Saturday, November 16, 2013

Caught in Unemployment’s Revolving Door

Caught in Unemployment’s Revolving Door

Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times
Jenner Barrington-Ward says that she has been told, “point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ ”

On a cold October morning, just after the federal government shutdown came to an end, Jenner Barrington-Ward headed into court in Boston to declare bankruptcy.
Multimedia
Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times
Ms. Barrington-Ward, who hasn’t had a full-time job since 2008, is planning a local access television show in Somerville, Mass.
Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times
She raked leaves in a friend’s backyard, where she was staying.
Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times
Ms. Barrington-Ward in her friend's house. "I've got to get a job," she said. "I just have to."

It took weeks to put the paperwork together, given that her papers and belongings were scattered across the country — there was a broken-down car and boxes of paperwork in Virginia Beach, clothes in Colorado and personal possessions at a friend’s house in Somerville, Mass. She managed to estimate her income — maybe $5,000 last year, but maybe half that this year — from odd jobs. Soon, she would officially have nothing.
It has been a painful slide. A five-year spell of unemployment has slowly scrubbed away nearly every vestige of Ms. Barrington-Ward’s middle-class life. She is a 53-year-old college graduate who worked steadily for three decades. She is now broke and homeless.
Ms. Barrington-Ward describes it as “my journey through hell.” She was laid off from an administrative position at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2008; she had earned about $50,000 that year. With the recession spurring employers to dump hundreds of thousands of workers a month and the unemployment rate climbing to the double digits, she found that no matter the number of résumés she sent out — she stopped counting in the thousands — she could not find work.
“I’ve been turned down from McDonald’s because I was told I was too articulate,” she says. “I got denied a job scrubbing toilets because I didn’t speak Spanish and turned away from a laundromat because I was ‘too pretty.’ I’ve also been told point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ And the two times I got real interest from a prospective employer, the credit check ended it immediately.”
For Ms. Barrington-Ward, joblessness itself has become a trap, an impediment to finding a job. Economists see it the same way, concerned that joblessness lasting more than six months is a major factor preventing people from getting rehired, with potentially grave consequences for tens of millions of Americans.
The long-term jobless, after all, tend to be in poorer health, and to have higher rates of suicide and strained family relations. Even the children of the long-term unemployed see lower earnings down the road.
The consequences are grave for the country, too: lost production, increased social spending, decreased tax revenue and slower growth. Policy makers and academics are now asking whether an improving economy might absorb those workers in time to prevent long-term economic damage.
“I don’t think we know the answer,” said Jesse Rothstein, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “But right now, I think everybody’s worst fears are coming true, as far as we can tell.”
Soon after we first talked in October, Ms. Barrington-Ward left her sister’s house in Ohio, where she had crashed for six weeks, and went back to Boston and filed her bankruptcy paperwork. She contacted a headhunter. “I’ve got to get a job,” she said. “I just have to.” She had two job interviews lined up and her fingers crossed.
Long-term joblessness — the kind that Ms. Barrington-Ward and about four million others are experiencing — is now one of the defining realities of the American work force.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 percent, down from 10 percent four years ago. Private businesses have added about 7.6 million positions over the same period. But while recent numbers show that there are about as many people unemployed for short periods as in 2007 — before the crisis hit — they also show that long-term joblessness is up 213 percent.
In part, that’s because people don’t return to work in an orderly, first-fired, first-hired fashion. In any given month, a newly jobless worker has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of finding a new job. By the time he or she has been out of work for six months, though, the chance drops to one in 10, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Facing those kinds of odds, some of the long-term jobless have simply given up and dropped out of the labor force. So while official figures show that the number of long-term jobless has fallen steeply from its recessionary high of 6.7 million, many researchers fear that this number could mean as much bad news as good. Workers over 50 may be biding their time until they can start receiving Social Security. Younger workers may be going to school to avoid a tough job market. Others may be going on disability, helping to explain that program’s surging rolls.
Stan Hampton, 59, a veteran of the Iraq war, is now earning his associate degree. But he has not had a job since returning from active duty in 2007, and is now living in an apartment complex for veterans near Las Vegas.
“I’m just trying to hang on until my retirement kicks in,” he said, though he stressed that he would still look for a job. “I have not been in jail or prison, nor am I an alcoholic, drug addict or gambling addict. I am simply old, unemployed and out of money.”
To answer the question of whether the improving economy might help people like Mr. Hampton and Ms. Barrington-Ward, economists often phrase the question as “Is it structural or cyclical?” Cyclical unemployment is temporary, caused by a slack economy. Structural unemployment stems from a mismatch between what businesses want and what workers offer. You are a car mechanic, for example, but the economy needs programmers.
If long-term joblessness is cyclical, a growing economy should bring people back into the job market. But if structural factors are at play, the concern is dire for the whole economy, with a normal unemployment rate “significantly higher than what has been achieved in the past,” said Janet L. Yellen, the presumptive new Federal Reserve chairwoman, in a speech this year.
Right now, most economists argue that unemployment remains primarily cyclical. Ben S. Bernanke, the departing Fed chairman, made this point last summer, adding that an unemployment rate in the 5 percent range — an indication of a healthy economy — was still obtainable. Growth simply hasn’t proved strong enough to spur businesses to hire all the people who want jobs.
Economists come to this conclusion in part because there is no evidence that the long-term jobless are accumulating in any one industry, which would be a signal that the economy needs to move workers from, say, manufacturing into nursing. Long-term unemployment has hit workers young and old, of all industries, races and backgrounds. But the long-term jobless actually tend to be more educated. And long spells of joblessness have hit black workers especially hard, as well as single parents, the disabled and older workers.
With time, however, even people with desired skills can become “structurally” unemployed. Longer spells of unemployment become harder to explain away. Jobless workers’ skills can atrophy. Job seekers find it harder to appear eager. Wounds become scars.
After she lost her job, Ms. Barrington-Ward lived off her 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Two years ago, she had to give up the house she shared with friends outside Boston. She cannot get Medicaid because she does not have a fixed address. She has no car to get around. She does freelance “intuitive” readings, similar to psychic readings, and web production work. A jobless friend committed suicide.
She tries not to let those strains show, but she describes the experience as wearying. “After working since I was 15, I have nothing to show for it,” she said.
“She’s brilliant,” said Allyson Hartzell, a longtime friend with whom Ms. Barrington-Ward is currently staying. “She gets up in the morning. She has her tasks. She’s always working on her personal projects, trying to generate money. She goes to job interviews. She keeps herself in shape.”
Ms. Hartzell continued: “I think it’s emotionally difficult to handle so much rejection, and I think others sometimes feel she needs to justify why she’s in the position she’s in.”
Economists have long thought that the strain of unemployment, plus the erosion of skills and loss of contacts that naturally occur, helps explain the “structural” unemployed in a nation’s work force. But new evidence shows that bias plays a much larger role than previously thought. Some of the long-term unemployed might never find work because businesses simply refuse to hire them.
In a recent study, Rand Ghayad a Ph.D. candidate at Northeastern University, sent out 4,800 dummy résumés to job postings. Those résumés that were supposedly from recently unemployed applicants with no relevant experience were more likely to elicit a call for an interview than those supposedly from experienced workers out of a job for more than six months. Indeed, the callback rate for the long-term jobless ranged from just 1 to 3 percent, versus 9 to 16 percent for newly unemployed workers.
Unemployment becomes a “sorting criterion,” in the words of a separate study with similar findings. It found that being out of a job for more than nine months decreased interview requests by 20 percent among people applying to low- or medium-skilled jobs.
In dozens of interviews, the long-term unemployed described discrimination as being foremost in their minds, though at the same time they said the experience of joblessness had changed them.
Robin Hastey, 53, who lives in Cornwall, N.Y., lost her job in 2009 and has not found steady work since. Her husband went through a spell of unemployment, but eventually found a job that paid half of what he made in the 1990s. They are deeply in debt, she said, estimating that they have about $100 in their bank account.
“We look older,” she said. “I’m not as cute. People aren’t as forgiving. When I was young, you could ask stupid questions and people would hire you anyhow. Now, you’re just a crazy old lady. There’s a lot less forgiveness in the marketplace.”
Still, the slack economy remains the primary culprit behind all the pain in the labor market, economists say. “We’ve got to be doing everything we can,” said Professor Rothstein at Berkeley. “That means direct hiring”— with the government providing jobs — “employment tax credits, just about anything you could think of.”
But the government is now doing the opposite. The mandatory federal budget cuts known as sequestration took as much as 60 percent out of unemployment checks this summer and fall. And, as of this winter, the federal emergency program that extends the maximum number of weeks of jobless payments will end, though the White House is pushing to extend it again.
Some fear that it may already be too late to prevent long-term joblessness from permanently scarring the American work force and broader economy. International Monetary Fund researchers estimate that the level of structural unemployment has increased significantly since the recession. And striking new Federal Reserve research shows that the scars from the recession have knocked the economy off its long-term growth trend.
For the long-term jobless, there is little to do but hope and wait. When I visited Ms. Barrington-Ward in November, she was planning to produce a show for Somerville Community Access Television. Unemployment itself consumes a lot of time. “I’ve been in seven states over the last five years, living with friends and family,” she said. “I usually stay somewhere for three weeks maximum. People want me to leave but don’t want to ask me to leave.”
She never got a second interview for one of the two positions for which she applied. She wrote a detailed plan for and had phone conversations about the other job, this one at a web start-up. She offered to work on a consulting basis. The company told her that it would go with a temp.
On a cold evening in Somerville, she sipped a mocha she had bought with a coupon. She had not given up — not quite. But she was disappointed that jobs hadn’t panned out. Again.
“I just know I’m not going to get another full-time job again,” she said. “It’s just so hard.” She had to leave her friend’s house soon. She did not know where she would go.

A letter to the girls who interrupted Boehner’s breakfast

A letter to the girls who interrupted Boehner’s breakfast

It’s hard to compete against breakfast. We should know! I mean, this show is broadcast live during weekend brunch. And it is especially tough when that breakfast is being enjoyed by one of the most powerful men in the country–and you’re trying to get him to put down the salt shaker and pay attention to your serious concerns about immigration policy. 
But breakfast was no match for 13-year-old Carmen Lima and 16-year-old Jennifer Martinez. 
At 7 a.m. Wednesday morning, these two young women approached House Speaker John Boehner at his favorite breakfast spot on Capitol Hill to urge him to act on immigration reform. Both of the girls are the children of undocumented immigrants, and told the Speaker in their appeal why for them, this policy is personal
Carmen: “So how would you feel if you had to tell your kids at the age of ten that you were never coming home?” 
Boehner: “That wouldn’t be good.”
Carmen: “Huh?”
Boehner: “That wouldn’t be good.”
Carmen: “I know. So, that’s what happened to me. I thought I was never going to see my dad again… And I cried so hard when my mom told me that, at the age of ten.” 
Now, let’s be honest. When it comes to belief in wish fulfillment, most Americans think asking Congress for what they want will be about as effective as asking Santa Claus. Which is why I am encouraged by these two young women and their extraordinary faith in democracy. 
So this week, my letter goes out to them.
Dear Carmen Lima and Jennifer Martinez: 
It’s me, Melissa, and the first thing I’d like to say to you is: I’m sorry. 
I’m sorry that when you asked the Speaker what he’d do about immigration reform, he told you this: 
Boehner: “Well, I’m trying to find some way to get this thing done.”
Carmen: “So we can count on your vote for immigration reform?”
Boehner: “I will try to find a way to move the bill forward. Thanks.”
But just three hours later, when asked what the House was going to do about the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill, he told the rest of America this
“We have no intention of ever going into conference on the Senate bill.”
I know hearing that has got to make you feel a little disappointed right now. But the second thing I want to say to you is, don’t be discouraged by your disappointment. Because although this may be a setback, this is not a defeat. Every U.S. policy reform that has advanced the cause of equality was won after unyielding effort and endurance in the face of obstacles by those who fought for the change. 
And the fight to push America forward on immigration is going to be no different. To fortify yourselves for that effort, I want you to hold onto that faith in the legislative process that motivated your conversation with Speaker Boehner. 
Because with Congress’ approval rating the lowest it’s ever been, that faith is a quality that’s in short supply in the American electorate. Even I am having a crisis of faith in the system these days. 
But our democracy does not work without it. Our democracy does not work without you.
The political process cannot move forward without Americans like you who, despite their disappointments, remain willing to be part of it, who continue to hold our lawmakers accountable and demand that they do the job of advancing policy–like immigration reform–which a majority of Americansare calling for them to enact. 
I want you to recognize that John Boehner was not the only leader in that restaurant on Wednesday. Because you set an example that he and our Congress would be wise to follow: you showed how debate and disagreement can be a bridge instead of a barrier. 
So at this moment, I want to urge you not to stop pushing. And maybe, when you’re old enough, to think about running. Because the one thing government needs more than people like you to believe in it is people like you to be a part of it. So that one day, instead of petitioning the power of a man hungry for his breakfast, you can wield that power yourselves to make a difference for those who are hungry for change. 
In the meantime, keep up the good work! Because thanks to you, the struggle will, in fact, not stop. It will indeed continue. 
Sincerely, 
Melissa
Watch the girls confront Boehner below.
THOMAS ROBERTS, 11/13/13, 12:14 PM ET

Immigrant children confront Boehner

Justin Timberlake Goes Off on "D---head" Critics

Justin Timberlake


Justin Timberlake Goes Off on "D---head" Critics





Justin Timberlake landed the coveted cover of GQ's Men of the Year issue, but the singer's interview got off to a rough start.
"So I find it ironic that I'm doing an interview with you about Man of the Year when I feel—literally—like a bunch of people just took a sh-- on my face," Timberlake told the magazine.
The singer's poor mood was apparently due to the underwhelming critical response to both his latest film Runner Runner and album The 20/20 Experience: 2 of 2.
"Where did all this vitriol come from? It's mean. And I'm not cut out for it," Timberlake said, 20 years after starting his career in show business.
"This face," Timberlake said, circling it with one finger, "This recognizable face that you work so hard to get — not because you want the recognition but because you know you're made to do it" comes at a cost, he explained.
"The movie didn't do well at the box office, so I should quit? Hold on a second. If I was somebody else, you wouldn't have said that," he continued. "I have the number one album this week, and I shouldn't have released it? Come on, man. You sound like a d---head.... It just shocked me because, like, you're trade magazines. None of your opinions count. And by the way, none of you can do it."
"Sometimes I find it funny that I've been able to acquire the patience it takes to be kind to people in our business," Timberlake added. "Because sometimes I just want to f---ing kill everybody."
But Timberlake, always the optimist, doesn't let the haters get him down — at least not too much. "I don't see myself as someone who's ever going to be defined by one moment," he said. "It's on to the next."

A brief history of watching sex (and being watched)


A brief history of watching sex (and being watched)

Children used to be encouraged to gaze on couples in flagrante as a "method of instruction"


A brief history of watching sex (and being watched)(Credit: macroworld via iStock)
Excerpted from "The Pleasure's All Mine"
Exhibitionism has taken various forms throughout the ages. According to Herodotus, the Egyptians who traveled to Bubastis to celebrate the festival of Artemis exposed themselves to those they passed by. They came on barges in great numbers and on the way the men would play flutes and the women sing, clap and clatter castanets. As they passed by a town on the riverbank, they would bring their barge close into the shore and the women would ‘shout abuse at the women of the place, or start dancing, or hitch up their skirts.’ These activities were an expected part of the procession. However, there were a variety of reasons and opportunities for showing off, and not all fitted neatly into patterns.
People have also exposed themselves as a form of insult. One woman called Mara from sixteenth-century Dubrovnik had gone to the house of Fiorio Petrovich and condemned him as a sodomite, calling him a ‘horned goat’ while gesticulating with lewd gestures. Afterwards, according to Petrovich, ‘to spite me, she lifted her clothes, showing her private parts.’ Such displays of intimate body parts were later to become recognized by twentieth-century anthropologists as methods of challenging or aggressive behaviour in ‘primitive’ people. As Evans-Pritchard remarked of the Azande women of Central Africa, ‘unusual action of the female genitalia is considered unlucky. It is injurious to a man if a woman provokingly exposes her vagina to him, and it is yet more serious if she exposes her anus in the presence of men.’ This belief gave women an innate power over men. Yet this type of exposure was obviously undertaken not only by tribal people but was also a common form of expression made with the intention of frightening the onlooker.
Some exhibitionistic acts undertaken in the past do not fit into a category of serious sexual deviance but were intended to shock with a laugh. Chaucer’s ‘Miller’s Tale’ in his fourteenth-century ‘Canterbury Tales’ told of one man involved in an incident in which he bared his buttocks:
And so he opened window hastily,
And put his arse out thereat, quietly,
Over the buttocks, showing the whole bum;
And thereto said this clerk, this Absalom,
‘O speak, sweet bird, I know not where thou art.’
This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap . . .


However, the seventeenth-century libertine was equally capable of intentionally insulting other people by showing off his buttocks, as Samuel Pepys was to record. He reported an incident of lewd exposure in his diary after the infamous Sir Charles Sedley had been celebrating at the Cock in Bow Street in June 1663, along with a party of friends that included Lord Buckhurst and Sir Thomas Ogle. Drunk as lords, they went out on the balcony, and according to one observer, ‘putting down their breeches they excrementized in the street: which being done, Sedley stripped himself naked, and with eloquence preached blasphemy to the people.’ He was heavily fined for his actions.
More innocuous acts involved tempting bets from friends who urged each other on to expose themselves. The Observer newspaper reported that on the evening of Friday, July 5, 1799, at seven o’clock, a naked man was arrested at Mansion House, the official residence of the Mayor of London. From there he was sent to the Poultry Compter, the small prison run by the Sheriff of London. The prisoner confirmed that he had accepted a wager of ten guineas (worth about £750 in today’s money) to run naked from Cornhill to Cheapside. While these types of exhibitionism were not taken too seriously (although there were sometimes small fines involved), laws were introduced to deal with more obvious intentions to shock, frighten or insult.
The Vagrancy Act of 1824 enabled the prosecution of ‘every person willingly, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing his person with intent to insult any female.’ It was thereby deemed to be an act perpetrated by a man towards a woman. Henceforth the perpetrator would be deemed ‘a rogue and a vagabond’ according to the law. However, men continued to exhibit themselves. On January 2, 1843, 43-year-old George Herridge was indicted ‘for indecently exposing himself’; he pleaded guilty and was jailed for twelve months. However, when 31-year-old John Daniels was found guilty of the same offence nine months later on October 23, he only received only one month in jail; there is nothing in the records to indicate why there was a disparity in sentencing. Some years later, on July 2, 1849, 62-year-old William Joiner was confined for four months for indecent exposure. Without more in-depth knowledge of the incidents, it is impossible to understand why some were treated more seriously than others, but other mitigating circumstances may have been involved. Then again, sentencing was, and is, notoriously inconsistent from one court to another.
In any case, given the low sentences passed, the activity was evidently not regarded as being too threatening. Even when the case of exposure took place in public places, it was often difficult to obtain a conviction. When, on January 5, 1857, Felix Hue exposed himself to Elizabeth Williams, it was on a public highway. Nonetheless, he was found not guilty, so presumably there were no witnesses. Even when there were witnesses, it seems to have still been problematic to ensure a conviction. On February 27, 1860, 31- year-old Giuseppe Pugno was accused of exposing himself to Margaret Stafford in the presence of William Henry Crocker. The incident had taken place in a railway carriage used for conveying passengers along the South Eastern Railway. Crocker’s defence argued that the carriage was not in a public place and suggested the carriage ‘might then be lying under some shed, or undergoing some repair in the carriage-house.’ The indictment was squashed on a technicality as ‘although it alleged the exposure to be in the presence of another person, it did not allege that it was within the view of that person; who, though present, might have been blind or sleeping.’
‘Streaking’ or ‘mooning’ became new terms for old activities. ‘Mooning’ as a popular term originated in the U.S. only around 1968 and was specifically used to apply to the act of publicly displaying the bare buttocks. It was usually done for fun rather than erotic arousal. Although the term ‘to streak’ had been used since medieval times to mean ‘to rush or run around’, it only came to imply nakedness from around 1973 onwards; this occurred after a mass nude run by 533 people took place at the University of Maryland. It seems to have been a particularly popular pastime at sports grounds – at cricket, rugby, football, tennis, snooker, golf and even the Olympic Games in 2006. One of the most famous female streakers (mainly because of the size of her breasts) was Erica Roe, who ran across a rugby match during an international tournament, showing off her forty-inch chest. Thousands of people saw the incident as it made headline news. Exhibitionism and its prohibition or acceptance therefore is, to a large extent, dependent on time and place.
****
Sexologists described voyeurism as the opposite of exhibitionism: watching people in the desire to glimpse their sexual organs or to see them having sex. Voyeurs often benefit from watching people who are unaware that they are being watched, the very secrecy providing an added frisson. In ancient Roman friezes and paintings, depictions of men and women having sex often included someone watching, standing behind a door or peering through a window; in paintings from Campania, someone else, usually a servant, is nearly always around in the pictures depicting couples having sex. The Roman poet Martial appreciated voyeurism when he advised one woman, ‘Always with doors wide open and unguarded, Lesbia, you receive your lovers; you do not hide your vices. The beholder gives you more pleasure than the lover.’
Peering through keyholes and gaps in walls seems to have be a pastime with a long history, if eighteenth-century bestiality and lesbianism trial reports are anything to go by. Many an upright citizen gave witness to the debauched behaviour of their neighbours after secretly peering through holes in their walls into adjacent homes. Richer families shared their homes with a bevy of servants who might sweep in at any time without a moment’s notice. Domestic servants were particularly well versed as witnesses at trials because of their close proximity to the rest of the household. Servants sleeping in overhead garrets were often party to the sexual activities of the inner sanctum of the boudoir of their mistresses. No doubt this created a sense of danger; the possibility of being caught in a clandestine relationship merely heightened the excitement.
Watching sex was also used as a method of instruction for young people, who were encouraged to witness couples having intercourse. John Cleland was worldly enough to have known about the regime of brothels when he wrote “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” (1748). He shows how the fictional heroine Fanny Hill began her sexual experience as a voyeur, watching through a hole in the wall while a couple had sex in the next-door room at the brothel where she was living. John Cannon (1684–1743) showed that this was not only a fiction. At sixteen, he drilled holes in a privy wall so he could masturbate while viewing the genitals of a maidservant living in the house next door. Similarly, a bunch of eighteenth-century libertines from Norwich planned their voyeuristic activities after they had drilled holes in their guests’ bedrooms in order to watch them. They also peered through keyholes to watch the sexual activities of others.
During the twentieth century, voyeurs were sent to psychiatrists for assessment and treatment, but most doctors seemed to consider them harmless (if excessive masturbators). As with exhibitionism, women were even blamed for men’s problems. One contemporary commentator of the 1960s exclaimed: ‘Some men provoke complaints from women; but some women invite such attentions by dressing and undressing with needless publicity.’ During the 1950s and ’60s, voyeurs were thought of as people who hung about parks, beaches and swimming pools hoping to catch a couple having sex or obtain a glimpse of genitalia. Others, known as Peeping Toms, peered through windows under cover of night, lurking in gardens. The term ‘Peeping Tom’ comes from the legend of Lady Godiva, when in 1044 Leofric, Earl of Mercia and Lord of Coventry, imposed excessive taxes on his tenants which his wife, sympathetic to the townspeople, asked him to remove. He agreed to do so only if she would ride naked through the town. Lady Godiva did so, but all the townspeople averted their gaze, except for Tom the tailor, who peeped though his window and was struck blind as a consequence.
In the twenty-first century, voyeurism is no longer necessarily conducted outside the home but can be quietly indulged in while sitting at a computer. In the comfort of an easy chair, it is possible to watch adults copulating, overhear schoolgirls chatting with each other about sex, watch women undress, see men urinate or all manner of acts which involve a state of undress – none of it illegal. Housewives have set up webcams to expose themselves and get paid for their services by the minute. Home videos now compete with the higher end of the porn market: teenage girls masturbating, single women having sex with their boyfriends, suburban married couples sharing partners with their neighbours – all are easily accessible to view online. The concept of voyeurism has therefore been eroded to a large extent, although there are still those who seek their pleasures in a more 3d form. Striptease acts, pole dancing and naked bars all offer full frontal viewing for the price of a couple of pints. The acceptability of voyeurism now comes down to a matter of consent.
One of the most recent forms of displayer/spectator sport can be seen in a more equitable form of exhibitionism–voyeurism. Called ‘dogging’, this activity takes place in parked cars in public or semi-public places. It seems to have started in the U.K. in the 1990s when people began to visit a particular area such as a car park or lay-by in order to have sex in the car, but left on their lights so that other people could watch. This also indicated to other doggers that they were part of the scene. The phenomenon has spread all over the West and several websites have sprung up to organize meetings between strangers to have sex in public places.
Strangely, non-consensual voyeurism did not become a criminal offence in the U.K. until May 1, 2004, and in Canada not until 2005. These laws also cover the offence of secret filming. In the U.S., the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 amended the federal criminal code to provide that whoever knowingly videotapes, photographs, films, records by any means or broadcasts an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual’s consent, shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Increasingly the laws have had to be amended and updated to take into account new ways of becoming voyeuristic. Meanwhile, exhibitionists and voyeurs were to introduce new games to their sex play.
Excerpted from “The Pleasure’s All Mine: A history of perverse sex” by Julie Peakman. Copyright 2013. Reaktion Books. All rights reserved.

Alec Baldwin Says His MSNBC Show Might Never Return

Alec Baldwin Says His MSNBC Show Might Never Return

Alec Baldwin




After MSNBC suspended Alec Baldwin's talk show Up Late for two weeks in the wake of the actor's apparent use of an anti-gay slur, the actor has now said the talk show might never return.
"Whether the show comes back at all is at issue right now," Baldwin wrote onThe Huffington Post"The show is no doubt a work in progress and one that I believe featured some interesting guests and disseminated a good deal of interesting information. But if the show dies, its fate ends up being no different than the vast majority of start-up TV programming, and so be it."
Baldwin also took the opportunity to address the accusations that he recently directed a homophobic epithet at a photographer. "What word is said right after the other choice word I use is unclear. But I can assure you, with complete confidence, that a direct homophobic slur (or indirect one for that matter) is not spoken ... My friends who happen to be gay are baffled by this. They see me as one who has recently fought for marriage equality and has been a supporter of gay rights for many years. Now, the charge of being a 'homophobic bigot,' to quote one crusader in the gay community, is affixed."
The actor explains his frustration at how the good he's done (his foundation donated over $11 million of a projected $15 million from his Capital One ads) goes unnoticed while stories of his alleged bigotry travel "at light speed and, at least in the case of those who like their internet news without fact or reflection, is accepted, even cheered, without a moment of doubt."
Baldwin then turns the table on the press and American people who fuel the tabloid industry. "This country's obsession with the private lives of famous people is tragic. It's tragic in the sense that it is so clearly a projection of people's frustration about their government, their economy, their own spiritual bankruptcy. You have no voice in Washington. In Washington, or in any statehouse, no one actually cares what you think. So you post online, you vote with a Roman-esque thumbs up or down on the celebrity debacle of the day. That is your right. It's also fatal misdirection of your voice and need to judge. Occupy Wall Street, on their worst day, had more integrity than the comments page of a website ever will," he wrote.
"If you have an opinion of me, then express it. Think what you like," Baldwin added. "But I ask that my wife, who I care about more than words can say, and both my children, be left out of this."
"If quitting the television business, the movie business, the theatre, any component of entertainment, is necessary in order to bring safety and peace to my family, then that is an easy decision," Baldwin explained.

1 million tons of Fukushima debris floating near US West Coast?

1 million tons of Fukushima debris floating near US West Coast?

Published time: November 05, 2013 17:53
Edited time: November 07, 2013 10:53
Debris floats in the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Japan, in this U.S. Navy handout photo dated March 14, 2011. (Reuters/U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Steve White)
Debris floats in the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Japan, in this U.S. Navy handout photo dated March 14, 2011. (Reuters/U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Steve White)
Over a million tons of Fukushima debris could be just 1,700 miles off the American coast, floating between Hawaii and California, according to research by a US government agency.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently updated its report on the movement of the Japanese debris, generated by the March 2011 tsunami, which killed 16,000 people and led to the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown.

Seventy percent of an estimated 5 million tons of debris sank near the coast of Japan, according to the Ministry of Environment. The rest presumably floated out into the Pacific.

While there are no accurate estimates as to where the post-tsunami junk has traveled so far, the NOAA has come up with a computer model of the debris movement, which gives an idea of where its highest concentration could be found.

That area is crosshatched at the NOAA model below and resembles an island quite near the US shore. 
The NOAA graphics have led to numerous media reporting about an island of rubbish moving towards the US.

The agency was forced to alleviate the concerns in an article saying there was “no solid mass of debris from Japan heading to the United States.”

At this point, nearly three years after the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, whatever debris remains floating is very spread out. It is spread out so much that you could fly a plane over the Pacific Ocean and not see any debris since it is spread over a huge area, and most of the debris is small, hard-to-see objects,” NOAA explains on its official webpage.

The agency has stressed its research is just computer simulation, adding that “observations of the area with satellites have not shown any debris.”

Despite the fact the tsunami debris is scattered and does not form a solid mass, the researchers still believe it’s a serious matter to keep an eye on.
In this image released by the US Navy Visual News Service March 14, 2011 shows an aerial view of debris on March 13, 2011 from an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck northern Japan. (AFP Photo/Navy Visual News Service/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Alexander Tidd)
In this image released by the US Navy Visual News Service March 14, 2011 shows an aerial view of debris on March 13, 2011 from an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck northern Japan. (AFP Photo/Navy Visual News Service/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Alexander Tidd)

Scientists are particularly interested in the organisms that could be living on objects from Japan reaching the west coast.

"At first we were only thinking about objects like the floating docks, but now we’re finding that all kinds of Japanese organisms are growing on the debris," John Chapman of the Marine Science Center at Oregon State University told Fox News.

"We've found over 165 non-native species so far," he continued. "One type of insect, and almost all the others are marine organisms … we found the European blue mussel, which was introduced to Asia long ago, and then it grew on a lot of these things that are coming across the Pacific ... we’d never seen it here, and we don’t particularly want it here."

The worst-case scenario would be that the trash is housing invasive organisms that could disrupt the local environment’s current balance of life. Such was the case in Guam, where earlier this year it was announced that the US government intended to parachute dead mice laced with sedatives on to the island in order to deal with an invasive species of brown tree snake that was believed to have been brought to the American territory on a military ship over 60 years ago. In a little over half a century, a few snakes spawned what became an estimated 2 million animals, the likes of which ravaged the island’s native bird population and warranted government intervention.

Other concerns such as radiation, meanwhile, have been downplayed. On its website, the NOAA says, “Radiation experts agree that it is highly unlikely that any tsunami-generated marine debris will hold harmful levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear emergency.”

Independent groups like the 5 Gyres Institute, which tracks pollution at sea, have echoed the NOAA’s findings, saying that radiation readings have been “inconsequential.” Even the release of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor shouldn't be a grave concern, since scientists say it will be diluted to the point of being harmless by the time it reaches American shores in 2014.