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).
The Democratic insurgent’s campaign is losing steam—but his supporters are not ready to give up.
SANTA MONICA, Calif.—This is how a revolution ends: its idealism tested, its optimism drained, its hope turned to bitterness.
But if Bernie Sanders’s revolution has run aground in California, which will be one of the last states to vote in the Democratic primary on June 7, he was not about to admit it here, where thousands gathered on a sun-drenched high-school football field of bright green turf.
“We are going to win here in California!” Sanders said, to defiant cheers. In the audience, a man waved a sign that says, “Oh HILL no!”
This is Sanders’s last stand, according to the official narrative of the corrupt corporate media, and if there is anything we have learned in the past year, it is the awesome power of the official narrative—the self-reinforcing drumbeat that dictates everything.
A rock structure, built deep underground, is one of the earliest hominin constructions ever found.
In February 1990, thanks to a 15-year-old boy named Bruno Kowalsczewski, footsteps echoed through the chambers of Bruniquel Cave for the first time in tens of thousands of years.
The cave sits in France’s scenic Aveyron Valley, but its entrance had long been sealed by an ancient rockslide. Kowalsczewski’s father had detected faint wisps of air emerging from the scree, and the boy spent three years clearing away the rubble. He eventually dug out a tight, thirty-meter-long passage that the thinnest members of the local caving club could squeeze through. They found themselves in a large, roomy corridor. There were animal bones and signs of bear activity, but nothing recent. The floor was pockmarked with pools of water. The walls were punctuated by stalactites (the ones that hang down) and stalagmites (the ones that stick up).
What the billionaire’s financing of lawsuits against the gossip rag says about Internet culture.
What could be stranger than a former professional wrestler winning an eight-figure jury award in a lawsuit against an online gossip site that distributed his sex tape? If the lawsuit also had been secretly funded by a technology billionaire. It sounds like something out of a pulpy television script, but, nope, apparently it’s the sort of thing that really happens now.
This week, the New York Timesreported that Gawker Media founder Nick Denton suspected that someone connected to Silicon Valley might have been financing Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea)’s defamation lawsuit against his company, which obtained and published the wrestler’s sex tape in 2012. Citing an anonymous source, Forbesnamed PayPal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel as the Silicon Valley figure in question. Yesterday, Thiel confirmed to the Times that he did indeed support the Bollea lawsuit—along with those of other Gawker “victims.”
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.
In 2006, Donald Trump made plans to purchase the Menie Estate, near Aberdeen, Scotland, aiming to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. He and the estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, sat down to discuss the transaction at the Cock & Bull restaurant. Griffin recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details. But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.
“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.
It’s hard to say sorry. Especially when you’re doing it for a whole country.
When Barack Obama goes to Hiroshima on May 27, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to visit the site of the world’s first nuclear attack, he will not apologize on behalf of his country for carrying out that strike 71 years ago. He will neither question the decision to drop bombs on two Japanese cities, nor dwell on its results: the deaths of more than 200,000 people and the dawn of the atomic age. But he will affirm America’s “moral responsibility,” as the only nation to have used nuclear weapons, to prevent their future use. He will recognize the painful past, but he won’t revisit it. When it’s all over, we still won’t know whether or not he thinks there’s something about the atomic bombings to be sorry for.
In recent years, the idea that educators should be teaching kids qualities like grit and self-control has caught on. Successful strategies, though, are hard to come by.
In 2013, for the first time, a majority of public-school students in this country—51 percent, to be precise—fell below the federal government’s low-income cutoff, meaning they were eligible for a free or subsidized school lunch. It was a powerful symbolic moment—an inescapable reminder that the challenge of teaching low-income children has become the central issue in American education.
The truth, as many American teachers know firsthand, is that low-income children can be harder to educate than children from more-comfortable backgrounds. Educators often struggle to motivate them, to calm them down, to connect with them. This doesn’t mean they’re impossible to teach, of course; plenty of kids who grow up in poverty are thriving in the classroom. But two decades of national attention have done little or nothing to close the achievement gap between poor students and their better-off peers.
Washington voters handed Hillary Clinton a primary win, symbolically reversing the result of the state caucus where Bernie Sanders prevailed.
Washington voters delivered a bit of bad news for Bernie Sanders’s political revolution on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary, symbolically reversing the outcome of the state’s Democratic caucus in March where Sanders prevailed as the victor. The primary result won’t count for much since delegates have already been awarded based on the caucus. (Sanders won 74 delegates, while Clinton won only 27.) But Clinton’s victory nevertheless puts Sanders in an awkward position.
Sanders has styled himself as a populist candidate intent on giving a voice to voters in a political system in which, as he describes it, party elites and wealthy special-interest groups exert too much control. As the primary election nears its end, Sanders has railed against Democratic leaders for unfairly intervening in the process, a claim he made in the aftermath of the contentious Nevada Democratic convention earlier this month. He has also criticized superdelegates—elected officials and party leaders who can support whichever candidate they chose—for effectively coronating Clinton.
For the first time in over 130 years, young people are more likely to live with their mom and/or dad than with a partner.
Millennials have been bucking historical trends about where and how young people live: They are buying homes later in life, settling down in romantic partnerships years after previous generations, and migrating, contrary to many popular accounts, away from cities.
In 2014, for the first time in the past 130 years, young adults were slightly more likely to live at home, with their parents, than with a romantic partner, according to a new report.
The report, an analysis of U.S. Census data published by the Pew Research Center, compares the percentage of Millennials that lived at home with parents to the percentage living with spouses or partners, dating as far back as 1880. They found that while living with a romantic partner has historically been the most popular arrangement, by 1960 the percentage of the nation’s 18-to-34-year-olds who were living with a spouse or partner in their own household had peaked at 62 percent. Today only about half as many—31.6 percent—can say the same.
The Democratic challenger says he accepts the Republican’s verbal offer to face off before the California primary.
Updated on May 26 at 9:16 a.m. ET
It could be yuge.
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said Wednesday night he would be willing to debate Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders for charity before the June 7 California primary—after Sanders wrote a letter to the real-estate mogul challenging him to a debate.
The exchange took place during Trump’s appearance on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live. Kimmel read Sanders’ letter aloud: “Hillary Clinton backed out of an agreement to debate me in California before the June 7th primary. Are you prepared to debate the major issues facing our largest state and the country prior to the California primary?”
Trump declared he would—as long as the proceeds go to charity.
As he accepted the hypothetical debate, Trump asked, perhaps jokingly, how much Sanders would be willing to pay him—for charity—then conceded that it would be fine if a network were willing to put up the money. Trump also said he has never met Sanders.
Clinton has built dominant leads in delegates and the popular vote, but the tenacious Vermont senator is blocking her effort to consolidate support.
Democrats are facing the springtime of their discontent, and maybe the summer too.
The recent flurry of national polls showing an unexpectedly close general election race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has punctured the Democratic hope that the Republican’s historically high unfavorable ratings would render him uncompetitive. Instead, the polls underscored that Clinton’s own public image is comparably battered after her surprisingly difficult primary race against Bernie Sanders. While the polls show Trump rapidly gaining among Republican voters (if not GOP leaders), Clinton’s general-election position looks to be deteriorating within the key Democratic constituencies that are still drawn to Sanders, particularly among liberals and young people.