Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) listed on the Lusaka Securities Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2000 annual report.For more information about Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) 2000 annual report.Company ProfileStandard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc is a leading financial services company providing products and services in three key segments: corporate and institutional banking (CIB), retail banking and commercial banking. The financial institution has a national footprint with 25 branches and four electronic banking centres located in the Copperbelt, Lusaka, Northern, North Western, Southern and Western Provinces. The CIB division provides corporate clients with solutions for trading, corporate finance, loans, trade finance, cash management, deposits and treasury. The Retail division services personal, priority and business clients; providing solutions for transactional accounts, deposits, overdrafts and loans, and investment service. The Commercial division manages mid-sized companies that fall between CIB and Retail banking. Standard Chartered Bank Zambia is a subsidiary of the Standard Chartered Bank Group which is an international financial services conglomerate, with headquarters in London, United Kingdom. Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc is listed on the Lusaka Stock Exchange
ColumnsImmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; An Example Of ‘Legislate In Haste, Amend At Leisure’ Shantanu Lakhotia9 Nov 2020 12:10 AMShare This – xIndia in 1956 to curb human trafficking enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls, 1956. The name was subsequently changed to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (“the Act”) via an amended in 1986. However, even though the Act was formulated to prevent human trafficking, it became a weapon in the hands of law enforcement to penalize sex workers instead….Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIndia in 1956 to curb human trafficking enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls, 1956. The name was subsequently changed to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (“the Act”) via an amended in 1986. However, even though the Act was formulated to prevent human trafficking, it became a weapon in the hands of law enforcement to penalize sex workers instead. The foundational reason for the same was the mode laid down by India in the Act to curb human trafficking. The Act instead of directly attacking the offence of human trafficking, set out to punish activities having a nexus to ‘prostitution’, treating it akin to trafficking. For example, Section 4 of the Act provided that if a person above the age of 18 lives off the income of prostitution, he/she is liable to be punished, as the Act presumes, he/she is a trafficker. It is amusing to note that an act, enacted to punish human trafficking does not use the term ‘trafficking’ or ‘human trafficking’ even once in it. Thus, the legislature in 1986 changed the definition of ‘prostitution’ to prevent sex workers who voluntarily carry out the profession from becoming collateral damage in the government’s war against human trafficking. The present article highlights that this change in definition has done more harm than good. ‘Prostitution’ as defined by the Act Cambridge dictionary defines ‘prostitution’ as “the business of having sex for money” . Merriam-Webster defines it as “the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money.” The law for three decades mimicked the dictionary meaning of prostitution and defined it as, “the act of a female offering her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire, whether in money or in kind.” However, the legislature vide an amendment in 1986 radically changed the definition of ‘prostitution’ to, “the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes and the expression ‘prostitute’ shall be construed accordingly”. A principal reason for the same was that the Act was never bought forth to punish prostitutes but to punish human traffickers. Ms. Margaret Alva, Minister of State in the Departments of Youth Affairs and Sports and Women and Child Development when introducing the 1986 amendment to the Act in the Rajya Sabha, stated that the purpose of the legislation was to, “provide a framework for penal action against those responsible for the abuse and exploitation of women for the purposes of prostitution, care, protection and rehabilitation of those rescued from the trade and inhibition of prostitution in a public place or any area specified as such”. Thus, the legislature by tweaking the definition of ‘prostitution’ set its course towards punishing someone who is sexually exploited or abused by another person for example a pimp, rather than someone who simply has sex in exchange for money. This would be in line with the intention behind enacting the Act. Need for ironing out certain creases of the Act: The position of law before the amendment was that only if the activity of sex work falls within the restrictions imposed under Section 7 and 8 of the Act would it be illegal. However, the legislature it failed to take into consideration the absurd effect the change in the definition would have while interpreting certain sections of the Act. Section 7 of the Act begins with, “Any person who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on…”. If one applies the new definition to the foresaid section, it would mean that an individual who voluntarily carries on sex in exchange for cash without anyone sexually exploiting or abusing him/her, that individual can have sex near public places. Such was the position of law as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Arjun Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, “From the definition, it is therefore obvious that the prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places mentioned under Section 7(1) of the Act, has to be understood in the context of the definition of prostitution under Section 2 of the Act. Here, it cannot be said that the petitioners indulged in any sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes……In any event, mere having sexual intercourse by paying money does not attract ‘prostitution’ mentioned in Section 7 of the Act”. However, this would be a ludicrous position to have where the law dictates that if you are being sexually exploited you are not allowed to have sex near a public place, however, if you are carrying out the profession voluntarily you can do the same. Thus, there is a need to amend the language of this Section to harmonise it with the new definition of prostitution. Moving on to Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act states, “Whoever, in any public place or within sight of and in such manner as to be seen or heard from any public place, whether from within any building or house or not:- (a) by words, gestures, wilful exposure of her person (whether by sitting by a window or on the balcony of a building or house or in any other way), or otherwise tempts or endevours to tempt or attract or endevours to attract the attention of, any person for the purpose of prostitution; or (b) solicits or molests any person, or loiters or acts in such manner as to cause obstruction or annoyance to persons residing nearby or passing by such public place or to offend against public decency, for the purpose of prostitution……” Let us assume two situations, the first wherein a pimp commits the act mentioned in the section and another where the sex worker herself/himself does it. If one applies the old definition the section could be summarized to mean that if any pimp uses gestures to temp the attention of a person or solicits/seduces any person in a public place to have sex in exchange for money, with a sex worker, the pimp would be punished. The position would remain the same even if one applies the new definition, as the pimp would seduce/solicit or tempt a person to sexually exploit a sex worker and be punished for it. However, in the second situation wherein a sex worker commits the acts mentioned in the foresaid section, the change in definition has an idiosyncratic effect. If one applies the old definition the section could be summarized to mean that if any sex worker uses gestures to temp the attention of a person or solicits/seduces any person in a public place to have sex in exchange for money, that sex worker would be punished. However, if one applies the new definition an absurd situation arises wherein the Act imagines a situation wherein a sex worker can seduce/solicit or tempt a person to sexually exploit himself/herself. This is preposterous as an individual cannot be exploited with his/her own volition. An argument can be raised for using the dictionary or the old definition of prostitution when interpreting Section 7 and 8 of the Act, instead of the new definition. Section 2 of the Act which provides for “Definitions”, starts with the statement, “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.”, and thus it can be argued the context requires that the old definition be applied. The Supreme Court has held that for a term to be interpreted differently than what has been prescribed in the definition clause of an act, the court can take a look at the legislative mandate and intent to agree for this change. Thus, the argument can be buttressed by stating that if the old definition is not used a situation would arise where sex workers would be roaming and carrying out their profession in public places causing nuisance and this was against the intention of the Act. This argument is a double-edged sword. Even though one intention of the Act was to ‘inhibit’ sex work in public place, the central intention behind the Act was to suppress the commercialize vice of human trafficking and penalize human traffickers and not sex workers. Thus, if the old definition is used to interpret Section 7 and 8, the person who has been trafficked and forced into the profession will be made criminally liable and this would fly in the teeth of the intention of the legislature. Majority of the people carrying out this profession are forced into the same and are coerced to carry out all acts restricted under Section 7 and 8. Thus it is essential that the new definition is used to ensure that under no circumstances are the victims of human trafficking being criminally penalized, even if it means that the small number of individuals who join the profession voluntarily are allowed to go scot-free. This would be in line with our criminal jurisprudence of letting ten guilty persons escape than punish one innocent. For example, if the new definition is not applied when interpreting Section 8 of the Act, a male child who has been forced by his pimp to solicit people for sex work by making gestures, he will be made criminally liable, as the sole circumstance when the fact of ‘will’ is taken in account is when a female exposes herself. The 1986 amendment is a quintessential example that typifies the government’s position of ‘legislate in haste, amend at leisure’. The legislature with a lackadaisical attitude amended the definition of ‘prostitution’, without taking into consideration the nonsensical effect it would have while interpreting the provisions of the Act. It has been more than three decades since the amendment has been made, however, even the judiciary has failed to highlight such a clanger in the Act. This is evidenced by the fact that, the Bombay High Court in the case of Kajal Mukesh Singh & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, following a range of past judicial precedents made post the amendment reiterated that “What is punishable under the Act is sexual exploitation or abuse of person for commercial purpose and to earn the bread thereby, except where a person is carrying on prostitution in a public place as provided in Section 7 or when a person is found soliciting or seducing another person in view of Section 8 of the said Act”. It is essential that the legislature amends the language of the Act to harmonize it with the legislative intent behind enacting the Act.Views are personal.(Author is a Practicing Lawyer)Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Back to overview,Home naval-today Another Accident on Indian Navy’s Track Record View post tag: Indian Another Accident on Indian Navy’s Track Record May 9, 2014 Three people have been injured in an accident onboard INS Ganga destroyer of the Indian Navy earlier today, reports the Hindustan Times. Share this article Industry news View post tag: Accident View post tag: News by topic View post tag: record View post tag: Navy View post tag: Naval The Godavari-class guided-missile frigate was undergoing routine maintenance and refit at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai when a fire broke out during welding activities.This is another in a series of incidents in the Indian Navy, after an Indian naval officer was killed, and another injured at Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks Ltd two months ago. On February 26th, the Navy’s chief, Admiral DK Joshi, resigned after the accident on INS Sindhuratna, when two officers lost their lives and seven sailors were taken ill.INS Ganga is a 126-meter ship which was commissioned into the fleet on 30 December 1985. The Godavari class was the first significant indigenous warship design and development initiative of the Indian Navy. Design of this class is a modification of the Nilgiri class frigate.[mappress]Naval Today Staff, May 9, 2014; Image: Wikimedia View post tag: track View post tag: ANOTHER
JACKSON KELLY PLLC “PUBLIC LAW MONITOR”BY Joshua Claybourn who is Counsel in Jackson Kelly’s Evansville Office.Injunction Issued For New Overtime RulesA federal judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking a sweeping Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulation set to qualify millions more Americans for overtime pay beginning December 1. The rule would require employers to start paying overtime to certain “white collar” workers earning salaries of less than $47,476 a year—a threshold many say is too big a jump from the current $23,660 last updated in 2004. Judge Mazzant in the order said the challengers had made a sufficient case “that the Department’s salary level under the Final Rule and the automatic updating mechanism are without statutory authority.”Even without court action, the fate of the rule was far from certain because it also faces a possible strong challenge from Donald Trump, who has vowed to roll back business regulations. DOL may appeal the ruling, but the next administration may instruct DOL not to continue defending the suit.Notably, twenty-one states who were included as plaintiffs also asked the Texas district court to overturn Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to the states. The district court noted only the Supreme Court may overturn its precedent, but it also indicated the states made a persuasive argument against Garcia which could later be heard by the Supreme Court.Indianapolis Tries To Claw Back $380,675 In IncentivesIndianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett has begun the process of clawing back $380,675 in tax incentives granted to Rexnord Corp. as the firm prepares to fold its local operations and move the work to Mexico. Rexnord had claimed the incentives under a 2009 agreement which provided a five-year personal property tax abatement. Although Rexnord retained its workforce for five years after its agreement with the city, the memorandum of understanding “stipulates that the city can monitor Rexnord for compliance during the five-year period of tax abatement and for two years afterwards,” said Taylor Schaffer, a spokeswoman for Hogsett. Click here for more from the Indianapolis Star.Man Sues After Losing Election To Dead CandidateA Democrat who ran for the Allen County Council is challenging the results because one of the three contested seats went to a candidate who died shortly before the election. Palermo Galindo says Republican Roy Buskirk should never have been certified as one of the three winners because he died of cancer on Nov. 4, four days before the election. Galindo filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Allen County Election Board. Galindo was the fourth top vote-getter in the election and his attorneys argue one of the three contested seats should be his because Republicans did not fill the ballot vacancy created by Buskirk’s death.ACLU Sues Franklin Township Schools Over Christian PrayerA man represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit challenging the Franklin Township School Board’s alleged policy of opening meetings with exclusively Christian prayers. The suit filed Tuesday on behalf of Duane Nickell before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeks an injunction and a declaration that the practice violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that prayers are given by school board members and are “invariably Christian with the School Board member-officiant referring to Jesus or Christ.FOOTNOTE: Joshua Claybourn is Counsel in Jackson Kelly’s Evansville office. He advises clients in matters of business and corporate law, governmental services, and public finance. Learn more here.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail
Press release: 7 years of conflict in Syria: Statement by International Development Secretary and Foreign Secretary
Today the Syria crisis enters its eighth year. It has become one of the longest and bloodiest wars in recent history. The impact on Syrians, above all civilians, has been devastating with an estimated 400,000 dead and 13 million in need of humanitarian assistance. The Asad regime and those who back it bear overwhelming responsibility for the destruction of the country, its infrastructure and the lives of its people. Despite promises of de-escalation, the violence continues and the civilian death toll continues to rise. Last month the UK supported UN Security Council Resolution 2401 calling for a ceasefire. Yet in Eastern Ghouta – which Russia itself declared to be a de-escalation area – the regime, with Russian support, has continued to bombard and besiege the population, turning it into a hell on earth. Over 1,100 people are estimated to have been killed there since 18 February alone. We find it utterly abhorrent that the regime is using food and medical supplies as a weapon of war. Civilians continue to be deliberately and indiscriminately targeted by military strikes, and despite promises made by Russia to ensure Syria would abandon all of its chemical weapons in 2013, international investigators have confirmed that the regime has since used chemical weapons in four separate attacks – which Russia has gone to great lengths to conceal. The UK is committed to ensuring that all those responsible for chemical weapons use and other violations of international law in this conflict are held to account. The UK has always been at the forefront of the response to the crisis. More than 13 million people in Syria and in neighbouring countries are still in need of assistance. We will continue to help innocent people survive the toughest situations imaginable and, ultimately, help them to rebuild their lives. The suffering will only end when there is a political solution to the conflict. We will continue to use our position on the UN Security Council to pursue this, as well as to unlock humanitarian access and protect civilians. The UN is ready to mediate a settlement. The opposition have declared their readiness for negotiations without preconditions. But the regime continues to obstruct progress. The international community must commit to a ceasefire and a political process that ends this conflict for good. The International Development Secretary, Penny Mordaunt, and Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, have issued a statement to mark seven years of the Syria conflict.They said:
In 5 short days, Phish will settle in at Madison Square Garden for their traditional end-of-the-year run. Phish is no stranger to the Garden, having now played the famed venue in the heart of New York City 35 times over the course of their career. From their MSG debut in 1994 to their most recent appearances at the very beginning of 2016, the storied room has played host to some of the most treasured shows in the band’s history. As we inch closer to this year’s New Year’s Run, we will be bringing you our 12 Days Of Phishmas series, highlighting a different milestone MSG Phish show each day until we all head back to the Garden on the 28th. It wasn’t easy narrowing 35 down to 12, but we think you’ll be pleased with these classics from the Phish catalog. Enjoy!On the eighth day of Phishmas, we look at the band’s New Year’s gag from 2015, the infamous “No Men In No Man’s Land” hourglass jam.Going into 12/31/15, fans were wondering what exactly Phish would do for their annual New Year’s gag. After the “Meatstick”, “Steam”, “Garden Party”, “JEMP Truck” and “Suck To Blow” stunts of the 3.0 era, fans were expecting another zany prank to continue the fun tradition. However, Phish switched things up in 2015, delivering a psychedelic musical experience that wowed the audience at Madison Square Garden.The show opened with two high-octane sets filled with fan favorites. Set one featured a slick “Moma Dance” > “Possum” to open the show, with “Birds of a Feather” and “Reba”, and “Walls of the Cave” all making for big early-show moments. Set two showcased the band’s jamming, as they opened with “The Wedge” > “Wilson” > “A Song I Heard The Ocean Sing”, while bringing things to a close with “Kill Devil Falls” > “Piper” > “Twist”, which was 2015’s song of the year. The crowd roared with approval throughout the show, as the anticipation mounted for the forthcoming New Year’s gag.When the band finally returned to kick off the third set, it wasn’t on the stage itself. Instead, they showed up on a platform that had been set up on the back of the Garden’s floor, to the delight of all the audience at the back of the room. The band was essentially in the middle of the crowd on this small, square stage, with a cone-shaped screen positioned above them. They kicked right off into funky “No Men In No Man’s Land”, a new favorite that was debuted earlier in the year.As soon as the song’s form ended, the band jumped into a long type-II improvisation that stretched the song to just over twenty minutes long. As Phish jammed, the cone-shaped screen descended from above, enclosing the band in what turned out to be an hourglass-shape. Psychedelic images were then projected onto the screen via projection-mapping, and the band took us on a trippy excursion through No Man’s Land.The 3.0 era has seen Phish perform a number of standout jams from inside unique structures. Superball‘s “Storage Jam” and Magnaball‘s “Drive-In Jam” both were landmark moments of improvisation for the band, and the “Hourglass Jam” during “No Men In No Man’s Land” was a continuation of this awesome, locked-in playing. The band jammed right up until midnight, with a pre-recorded running back to the main stage to perform “Auld Lang Syne” before turning in another lights-out set of music.Check out the full, pro-shot video of the “No Men In No Man’s Land” Hourglass Jam below!Phish | Madison Square Garden | New York, NY | 12/31/2015Set1: The Moma Dance > Possum, Wolfman’s Brother, Birds of a Feather, I Didn’t Know, Happy Birthday to You, Martian Monster, Reba, Walls of the CaveSet 2: The Wedge > Wilson > A Song I Heard the Ocean Sing, Yarmouth Road, Kill Devil Falls > Piper > TwistSet 3: No Men In No Man’s Land > Auld Lang Syne > Blaze On > Carini > David Bowie, The Horse > Silent in the Morning > Backwards Down the Number LineEncore: Tube > Cavern Sung by Fish and the crowd for his daughter Ella. Unfinished.This show was webcast via Live Phish. BOAF contained a quote of The Birds. During I Didn’t Know, Trey introduced Fish as “The Man Mulcahy.” The crowd sang the last verse of I Didn’t Know and Fish then asked the crowd to join him in singing Happy Birthday to his daughter, Ella. KDF was unfinished. The third set began with the band on a second stage beneath a funnel-shaped screen suspended from the ceiling. As the band jammed, part of the screen descended and became an hourglass shape surrounding the stage, on which a series of images were projected. As the jam continued and the countdown to midnight approached, the band returned to the main stage.Stay tuned over the coming days for more Phishmas! ‘Tis the season!On the eighth day of Phishmas, a Phish phan played for me… Eight No Men Landing (12/31/15)Seven Jams A-Steamin’ (12/31/11)Six Walls a-Cavin’ (12/31/02)Five Song Second Set (12/29/97)Four Light Year Jams (12/29/98)Three Phishy Decades (12/31/13)Two Sitting Legends (10/22/96) and The Gamehendge Time Factory (12/31/95)!If you’re attending the run, there are plenty of things to do in between shows. For fans of the jam, head to any of these concerts in the area for a guaranteed good time!12/28: Aqueous + Mungion @ DROM (Phish After-Party) – tickets12/30: Phan Art w/ Formula 5 @ American Beauty (Phish Pre-Party) – FREE SHOW12/30-31: Spafford & Magic Beans @ American Beauty (Phish After-Party) – tickets
The Harvard architecture students watched intently as Anne Liu presented slides of her preliminary design proposals. They were not for a house, or for a building, but for a jar of peanut butter.“The idea is that you are what you buy,” said the third-year master of architecture student. She illustrated her branding concept for Jif organic peanut butter: “Taste you can see. Purity you can trust.” She showed a container design for a jar with caps at both ends. She detailed her palette of colors, chosen to stand out against the peanut brown.Liu was rejiggering Jif for an unusual Graduate School of Design (GSD) seminar taught in an unusual fashion by an unusual set of teachers.“Paper or Plastic: Re-Inventing Shelf Life in the Supermarket Landscape” emerged from the obsession of identical twins Teman and Teran Evans, both Harvard GSD alumni (’04) who have expanded their architectural training into territory where their brethren almost never tread. The brothers believe that architects — with their skills in three-dimensional conceptualization — can address a host of design challenges, including ones that might sit on shelves in the local supermarket.Third-year master of architecture student Anne Liu illustrated her branding concept for Jif organic peanut butter: “Taste you can see. Purity you can trust.” She explored the effect of red, blue, and green against the brown of the product itself, and also considered a jar that could grind peanuts with a twist, before settling on a double-capped jar to allow easy access.“That’s where the architect has suddenly so much agency,” said Teman. “We’re three-dimensional problem-solvers, and we can solve problems at the big scale of buildings that you occupy, and also small problems that fit in your hand.”Since graduating from Harvard, the Evans brothers have a closeness that they parlayed into a business that does brand consulting and architectural design and produces a line of jewelry. Teran runs day-to-day operations in New York City; Teman teaches at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture. Their work has been featured on HGTV, and the pair has appeared in reality TV shows.They were inspired to create and teach a course for Harvard after an influential New York Times article declared the architect obsolete and said that an architectural degree was not worth the money.“If you’re talking about brick-and-mortar buildings, yes, you could say things are changing,” Teman said. “But don’t say the skill set is obsolete. Because there are myriad problems we could apply this to.”So the brothers contacted Preston Scott Cohen, chair of the Department of Architecture, and asked to create a Friday afternoon seminar that blends design, marketing, and business.Their first step was to send students in “Paper or Plastic” into the aisles of Stop & Shop and Shaw’s supermarkets for research. A shelf, they explained, is not a flat space. People move through stores in unexpected and surprising ways. Products must also feel right in the hand when opened or poured. Products then “live” somewhere at home — on the table, near the stove, in a cupboard.“Shelf life is more important in history than it ever has been before,” said Teman. Brands used to rely on the now-fragmented market of television commercials and newspaper circulars. Said Teran, “We are in an era where people no longer make decisions before going to the supermarket.”Christopher Esper and Dorothy Xu, both master of architecture students, were tasked with Listerine. Esper analyzed the “visual pollution” of Listerine’s current cool mint container, while Xu reimagined mouthwash in an elegant, spare bottle.The students were randomly assigned to reimagine a classic product: Listerine, A1 steak sauce, Philadelphia cream cheese, or Jif peanut butter. For their final review, students will present ideas to panels of representatives from the architecture and branding world. “They have to treat these critics like clients. They have to learn to pitch their work,” Teran explained.For her design, Liu first analyzed the peanut butter shelf in a market. She explored the effect of red, blue, and green against the brown of the product itself. She found that most organic peanut butter buyers routinely store the jar upside down, because the oil and peanuts tend to separate, and then the buyers turn it over to mix. She considered a jar that could grind peanuts with a twist and then settled on a double-capped jar to allow easy access.Teman liked how Liu “doubled down” on the cap, but cautioned that the jar has to “live happily” in the hands of kids, mothers, and grandmothers. Teran noted that because peanut butter itself acts as the background color, that background could become “goopy” and unattractive as it is consumed. “It’s like a glass house,” he said.Collin Gardner, a master of architecture student, presented his designs for A1 steak sauce, in which the bottle was reconfigured into a shape that incorporated an A and a 1. “I was trying to get some stackability,” he said.The Evans brothers were intrigued, but they wondered how the design would pour and how it worked with the wrist. Would the product be shelved with, say, the Morton salt container, which is never seen, or “live” on a table with other condiments? They liked a design by GSD student James McNally for an A1 logo that put a knife design into the “negative space” between the A and the 1.Christopher Esper and Dorothy Xu, both master of architecture students, were tasked with Listerine; Esper analyzed the “visual pollution” of Listerine’s current cool mint container, while Xu reimagined mouthwash in an elegant, spare bottle.The brothers admit they exert push-pull on students. Teman, by nature, is more concept-oriented; he likes to throw out ideas and let the imagination spin wildly. Teran works on execution and practicality; he jokes that Teman calls him “the dream crusher.”Thus, while they want their students to push barriers, they also cite the cautionary tale of Tropicana Orange Juice, which changed its branding and promptly lost $30 million in purchases by confused customers. “You want to update, but you don’t want to go from 0 to 60. You don’t want to lose those people that identified with the product,” Teman said.The discipline of architecture may be changing, but Teman and Teran Evans promise their students one thing: “You will never look at the supermarket the same way again.”
Editor’s note: Harvard sociologist Matthew Desmond on Thursday won the National Book Critics Circle Award in nonfiction for “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” which is now out in paperback. The Gazette interviewed him about the research behind the book when it was published last year.The day a sheriff squad evicted Arleen, a single mother raising two boys in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Milwaukee, was among the city’s coldest on record.Urban sociologist Matthew Desmond followed Arleen and seven other families as part of the trailblazing research behind his new book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City.”Desmond, the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences and co-director of the Justice and Poverty Project, lived in a trailer park and a rooming house for over a year to conduct fieldwork. He also worked to fill some of the huge gaps he found in eviction data.Critics have hailed “Evicted” as a feat of ethnography, research, and narrative that seeks to change our understanding of poverty by looking at eviction as one of its causes. Last year Desmond was named a MacArthur “genius” fellow. The Gazette spoke with him about Arleen, the devastating effects of evictions on the lives of America’s poor, and opportunities for reform. GAZETTE: Why did you choose to study evictions?DESMOND: I thought I would use eviction to tell a story about poverty. I had no idea how common it was. I had no idea that one in eight renters in the city of Milwaukee experience a forced move every two years. I didn’t know that 2.8 million renting families around the country report that they think they’re going to be evicted soon. I also had no idea that it would be such a driver of poverty. I started realizing this by spending time with families getting evicted. Seeing them lose their possessions, seeing moms having to choose between paying the rent or feeding their kids, seeing families cast into homelessness. What I was seeing everyday in the field was reaffirmed through statistical studies: that eviction is a cause, not just a condition, of poverty.GAZETTE: You said in your book that when you began your research, in 2008, you couldn’t find studies or statistics about evictions. Why do you think no one was paying attention?DESMOND: It was a surprising thing. We knew a lot about public housing and housing policies. We also had a lot of studies on the neighborhood. But we didn’t know how common evictions were and the role they play in creating poverty. The costs of inequality: Increasingly, it’s the rich and the rest Economic and political inequities are interlaced, analysts say, leaving many Americans poor and voiceless Related GAZETTE: Would you call eviction an epidemic?DESMOND: When you have one in eight renters in a major city in America getting tossed every two years, I’d call that epidemic levels. When you have evictions not counted in the tens or the hundreds of thousands but likely in the millions, I call that epidemic levels. When you read accounts from the 1930s or 1940s about evictions, it was an event that drew people’s attention. There is a story from a clip from The New York Times about an eviction of a family in the Bronx in the 1930s. The paper covered it like this: “Probably because of the cold, only a thousand people showed up.” Eviction used to be rare, but now we’ve grown used to it, become familiar with the rumble of the moving trucks and families’ effects lining the sidewalk.GAZETTE: You also said that when you started your research you thought eviction was the result of poverty, not the cause of it. Tell us how you changed your view.DESMOND: Evicted families lose their homes and their possessions, which are either piled on the street or taken to storage. If the now-homeless families miss payments, their things are sold or taken to the dump. Kids lose their schools and people lose their jobs. Eviction comes with a court record and that can affect where you live. A lot of landlords refuse to take people who have been recently evicted. That pushes families into worse neighborhoods and worse housing. Public housing authorities treat evictions as a strike against your application, which means that families that are in most need of aid — the evicted — are denied it. And then there is a toll eviction takes on your spirit. It’s a driver of depression; it has an effect on mental health. So you add all that up, and you arrive at a new way of understanding poverty, one that sees eviction as a moment that places families on a different, and much more difficult, path.GAZETTE: Your book is the narrative of eight families in Milwaukee that live on the edge of eviction. How did you develop a relationship with these families?DESMOND: I lived in the community for a little more than a year; that helped a lot. I wanted to write about their lives in their full complexity, with both honesty and empathy. Living in the community with them allowed me to see things about poverty and inequality that I hadn’t seen before, and it showed me the human toll of the lack of affordable housing in our cities.GAZETTE: Could you tell us about Arleen, one of the central people in your book?DESMOND: When we met, Arleen was a single mom trying to raise two boys. She was living in a rundown apartment in the inner city, paying 88 percent of her income to rent. I saw her struggle under those conditions, having to decide between pitching in for funeral costs and paying the rent; between buying clothes for her kids and paying the rent. To me, Arleen stands for the face of the eviction epidemic. Most households in Milwaukee that get evicted have kids living in them.GAZETTE: Witnessing the hardships poor families experience was heartbreaking, you said in your book. How did it affect you?DESMOND: I saw Arleen get evicted on a day in early January when it was 40 below with the wind chill. Seeing those things left a mark. But I also saw strength, humor, and courage in the face of obstacles that many of us can’t fathom. There is a story in the book of a time at McDonald’s with Vanetta and Crystal, two homeless women who were living in a shelter at the time. They were eating lunch, and this young kid walks in. He didn’t go up to order. He went around the tables, looking for scraps. When they saw him, Vanetta and Crystal pooled their money to buy that boy lunch. Crystal gave him a big hug and sent him on his way. Moments like that reminded me how gracefully the people I met refuse to be reduced to their hardships.And throughout, my colleagues at Harvard helped me process all this and connect it to our broader intellectual mission of using all the tools of social science — from in-depth ethnography to big-data analysis — to shed a new light on the nature of poverty today in a way that engages policymakers and the wider public.GAZETTE: At the end of the book, you offer proposals to reduce evictions. Tell us about expanding the universal housing voucher program. How feasible is that?DESMOND: That question begs another question, which is: Do we believe housing is a right? Do we believe that access to decent, affordable housing is part of what it means to live in this country? I think we have to say yes. The reason is very simple: Without stable housing everything else falls apart. We’ve reaffirmed the right to basic education, access to food, and security in old age because we know that, without those things, it is impossible to live a full and flourishing life. And housing is central to well-being and economic mobility. So how do we deliver on that right? I think we should expand a program that is already working pretty well — housing vouchers — to all poor families. The idea is simple. Instead of paying 70 percent of your income to rent, or 88 percent like Arleen did, you pay 30 percent and the voucher covers the rest. You could take that voucher and live anywhere in the city, as long as that place wasn’t too expensive or too shabby. Housing vouchers help a lot, but only a lucky minority of poor families benefit from them.GAZETTE: What do you hope your book will do to the understanding of poverty in America?DESMOND: I hope this sparks conversation about how it is deeply implicated in creating poverty in our cities. I hope we think of addressing this problem in ways, big and small. We can’t fix poverty without addressing housing. It’s absolutely central and has to be at the top of our domestic agenda.GAZETTE: Can you talk about a class you teach at Harvard?DESMOND: I teach a class called “Poverty in America,” which draws sociology concentrators but also students from the humanities, hard sciences, and across the social sciences. Together we take a close look at the historical and present-day nature of poverty. We study joblessness, housing, and neighborhoods, the criminal justice system, and public policy. We also interface with this problem on the ground level. Students go out and talk to folks that are working for minimum wage and trying to make ends meet. Students go and observe housing court. They interview politicians. And then they take those experiences and observations and connect them to ideas and studies about inequality. We invite a lot of community members to the class, like tenants facing eviction, men just released from prison, and police officers who patrol high-crime neighborhoods. The idea is to show students the face of poverty and the complexity of it. My hope is that they come to see poverty not only as an economic matter, but also as a matter of justice.
Show Closed This production ended its run on Nov. 30, 2014 It’s up to you to fill in the blanks! Blank! The Musical opens off-Broadway at New World Stages on November 17. Blank! is co-created by Michael Girts, Mike Descoteaux and T.J. Shanoff. The production is a collaboration between Uprights Citizens Brigade and Livecube, a mobile technology app that will be utilized by theatergoers during the show. Related Shows Blank! The Musical View Comments At each performance Katie Dufrense, TJ Mannix, Nicole C. Hastings, Andrew Knox, Tessa Hersh, Matthew Van Colton and Douglas Widick will hit the stage without scripts or rehearsals to perform a brand new musical that audiences help create. Those in attendance will use their smartphones to choose a title, write lyrics and compose a score.
It’s Friday, and you know what that means—it’s time for the Lessons of the Week. We’re recapping the weird, wild and crazy stuff from the last…wait a second. Are you reading this from your phone during a performance of Shows For Days?! Um, maybe you should turn your phone off and check out the Lessons when the show is over. Trust us.Aaron Tveit’s Getting a PompadourTveitortots rejoice! The Graceland and Big Sky star is going back to high school with Vanessa Hudgens and Julianne Hough in Grease Live! this winter. Time to stock up on pomade, Aaron. We’re hoping for a coif length a little past Frank Abagnale, but not full-on Enjolras. (Which we totally still remember how to pronounce, btw.)Silence Your Phone Near LuPoneYou heard the announcement at the beginning of the Lessons of the Week: In her ongoing quest for distraction-free theater, Shows For Days star Patti LuPone is championing the cause by grabbing cell phones and walking off with them if you try to text in her presence. Ms. LuPone, as professional theatergoers, the Broadway.com editorial team salutes you.James Bond Doesn’t Do Jazz HandsAs much as we’d love to see 007 doing time steps with Pussy Galore and an ensemble of dancing martinis, we’ve officially squelched the rumor that a James Bond musical is currently in the works. We’re especially sad to miss out on those catchy James Bond: The Musical hits “I’ll Do Anything For a Woman With a Knife” and “I Didn’t Recognize You With Your Clothes On.”Sign Up For ASL Classes Right NowThe acclaimed Deaf West revival of Spring Awakening is bringing sexually frustrated teens back to Broadway once again, and that means we’ve got only two more months to learn sign language so we can sign along with the cast! We’re sure the instructor won’t mind teaching us the signs for “totally” and “f**ked.”Annaleigh Ashford Is a Total BettyBroadway.com readers have found their favorite virgin who can’t drive: Annaleigh Ashford! The Tony winner already has a gig in Sylvia, but you guys are totally going ballistic about casting her in the Clueless musical. Hear that, Amy Heckerling? Also, can Paul Rudd reprise the role of Josh? We’re not sure if he can sing, but he looks virtually the same as he did in 1995.Sex Scenes? Groff Goes Both WaysHamilton star Jonathan Groff says when it comes to doing a sex scene, it’s pretty much the same whether your partner is a guy or a gal. And he would know—in his 30 years on this planet, he’s already done more sex scenes than most people do in a lifetime. Well, besides Hand to God star Geneva Carr.JCM Is Justin Timberlake’s Sugar DaddyHedwig and the Angry Inch co-creator John Cameron Mitchell’s got a sweet tooth for licorice drops and jelly rolls…and Justin Timberlake. He’s really hoping the pop star will swing on by the Belasco Theatre, try a wig on for size and become Broadway’s next internationally ignored song stylist. Chances are you either love or hate this idea, and we want you to be vocal about it.Misty Copeland Needs a Bio-MusicalThe first female African-American principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre and forthcoming On the Town star has led such a fascinating life, we think it’s about time someone wrote her a bio-musical. Growing up in a hotel? Custody battles? Broken limbs? This is a Tony-winning masterpiece waiting to happen. Lin-Manuel Miranda, you’re not busy or anything, are you?Lola Will Box a KangarooThe Land of Lola is going to the land down under! Kinky Boots is high-kicking its way to Australia in 2016. Yep, this means the factory workers at Price & Son will start eating Vegemite and drinking Foster’s, Lauren will sing “The History of Wrong Mates” and Lola will fight a kangaroo in the boxing scene. That’s what Australia is like, right? Don’t Offer Bernadette Peters WeedGuys, if you see Bernadette Peters at Broadway Barks this weekend, feel free to adopt a dog, take a selfie or ask for an autograph. But there’s one thing you must not do under any circumstances: offer Bernadette any type of “herbal refreshment.” After her appearance on Watch What Happens Live, we’ve discovered that she is not a pothead. She likes puppies, but not pot brownies. View Comments