise.

Pumping out profanities may help you pump some iron. Research conducted in 2017 suggested that swearing could affect the outcome of your workout. Study participants were examined during bicycle and hand-grip exercises and were told to either repeat neutral words or curse words during the activities. In both tests, swearing helped improve performance, The New York Times reported.

It may give you a sense of calm.

Experts say that overall, if you want to let the cuss words fly, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

“The health benefits of swearing include increased circulation, elevated endorphins, and an overall sense of calm, control and well-being,” Neel Burton, a psychiatrist based in Oxford, England, and author of Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotionswrote in Psychology Today.

Those are all some damn good excuses.

'Walking Dead' Star Danai Gurira Was 'Absolutely Devastated' After That Carl Reveal

$
0
0

“Walking Dead” Season 8 spoilers below.

Look, Carl Grimes had his problems. He was a little on the emo side, his long hair was a bit much and he may have aimed a gun with the wrong eye. That’s just dangerous, man.

Regardless of these quibbles, the inevitable loss of Chandler Riggs’ character on “The Walking Dead” ― after it was revealed in the Season 8 midseason finale that he suffered a zombie bite ― was tragic for the fans and the cast.

“Walking Dead” chief content officer Scott Gimple told HuffPost he had a tough time following the death reveal, and now, in an interview with HuffPost’s Taryn Finley, “Black Panther” actress Danai Gurira, aka Michonne on “Walking Dead,” is opening up about her reaction.

“I got a little depressed for a while. Straight up,” the actress said. “You’re in the story. You’re in it, and you’re also in a family. It was hard.”

Chandler Riggs and Danai Gurira on

Michonne was basically Carl’s ass-kicking, sword-wielding, surrogate mother on the show. The two were close. You have to be to share candy bars and scavenge for cat art in the apocalypse. 

Gurira says she was “absolutely devastated” to lose that relationship.

“Carl and Chandler are a blessing to Michonne and to Danai, you know what I mean? I adore Chandler, and [for] Michonne, Carl is her healer. Everything she and Rick do is to protect Carl, so this is kind of the worst nightmare realized for him to reveal [the bite] at the end of the last episode,” Gurira said.

“These are very resourceful people who do everything they can,” she added. “Rick and Michonne don’t really stop easily. What do you do when that’s what you’re facing? So, yeah, I was devastated. Michonne was devastated.”

The good news for Gurira is Carl isn’t gone yet. There’s still a chance to say goodbye in the next episode, which has yet to air.

However, any hope fans had for Carl’s survival was pretty much erased when early reviews for the midseason premiere confirmed that Riggs was a goner. 

But, hey, it was a good run. Carl got to rock a cowboy hat, wear an eyepatch, and eat pudding. If you ignore the super depressing parts, that sounds like a pretty solid apocalypse. 

If anything, fans can expect more unpredictable storylines from here on out. Carl is still a pivotal character in the comics, so the show’s deviation from the source material could send “The Walking Dead” in all different kinds of directions as other characters slip into the plots Carl can’t.

It’ll be rough for Michonne, but hopefully her cat art can get her through.

“The Walking Dead” returns Feb. 25 at 9 pm on AMC.

Here's What A Man Perceives When A Woman Wears Red

$
0
0

Fashion designer Bill Blass has been known to say, “Whenever in doubt, wear red.” And we’ll admit, there really is nothing like a red dress (or red shoes or a red lipstick) to make one feel just a little bit sexier.

Red has long been associated with love and passion. As Leslie Harrington, executive director of the Color Association of the United States, told HuffPost, almost everyone around the world equates red with love. Part of the reason we make that connection, Harrington explained, may have to do with the fact that red is related to blood, which is related to the heart, which has become a symbol of love.

There doesn’t appear to be a specific moment in history when people began thinking of red as the color of love. But Harrington notes that over time, red has become a signifier for various aspects of life.

“Red means fire. Red means blood. Red means heart. Red means love,” she said. “When we get passionate, we get hot, so we think of red.”

And when you wear red, the color can affect the way people perceive you. If you want to be perceived as sexy, red is “the color to wear,” Harrington said.

That seems to be especially true if you’re a woman trying to get a man’s attention.

In one study, discussed in a 2010 blog post at Psychology Today, researchers showed men an image of a woman and asked them to rate her attractiveness. Some of the men saw a photo in which the woman was wearing red, while the others saw a photo of the woman wearing blue. The men rated the woman in red as being more desirable.

In that same study, men were also shown images of a woman against different color backgrounds ― red, white, gray or green ― and asked to rate her attractiveness. Men found the woman standing against the red background to be more attractive. 

In another study, Harrington said, researchers found that men prefer blue-based reds, whereas women prefer yellow-based reds.

“The study went so far as to say if a woman [wanted to get a guy], make sure your lipstick is blue-based, not yellow-based,” Harrington said. (Just a reminder: Everyone should just wear whatever lipstick shade they like best. Or no lipstick at all. You do you, always.)

There are a number of different shades in the red spectrum, many of which connote different ranges of emotions. Pink, for example, might represent the love one has for a child. It’s sweet and innocent, the “softer side of red,” Harrington said. Meanwhile, a more vibrant, traditional red may be indicative of the type of passionate love you share with a spouse or romantic partner. Red also has some X-rated associations, as with Amsterdam’s famous Red Light District, known for legal prostitution, sex shops and brothels.

Red, though, represents more than just love. As Harrington noted, many people associate it with anger. (Even the angry emoji is a red face.) “Red literally has a love/hate relationship with itself,” she said.

The fiery shade is also associated with power, Harrington said. If the president wears a red tie, for example, it is likely intended to convey power rather than sex appeal. It has “that domineering, confident, don’t-mess-with-me kind of strength to it,” she said. Historically, she added, red was worn by the wealthy and the elite, as it was one of the most expensive colors to produce.

Harrington went on to explain that, from a physiological standpoint, when people see the color red, their bodies have a physical reaction that mimics the feelings one experiences when falling in love, such as an increased heart rate

“It’s an emotional and physiological connection that happens,” Harrington said. “The other colors aren’t quite as lucky as red to have this really strong connection to things.”

At the end of the day, the color red, like women themselves, contains multitudes. In some ways, it’s cute, but it can also be powerful, sexy, sensual and erotic. And, of course, it’s bold and beautiful. 

Lions Kill And Eat Suspected Poacher

$
0
0

A suspected poacher was found dead last week after being killed and partially eaten by lions, according to reports out of South Africa

The victim was attacked on Friday night. His remains were discovered on Saturday at a private game reserve near Kruger National Park, Sky News reported.

“It seems the victim was poaching in the game park when he was attacked and killed by lions,” Limpopo police spokesman Moatshe Ngoepe told AFP. “They ate his body, nearly all of it, and just left his head and some remains.”

A loaded hunting rifle was found near the remains. 

Initial reports indicated that the victim may have been a farmworker whose tractor stalled and was attacked by the lions as he attempted to walk home, local news site The Citizen reported. That man was later found safe. 

Now, authorities believe the dead man was trying to illegally hunt the protected big cats. They are still working to identify the body. 

“The process of identifying the deceased has already commenced and it might be made possible by the fact that his head is amongst the remains that were found at the scene,” Ngoepe told SowetanLIVE. 

South Africa’s IOL said several lions were poisoned in the same region last year. Their heads and paws were also chopped off. 

National Geographic reported that the region was known more for rhino poaching rather than lion poaching. However, lion parts are sometimes used in traditional medicine. 

Viewing all 46147 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>