Global
Q: How did you take the news of the pandemic?
A: I think I took it the way most people did. Initially, there was hope that it could be controlled, localized. But things took a very different turn and the epidemic spread far and wide. Unprecedented measures and decisions became necessary. Leaders, citizens and international organizations found themselves in an extremely difficult situation. All of this will have to be thoroughly analyzed, but the priority now is to take things in hand and defeat this new, vicious enemy.
Q: How do you assess the measures now being taken?
A: The main concern must be people’s security and saving people’s lives. I assume that the steps now being taken are based on science and the advice of the most competent experts. Right now they are practically unanimous that lockdown is necessary. This is something both the authorities and the people must accept. A lot depends on people’s behavior. Utmost responsibility and discipline is of the essence. Then we may hope that the worst could be avoided.
Voting by mail should replace voting at the polls in it's entirety. The two
institutions that can definitely be trusted is the County Board of Elections
and the United States Postal Service. The money saved by eliminating the
need for poll workers could be used to offer free postage on the envelopes
used to vote by mail. The person voting would also have more time to
consider what they are voting for and would not be confined to the hours
of the polling place. It would also prevent unwanted entry to schools and
churches from anyone trying to harm someone. In addition the voter would
not be harassed by someone trying to place unsolicited campaign literature
into their hand. The additional revenue would boost the Postal Service
and perhaps keep it afloat until we as a country are able to vote online.
Voting by mail would solve the registered voter problem and guarantee safe
passage of the ballots to the County Board of Elections.
When a few thousand people were murdered on September 11, 2001, I was actually stupid enough – I kid you not – to imagine that the general public would conclude that because massive military forces, nuclear arsenals, and foreign bases had done nothing to prevent and much to provoke those crimes, the U.S. government would need to start scaling back its single biggest expense. By September 12th it was clear that the opposite course would be followed.
Since 2001, we have seen the U.S. government dump over a trillion dollars a year into militarism, and push the rest of the world to expend another trillion dollars a year, much of it on U.S.-made weapons. We’ve seen the creation of permawars, and the normalization of long-distance, push-button murder with drone wars. All of this has generated more terrorism in the name of fighting it. And it has come at the expense of actual defense.
A government agency aimed at actually defending people from actual dangers would cease activities that are counter-productive, that cause major environmental and climate destruction, and that consume resources that could be put to good use. Militarism meets all of those criteria.
The United States has been at war almost continuously since the founding of the nation in 1783. Some of the wars were undeclared like the centuries-long eradication of the native Americans, while others – the Mexican and Spanish-American wars – were glorified by including the names of the countries defeated by Washington’s war machine. America’s bloodiest war actually has multiple names, including the Civil War, the War Between the States, The War of the Rebellion and the War of Northern Aggression, allowing one to pick and choose reflecting one’s own political preferences.
What if the vaccine that’s eventually developed is so large in scope it includes the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Pope Francis?
I revisit Guterres’ words of a week ago: “The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war. That is why today, I am calling for an immediate global ceasefire in all corners of the world. It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.” We must, he said, “silence the guns; stop the artillery; end the airstrikes . . . to help create corridors for life-saving aid. To open precious windows for diplomacy.”
Acording to a Billboard interview Barbara has decided to add politics to her music. She's hgas written 15 for the Huffington post, why not just sing it. You don't have to be in Italy to sing :)
Love you Barbara, you do it best!
In the last few days, New York and Pennsylvania postponed voting in presidential primaries from April until June. A dozen other states have also rescheduled. Those wise decisions are in sharp contrast to a failure of leadership from Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee.
Just two weeks ago, the party establishment was vehemently pushing back against efforts to delay several mid-March primaries in response to the coronavirus emergency. DNC Chair Tom Perez issued a statement that The Hill newspaper summed up with the headline “DNC Calls on States Not to Postpone Primaries.” Perez put out the statement on the day that three states were holding primary elections.
There’s no question that the recent spread of coronavirus has changed the world as we know it for the rest of our lives. As of this writing, there’s still no way to know the full devastation, destruction and death toll that will ultimately result from this pandemic, but the impact will certainly be long term. So, as humans are ought to do in times of peril, we must look towards any semblance of a silver lining this crisis presents. Once the virus is contained and we can collectively move on, policies that have embraced both progressive and libertarian solutions to the pandemic could potentially become permanent, in addition to any positive impacts on the environment that have resulted from curbing our economic activity. When this ends, hopefully politics (and the planet!) can change for the better in the decades to come.