Sweeping outages in India have left approximately 670 million people there without power. There are more Indians who have no lights, air conditioning, or refrigeration (save those powered by private generators); whose streets have no traffic lights, subways, or street lamps; than there are people living in all the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Japan put together. It appears to be the single largest power outage in the modern history of electricity. The second largest was yesterday's outage in northern India, which has since spread. The third largest left 100 million Indonesian without power in 2005. For comparison, the largest blackout in American history, in 2003, affected 45 million people. Indian officials say they have still not deduced the source of the problem.
On a regular day, during peak hours, India's grid can only meet about 90 percent of the electricity demand. Meanwhile, the Indian government is also struggling to deal with a major drought. The convergence of these two calamities is a reminder of how far India still has to go before it can duplicate the sort of modernization and rise from poverty that China and other East Asia countries have achieved. Below, the story of over a half-billion people without power, told in photos.
Traffic is gridlocked across urban New Delhi, a city of 14 million. With
the public train system shut down and the city's already raucous
traffic made even more dangerous and impassible by the lack of power
lights, the city has been described as "in chaos." No one is yet sure what the disruption to these northern cities will mean for India's already faltering economy. (AP)
Girls study educational Islamic texts at a madrasa in Noida, on the outskirts of New Delhi, India's capital. (Reuters)
Stranded passengers wander rails at the New Delhi station after hours of inactivity. Some Indian media has noted that the blackout has forced members of New Delhi's middle and upper classes to experience life as the far more numerous lower class does on a daily basis. The sprawling poor neighborhoods of India's
rapidly growing cities endure regular, if typically briefer, outages in
power and public services. (AP)
A girl looks through the windows of one of the many trains stalled along
India's enormous rail system, a legacy of British imperial rule. (Reuters)
A police officer in the city of Chandigarh reads documents with the help of
a flashlight. Basic government services, which in some areas in still
modernizing, have been hit hard by the outages. (Reuters)
A barber in Calcutta cuts a customer's hair by candlelight. With
the blackout now in its second day, many Indians are trying to push
ahead with daily life. (AP)
A New Delhi shopkeeper fiddles with a generator outside of his
storefront. India's economy, the ninth largest in the world, has been
growing rapidly in large part as its enormous rural population moves
into cities. This means that the Indian economy is fueled largely by its
cities, and because those cities run on electricity, today's loss is
both a symbolic and actual blow to the country's effort to lifts its
hundreds of millions of impoverished citizens above the poverty line. (AP)
Commuters line up at a New Delhi metro station, perhaps a bit optimistically. (AP)
Indian soldiers guard the entrance to a closed metro station. So
far, neither looting nor other crimes appear to have been much a
problem, though they have been endemic in other blackouts. Some
Americans may recall the disintegration of order in New York City during
the 1977 blackout there (thankfully, the looting was not repeated in
the 2003 U.S. blackout).
For decades, the candidate has willfully inflicted pain and humiliation.
Donald J. Trump has a cruel streak. He willfully causes pain and distress to others. And he repeats this public behavior so frequently that it’s fair to call it a character trait. Any single example would be off-putting but forgivable. Being shown many examples across many years should make any decent person recoil in disgust.
Judge for yourself if these examples qualify.
* * *
In national politics, harsh attacks are to be expected. I certainly don’t fault Trump for calling Hillary Clinton dishonest, or wrongheaded, or possessed of bad judgment, even if it’s a jarring departure from the glowing compliments that he used to pay her.
But even in a realm where the harshest critiques are part of the civic process, Trump crossed a line this week when he declared his intention to invite Gennifer Flowers to today’s presidential debate. What kind of man invites a husband’s former mistress to an event to taunt his wife? Trump managed to launch an attack that couldn’t be less relevant to his opponent’s qualifications or more personally cruel. His campaign and his running-mate later said that it was all a big joke. No matter. Whether in earnest or in jest, Trump showed his tendency to humiliate others.
In a unique, home-spun experiment, researchers found that centripetal force could help people pass kidney stones—before they become a serious health-care cost.
East Lansing, Michigan, becomes a ghost town during spring break. Families head south, often to the theme parks in Orlando. A week later, the Midwesterners return sunburned and bereft of disposable income, and, urological surgeon David Wartinger noticed, some also come home with fewer kidney stones.
Wartinger is a professor emeritus at Michigan State, where he has dealt for decades with the scourge of kidney stones, which affect around one in 10 people at some point in life. Most are small, and they pass through us without issue. But many linger in our kidneys and grow, sending hundreds of thousands of people to emergency rooms and costing around $3.8 billion every year in treatment and extraction. The pain of passing a larger stone is often compared to child birth.
Who will win the debates? Trump’s approach was an important part of his strength in the primaries. But will it work when he faces Clinton onstage?
The most famous story about modern presidential campaigning now has a quaint old-world tone. It’s about the showdown between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in the first debate of their 1960 campaign, which was also the very first nationally televised general-election debate in the United States.
The story is that Kennedy looked great, which is true, and Nixon looked terrible, which is also true—and that this visual difference had an unexpected electoral effect. As Theodore H. White described it in his hugely influential book The Making of the President 1960, which has set the model for campaign coverage ever since, “sample surveys” after the debate found that people who had only heard Kennedy and Nixon talking, over the radio, thought that the debate had been a tie. But those who saw the two men on television were much more likely to think that Kennedy—handsome, tanned, non-sweaty, poised—had won.
Communal living is hardly a departure from tradition—it's a return to how humans have been making their homes for thousands of years.
For most of human history, people were hunter-gatherers. They lived in large camps, depending on one another for food, childcare, and everything else—all without walls, doors, or picket fences. In comparison, the number of people living in most households in today’s developed countries is quite small. According to the Census Bureau, fewer than three people lived in the average American household in 2010. The members of most American households can be counted on one hand, or even, increasingly, one finger: Single-person households only made up about 13 percent of all American households in 1960. Now, that figure is about 28 percent.
Belonging to a relatively small household has become the norm even though it can make daily life more difficult in many ways. Privacy may be nice, but cooking and doing chores become much less time-consuming when shared with an additional person, or even several people. Water, electric, and internet bills also become more bearable when divided among multiple residents. There are social downsides to living alone, too. Many elderly people, young professionals, stay-at-home parents, and single people routinely spend long stretches of time at home alone, no matter how lonely they may feel; more distressingly, many single parents face the catch-22 of working and paying for childcare. Living in smaller numbers can be a drain on money, time, and feelings of community, and the rise of the two-parent dual-earning household only compounds the problems of being time-poor.
A new study of pregnant women finds nausea and vomiting are associated with a reduced risk of miscarriage.
People are always saying the wrong thing to pregnant women.
Expectant mothers hear everything from the obnoxious (“You’re huge!”) to the outright bizarre (“If you eat that Sriracha, your baby will come out bald”).
Then there are the well-meaning—yet utterly unhelpful—superstitions and platitudes: “I can tell from how you’re carrying that it’s a girl.” (No, you can’t.) “At least the terrible sleep you’re getting now is great preparation for all those sleepless nights you’re going to have with baby!” (Bone-splitting exhaustion is not something you need to practice ahead of time.) “But morning sickness means your baby is healthy!”
Actually, there might be something to that last one.
Pregnant women have long been told that feeling miserable every single day for several months may indicate that a developing baby is doing well—especially in the first trimester, when nausea and vomiting are most common. Now, there’s more science to support the idea.
The American republic was long safeguarded by settled norms, now shattered by the rise of Donald Trump.
A long time ago, more than 20 years in fact, the Wall Street Journal published a powerful, eloquent editorial, simply headlined: “No Guardrails.”
In our time, the United States suffers every day of the week because there are now so many marginalized people among us who don't understand the rules, who don't think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them, who have no notion of self-control.
Twenty years later, that same newspaper is edging toward open advocacy in favor of Donald Trump, the least self-controlled major-party candidate for high office in the history of the republic. And as he forged his path to the nomination, he snapped through seven different guardrails, revealing how brittle the norms that safeguard the American republic had grown.
In the waning moments before this evening’s first debate, let me note another remarkable story by David Fahrenthold in the WashingtonPost that in any other campaign would by itself qualify as major news.
Fahrenthold reports just now another entanglement between Trump’s business interests and his ostensibly charitable foundation. You should read all the details in his story, but in essence: Trump directed some of his business partners to take at least $2.3 million in money they owed him as normal business expenses, and instead send that money to the Trump Foundation as “donations.”