Starting May 4, all customers are required to wear a face covering over their nose and mouth throughout their journey, including during check-in, boarding, while in flight and deplaning. JetBlue crewmembers have already been utilizing face coverings at work. CDC guidance defines a suitable face covering as an item of cloth that should fit snugly against the side of the face, be secured with ties or ear loops, include multiple layers of fabric and allow for unrestricted breathing. The CDC recommends surgical masks and N-95 respirators be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders. Small children who are not able to maintain a face covering are exempt from this requirement. To learn more about face coverings visit the CDC’s website.
PUBLISHED MON, APR 27 20207:34 PM EDT UPDATED MOMENTS AGO Leslie Josephs
Airlines are stepping up policies to ensure that passengers and employees wear face masks on board.
Starting Monday, all JetBlue Airways passengers will be required to wear a face covering, the strictest policy so far in the U.S. and one that follows the New York-based airline’s requirement that flight attendants wear a mask or face covering while on duty.
“Wearing a face covering isn’t about protecting yourself, it’s about protecting those around you,” said JetBlue President Joanna Geraghty. “This is the new flying etiquette.”
From doorknobs to smartphones, here’s a round-up of the high-touch areas to focus on, as well as our top tips for keeping them clean
By Shivali Best 09:00, 4 MAR 2020
High-touch areas to focus on
- Counters
- Tabletops
- Doorknobs
- Bathroom fixtures
- Toilets
- Phones
- Keyboards
- Tablets
- Bedside tables
- Any surfaces that may have blood, stool, or body fluids on them
How to clean high-touch areas
The CDC advises using a household cleaning spray or wipe, and to follow the instructions.
It explained: “Labels contain instructions for safe and effective use of the cleaning product including precautions you should take when applying the product, such as wearing gloves and making sure you have good ventilation during use of the product.”
Passengers will now be required to wear a face mask when traveling on JAL Group flights. While we understand the need for travel, any customer feeling under the weather is asked to refrain from boarding the flight. If any symptoms appear, consult your physician prior to taking the flight.
In coordination with the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) — we are the first major U.S. carrier to require that all flight attendants wear a face covering or mask to help protect themselves and customers on board our aircraft. Beginning in early May, we will make face masks available to our customers as well. This new initiative is in line with the most recent CDC recommendation that says wearing a cloth face covering is advisable when in public and when social distancing is difficult to maintain.
American doesn’t require you to wear a face covering, but we encourage it. Visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website for recommendations on face coverings to bring with you and use during your trip.
Delta航空もお願いベースですね。
（Delta）
We ask you to help us support healthy flying for everyone by bringing your own mask from home and to review your local orders for any additional travel guidelines.
ショッピングモールのレポートですが、こちらもMasks, temperature checks encouraged for customers -- not mandatedのように表現しています。誤解を避けるためにも義務なのか、お願いベースなのかは、はっきりさせてもらいたいですね。
PUBLISHED TUE, APR 28 202010:30 AM EDTUPDATED 4 HOURS AGO
Lauren Thomas
Free CDC-approved masks and hand sanitizing packets will also be available to the shoppers who ask for them. Simon said it will encourage shoppers to wear masks or some sort of facial coverings while they shop. Simon is mandating its employees wear masks while they are working and take “frequent breaks for handwashing.
Limousine liberal and latte liberal are pejorative American political terms used to illustrate hypocritical behavior by political liberals of upper class or upper middle class status; for example, calling for the use of mass transit while frequently using privately-owned luxury transportation, especially by limousines or private jets in the case of the extremely affluent,[1] claiming environmental consciousness but driving fuel inefficient sports cars or SUVs, or ostensibly supporting public education while actually sending their children to private schools.
(Wikipedia)
Champagne socialist is a political term originating in the United Kingdom.[1][2]
The phrase is used to describe self-identified socialists whose luxurious upper middle-class or "preppy" lifestyles (perhaps including consumption of Champagne) contradict their political convictions.[3] It is a popular epithet that implies a degree of hypocrisy, and it is closely related to the concept of the "liberal elite".[4]
The term is broadly similar to the American terms "Learjet liberal", "limousine liberal" or "latte liberal", and to idioms in other languages such as the Spanish Izquierda caviar, the French Gauche caviar, the German Salonsozialist, the Portuguese Esquerda Caviar, the Italian Radical chic and Polish kawiorowa lewica. Other related terms include "Hampstead liberal", "Gucci socialist", "Neiman Marxist", "cashmere communist", and in Ireland, "smoked salmon socialist".
An financially comfortable person who claims to support liberal causes, then acts completely different.
latte liberals disapprove of school vouchers for kids in poorly run urban schools yet take their children to private schools, therefore avoiding the problems of public schools. Protesting the war in Iraq, yet support Tibet freedom from China, which would be even more bloodier
The term “latte liberal” is used, usually by conservatives, to describe lefties who profess to care about the poor from the comfort of a cushy, privileged perch, where presumably, they are sipping a foamy mug of steamed milk.
このような言葉は侮蔑語ですから、正しい使い方は以下のようなものです。間違ってもI am a latte liberalなんて言わないようにしたいです。
“I stand before you tonight a proud Deplorable,” Kennedy said, using the descriptor that Hillary Clinton famously employed for Trump supporters in the 2016 campaign. “Unlike some of the folks in Washington, D.C. — I’m talking about the ‘cultured,’ cosmopolitan, goat’s milk latte-drinking, avocado toast-eating insider elite — as a Deplorable, I believe that everybody counts.”
we are what we eatとコラムタイトルにあるように食べるものって生活レベルがもろに反映されるので侮蔑語として使われやすいのは万国共通のようです。先程のペロシも12ドルもするアイスがたくさん冷蔵庫にあると言われていましたし。。。
The food-shaming phenomenon isn’t unique to U.S. politics: The French have their gauche caviar (the caviar left) and the Brits their champagne socialists, or as they’re sometimes called, Bollinger Bolsheviks, a reference to a pricey, bubbly quaff.
Food has the power to make profound distinctions, notes Diana Mutz, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. She says politicians and others who use these labels often do so to “otherize” their opponents.
どこかの国の首相がミュージシャンとコラボして大荒れしたのと同じ時期に豪華な家で無邪気にチョコレート好きを披露して大顰蹙を買った政治家がいたようです。下院議長のナンシーペロシは動画でPelosi's SHOCKING let them eat cake momentというタイトルを付けられています。トランプ陣営が放っておくわけはなく”𝑳𝒆𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎.” - 𝑵𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆という政治広告をすかさず打っていました。
Let Them Eat Tweetsというのは7月に出る本のタイトルのようでNew Yorkerの記事で知りました。共和党のミッチ・マコーネル上院多数党院内総務は日本人には馴染みがないかもしれませんが記事では金権政治の元凶のように描かれています。New Yorkerの記事は『ダーク・マネー―巧妙に洗脳される米国民』でコーク兄弟を取材したJane Mayer
The Senate Majority Leader’s refusal to rein in the President is looking riskier than ever.
By Jane Mayer April 12, 2020
In a forthcoming book, “Let Them Eat Tweets,” the political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson challenge the notion that the Republican Party is riven between global corporate élites and downscale white social conservatives. Rather, they argue, an “expedient pact” lies at the heart of today’s Party—and McConnell and Trump embody it. Polls show that there is little voter support for wealthy donors’ agenda of tax cuts for themselves at the expense of social-safety-net cuts for others. The Republicans’ 2017 tax bill was a case in point: it rewarded the Party’s biggest donors by bestowing more than eighty per cent of its largesse on the wealthiest one per cent, by cutting corporate tax rates, and by preserving the carried-interest loophole, which is exploited by private-equity firms and hedge funds. The legislation was unpopular with Democratic and Republican voters alike. In order to win elections, Hacker and Pierson explain, the Republican Party has had to form a coalition between corporatists and white cultural conservatives who are galvanized by Trump’s anti-élitist and racist rhetoric. The authors call this hybrid strategy Plutocratic Populism. Hacker told me that the relationship between McConnell and Trump offers “a clear illustration of how the Party has evolved,” adding, “They may detest each other, but they need each other.”
How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality
by Jacob S Hacker (Author, Yale University), Paul Pierson (Author, University of California, Berkeley)
A groundbreaking account of the dangerous marriage of plutocratic economic priorities and right-wing populist appeals—and how it threatens the pillars of American democracy.
The Republican Party appears to be divided between a tax-cutting old guard and a white-nationalist vanguard—and with Donald Trump’s ascendance, the upstarts seem to be winning. Yet how are we to explain that, under Trump, the plutocrats have gotten almost everything they want, including a huge tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, regulation-killing executive actions, and a legion of business-friendly federal judges? Does the GOP represent “forgotten” Americans? Or does it represent the superrich?
In Let Them Eat Tweets, best-selling political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson offer a definitive answer: the Republican Party serves its plutocratic masters to a degree without precedent in modern global history. Conservative parties, by their nature, almost always side with the rich. But when faced with popular resistance, they usually make concessions, allowing some policies that benefit the working and middle classes. After all, how can a political party maintain power in a democracy if it serves only the interests of a narrow and wealthy slice of society?
In 1984, McConnell ran for the Senate against the Democratic incumbent, Walter (Dee) Huddleston. McConnell later admitted that he’d begun planning his campaign the moment he’d been sworn in as county judge / executive. Nobody expected an unprepossessing, little-known local official to defeat Huddleston, but in the final weeks of the campaign McConnell surged to an upset victory, thanks, in large part, to a television ad created by Roger Ailes, the Nixon media adviser who later became the mastermind behind Fox News. Ailes was helped by Larry McCarthy, a virtuoso of negative campaign ads who later made the racially charged Willie Horton ad, attacking the 1988 Democratic candidate for President, Michael Dukakis. The McConnell ad depicted a pack of bloodhounds frantically hunting for Huddleston, ostensibly because he’d missed so many Senate votes while off giving paid speeches. It was funny, but Huddleston’s attendance record, ninety-four per cent, wasn’t out of the ordinary, and his speeches violated no Senate rules. Yet, as McCarthy proudly told the Washington Post, “It was like tossing a match on a pool of gasoline.” That year, McConnell was the only Republican who defeated an incumbent Democratic senator. Two years after criticizing Huddleston’s outside speaking fees, McConnell went on a lucrative eleven-day speaking tour of the West Coast. (McConnell’s spokesman says, “The Leader never missed a vote.”)
Under McConnell’s leadership, as the Washington Post’s Paul Kane wrote recently, the chamber that calls itself the world’s greatest deliberative body has become, “by almost every measure,” the “least deliberative in the modern era.” In 2019, it voted on legislation only a hundred and eight times. In 1999, by contrast, the Senate had three hundred and fifty such votes, and helped pass a hundred and seventy new laws. At the end of 2019, more than two hundred and seventy-five bills, passed by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, were sitting dormant on McConnell’s desk. Among them are bills mandating background checks on gun purchasers and lowering the cost of prescription drugs—ideas that are overwhelmingly popular with the public. But McConnell, currently the top recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has denounced efforts to lower drug costs as “socialist price controls.
トランプを落選させるのは不可能なことではないでしょう。でも、このような腐敗し機能不全に陥っている政治をどのように治していけるかは、すぐには解決できない難しい問題です。Let Them Eat Tweetsが通じなくなったと分かれば、今度はtweetsではないものを探すのではないでしょうか。
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion.
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with[Pg 18] any evil in case he do otherwise.
To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
自由をどのようにどれだけ制限できるかは、コロナの世界では真剣に議論されるべき問題です。
（ロングマン）
civil liberty
the right of all citizens to be free to do whatever they want while respecting the rights of other people
（オックスフォード ）
civil liberty
the right of people to be free to say or do what they want while respecting others and staying within the law
(CNN)As the number of deaths caused by coronavirus climbs in America, new civil liberties dilemmas have emerged for governments trying to protect public health without unconstitutionally limiting individual rights.
The controversy that erupted Saturday when President Donald Trump threatened state quarantines was only the latest dispute over how the country balances individual liberties with community interests during a national crisis like no other.
There are much bigger worries than temporary stay-at-home orders.
APRIL 24, 2020
Conor Friedersdorf Staff writer at The Atlantic
The coronavirus crisis will last longer than intense lockdowns are sustainable. It is not unreasonable for citizens to demand answers more solid than any they’ve received about how long officials believe they can impose emergency restrictions and how hard they are working to eliminate any that are needless. But many conscientious civil libertarians simply don’t see temporary shutdowns during a pandemic as inherently tyrannical or even unreasonable.
One needn’t understate how much a few weeks can matter to a laborer or struggling small business owner to appreciate that, even setting mortality risks aside, shelter-in-place orders are the least of our worries. Six months from now, access to the ballot will matter more for democracy than the precise length of today’s shutdowns. A year from now, different statuses for people with different antibodies in their blood may pose thornier questions than any we’ve yet confronted. Two years from now, the endurance of liberty will hinge more on, say, how much we allow COVID-19 to permanently increase the degree of surveillance in society than whether one’s local beach or hiking trail stays closed––even needlessly and frustratingly––for a month or two too long.
Richard is referring to his brother, Edward IV, when he talks of “this sun of York“, as Edward has just successfully taken the crown from Henry VI and the House of Lancaster. The gist of this monologue is that the clouds are clearing up and the unpleasantness for Richard’s family is coming to an end. Of course, Richard is tortured for the rest of the play, but that’s neither here nor there. The winter of our discontent speech is meant to be taken as an uplifting one.
現実にはこれとは反対に辛い現状を伝える時に使われているとブログ記事では指摘しているのです。
The incorrect usages of this phrase that keep popping up center around the mistaken belief that the winter of our discontent line is meant to be ominous or dark, to signify that we are in the thick of the awfulness. I’ll give you a for instance:
Reporter 1: What’s the mood out there amongst the auto parts suppliers in the Detroit area?
Reporter 2: Well, certainly there is a sense of this being the winter of our discontent, with mounting job losses on the horizon for many in the industry.
Right. So if you knew your Shakespeare, you’d realize that you just made the opposite point you were aiming for. Stay in Detroit, Reporter #2, you could be their mascot.
映画でのイーサン・ホークのセリフも間違った例の一つとして紹介しています。
It seems that more and more pundits and journalists these days deliver bad news on a company or sector using the winter line.
TV personalities and market commentators aren’t the only ones to get this thing wrong. In the 1993 film Reality Bites, there’s a scene where Ethan Hawke‘s disaffected slacker character (named Troy Dyer…clever, non?) answers their home phone with “Hello, you’ve reached the winter of our discontent…”.
He clearly thinks he’s being suitably slackerish and negative but in reality, he is unwittingly making the statement that things are about to get better, that Spring is headed his way. I guess he’s accidentally right, as shortly after he ends up with Winona Ryder‘s tongue in his mouth. No discontent there!
OALDにもありますが、このように使われたのはシェイクスピアというようり下記の使われ方の影響ではないかと思います。The same phrase is now used to refer to any difficult political situation that occurs during the months of winterと一般化されて使われているとOALDでは補足説明しています。動画はこの危機的状況にもかかわらず、呑気な対応をした首脳に対してCrisis? What crisis?という新聞の見出しが使われたことに対応しています。政治がだらしないのはどの時代もどの国でもデフォルトなんでしょうか。
(オックスフォード )
winter of discontent
a phrase first used by some British newspapers and politicians to describe the winter of 1978-9 in Britain, when there were many strikes and economic problems. The phrase was taken from the opening lines of Shakespeare's play Richard III. It was used to suggest that people were not happy with the way the Labour government was running the country. The same phrase is now used to refer to any difficult political situation that occurs during the months of winter
The problems in the power industry led to another winter of discontent.
But the world following the pandemic is unlikely to be radically different from the one that preceded it. COVID-19 will not so much change the basic direction of world history as accelerate it. The pandemic and the response to it have revealed and reinforced the fundamental characteristics of geopolitics today. As a result, this crisis promises to be less of a turning point than a way station along the road that the world has been traveling for the past few decades.
（中略）
Yet the world that will emerge from the crisis will be recognizable. Waning American leadership, faltering global cooperation, great-power discord: all of these characterized the international environment before the appearance of COVID-19, and the pandemic has brought them into sharper-than-ever relief. They are likely to be even more prominent features of the world that follows.
アトランティックの記事はサブタイトルがズバリThe coronavirus didn’t break America. It revealed what was already broken.と厳しい認識です。導入部分は他人事ではなく、政治機能不全は日本でも実感させられています。
The coronavirus didn’t break America. It revealed what was already broken.
George PackerSpecial Preview: June 2020 Issue
The crisis demanded a response that was swift, rational, and collective. The United States reacted instead like Pakistan or Belarus—like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering. The administration squandered two irretrievable months to prepare. From the president came willful blindness, scapegoating, boasts, and lies. From his mouthpieces, conspiracy theories and miracle cures. A few senators and corporate executives acted quickly—not to prevent the coming disaster, but to profit from it. When a government doctor tried to warn the public of the danger, the White House took the mic and politicized the message.
This is the third major crisis of the short 21st century. The first, on September 11, 2001, came when Americans were still living mentally in the previous century, and the memory of depression, world war, and cold war remained strong. On that day, people in the rural heartland did not see New York as an alien stew of immigrants and liberals that deserved its fate, but as a great American city that had taken a hit for the whole country. Firefighters from Indiana drove 800 miles to help the rescue effort at Ground Zero. Our civic reflex was to mourn and mobilize together.
Partisan politics and terrible policies, especially the Iraq War, erased the sense of national unity and fed a bitterness toward the political class that never really faded. The second crisis, in 2008, intensified it. At the top, the financial crash could almost be considered a success. Congress passed a bipartisan bailout bill that saved the financial system. Outgoing Bush-administration officials cooperated with incoming Obama administration officials. The experts at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department used monetary and fiscal policy to prevent a second Great Depression. Leading bankers were shamed but not prosecuted; most of them kept their fortunes and some their jobs. Before long they were back in business. A Wall Street trader told me that the financial crisis had been a “speed bump.”
All of the lasting pain was felt in the middle and at the bottom, by Americans who had taken on debt and lost their jobs, homes, and retirement savings. Many of them never recovered, and young people who came of age in the Great Recession are doomed to be poorer than their parents. Inequality—the fundamental, relentless force in American life since the late 1970s—grew worse.
The independent jury of the 2020 Photo Contest has awarded Japanese photographer Yasuyoshi Chiba’s image Straight Voice as the World Press Photo of the Year. In the image, we see a young man, illuminated by mobile phones, reciting protest poetry while demonstrators chant slogans calling for civilian rule, during a blackout in Khartoum, Sudan, on 19 June 2019.
Yasuyoshi Chiba, World Press Photo of the Year winner, said: “The place was a total blackout. Then, unexpectedly, people started clapping hands in the dark. People held up mobile phones to illuminate a young man in the center. He recited a famous protest poem, an improvised one. Between his breath, everybody shouted ‘thawra’, the word revolution in Arabic. His facial expression and voice impressed me, I couldn’t stop focusing on him and captured the moment.”
Loneliness is not solitude. Solitude requires being alone whereas loneliness shows itself most sharply in company with others. Apart from a few stray remarks– usually framed in a paradoxical mood like Cato's statement (reported by Cicero, De Re Publica, I, 17): numquam minus solum essequam cum solus esset, 'never was he less alone than when he was alone,' or, rather, 'never was he less lonely than when he was in solitude' – it seems that Epictetus, the emancipated slave philosopher of Greek origin, was the first to distinguish between loneliness and solitude. His discovery, in a way, was accidental, his chief interest being neither solitude nor loneliness, but being alone (monos) in the sense of absolute independence. As Epictetus sees it (Dissertationes, Book 3, ch. 13) the lonely man (eremos) finds himself surrounded by others with whom he cannot establish contact or to whose hostility he is exposed. The solitary man, on the contrary, is alone and therefore 'can be together with himself' since men have the capacity of 'talking with themselves.' In solitude, in other words, I am 'by myself,' together with my self, and therefore two-in-one, whereas in loneliness I am actually one, deserted by all others. All thinking, strictly speaking, is done in solitude and is a dialogue between me and myself; but this dialogue of the two-in-one does not lose contact with the world of my fellow-men because they are represented in the self with whom I lead the dialogue of thought.
This is not Ferguson’s first time in the limelight. In 2002, at the age of 34, the Oxford alumnus was appointed Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his work in modelling the UK’s foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, which killed over six million cows and sheep and hit Ferguson’s birthplace of Cumbria especially hard.
Since then, Ferguson has been involved in data modelling for three different viral outbreaks: swine flu in 2009, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012, and Ebola in 2016. During the former, in an article for Lancet Infectious Diseases, he published an article named “Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic”, which looked at – among other things – the economic effects such a closure would have, estimating that a 12-week closure could cost up to 1% of GDP.
Ferguson added: “It looked… like that was the paper that informed policymaking, but in fact a much wider range of scientific advice and modelling advice had gone into government in the previous two weeks, all of which pointed in that direction.” Indeed, the UK government didn’t just have China to look at as a model: it had Italy. By 1 March, the coronavirus death toll in Italy had increased nearly six-fold in the past week alone, from six to 34. One of Ferguson's colleagues, Helen Ward, has stated in the Guardian that the UK government's failure on 12 March to follow Imperial's guidelines – on that day, a government announcement shifted away from contact tracing and social distancing – meant that between 12 and 23 March, hundreds of thousands of people would have been infected. With a 1% mortality rate, 100,000 infections translates to 1,000 deaths.
How epidemiologists rushed to model the coronavirus pandemic.
David Adam
ここでもテストの必要性を最後に触れていました。
Testing needed
As researchers discover more about the virus, they are updating many other key variables. In the 26 March report5 on the global impact of COVID-19, the Imperial team revised its 16 March estimate of R0 upwards to between 2.4 and 3.3; in a 30 March report9 on the spread of the virus in 11 European countries, the researchers put it somewhere in the range of 3 to 4.7.
But some crucial information remains hidden from the modellers. A reliable test to see who has been infected without showing symptoms — and so could be moved to the recovered group — would be a game changer for modellers, and might significantly alter the predicted path of the pandemic, says Edmunds.
To stress the need for such a test, a team at the University of Oxford, UK, led by theoretical epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, has suggested that the pattern of recorded deaths in the United Kingdom might fit a range of SIR models, including one that assumes millions of people have already been infected but haven’t shown any symptoms10. Only tests that reveal such past infections can show what’s going on in reality.
ピケティ教授の新刊の英訳Capital and Ideologyが先月発売されました。さらにパワーアップして1,000ページを超えるボリュームになってパワーアップしています（汗）『２１世紀の資本』というドキュメント映画を見てピケティ教授を思い出したのですが、冒頭のBBCのキャスターの力強い言葉を聞くと彼の主張の重要性を一層感じます。時事の記事がどのような本なのかを伝えてくれています。
We talked to the French economist about his new book Capital and Ideology, his thoughts on Covid-19, and more.
By Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins MARCH 26, 2020
DSJ: In Capital in the Twentieth Century you argued that there are “Fundamental Laws of Capitalism,” and in particular claimed that inequality tends to rise when the average rate of return on capital exceeds the economy’s growth rate. By imputing a kind of law-like necessity to capital you gave the impression to some that there is little that can be done to change the institutions that produce inequality aside from taxing them. But the new book, it seems to me, tries to resist such a reading by insisting that “inequality is neither economic nor technological; it is ideological and political.” What do you mean by this?
TP: In my previous book, I indeed stressed the role played by the rate of return on capital, but I did not intend to take a deterministic approach to this. In particular, I emphasized the fact that the rate of return obtained by large wealth portfolios in global financial markets has been far greater than the world economy growth’s rate in recent decades, and the need for policy actions—including progressive wealth taxes—in order to curb these inequality trends. This theme also plays a role in my new book, and indeed top billionaire wealth has kept increasing at a very high rate over the past ten years, which probably contributes to explaining why democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now advocate sharply progressive wealth taxes, which was not the case a couple of years ago.
I now take a much broader look at how the ideological transformations of the legal, fiscal, and educational systems have defined and redefined inequality regimes across space and time. Take the case of Sweden. Today, many people look at Sweden as intrinsically egalitarian and sometime attribute this to some kind of permanent Swedish “culture.” But that’s not so: Until the beginning of the 20th century, Sweden was a highly unequal country, and in many ways much more unequal than other European societies, particularly in its way of organizing the political domination of the nobility and the property owners over the rest of society. Between 1865 and 1911, the Swedish constitution applies a very imaginative system, whereby only the top 20% property owners can vote. Members of this group have between one and one hundred votes, depending on the amount of their property and taxes. In municipal elections, there was no upper limit (and corporations have the right to vote), so that in several dozen Swedish municipalities more than 50 percent of the votes were held by a single vote. Following an intense (but relatively peaceful) mobilization by trade unions and the Swedish social-democratic party (SAP), things changed at a speed that nobody could have imagined at the time. Universal suffrage was imposed, the SAP took power in 1932, and Sweden’s administrative and state capacity was put to the service of a completely different political project. The careful registration of property and income was used to make people pay progressive taxes in order to finance education and health for all (rather than to distribute voting rights in relation to wealth). Throughout my book, whether I talk about Sweden, India, the US, France or China, I try to show that the level of equality or inequality is shaped by sociopolitical mobilization and ideological changes, rather than by permanent and deterministic factors.
DSJ: COVID-19 has caught the world off guard, and the coming economic consequences of the pandemic appears to be a global crisis the scale of which is difficult to predict. What must be done to adequately address the situation, and to what extent is the ability of political and economic actors limited by the institutional arrangements that have exacerbated growing inequality in recent years?
TP: Times of crisis are times when existing conceptions about the economy are being challenged and when new political-ideological trajectories can arise. COVID-19 illustrates the fact that public authorities can choose to regulate economic forces if they so wish. The question is whether we’ll be able to act strongly in order to address global warming or rising inequality. Together with the 2008-2012 bank bailout and money creation, the 2020 health crisis will challenge long-standing discourses about laissez-faire and will feed social demand for other intervention. For now, however, the only issue is survival: we need to do everything we can to avoid a dreadful rise in the number of casualties.
Today we might question why the two leaders would honor Jefferson at all. Seen through the long lens of racial injustice, the image of the slave-owning master of Monticello strikes us as something less than a declaration of independence and more like a portrait of hypocrisy, a view of a man whose pursuit of happiness was based on his ability to command the life and liberty of others.
There is no way to justify or explain away the inconsistencies of our revolutionary heritage and the indelible stain of slavery. But to dismiss that legacy is to deny the power of the past, even a flawed one, to inform and propel the present. More than any of his fellow revolutionaries, Jefferson was possessed of an intellectual flexibility that makes him useful to every era
The leaders of the soon-to-be victorious nation formulated two very different Jeffersons: Roosevelt saw an aristocrat; Truman saw a farmer. Roosevelt’s Jefferson was a man of cosmopolitan breadth, a leader who “thought in terms of the morrow as well as the day” — a man who, like Roosevelt himself, was patrician by birth but instinctively of the people.
Jefferson's experience with the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 reinforced his dislike of cities and shaped a radical plan for the development of a new nation that even included his concept of urban design.
CLAY JENKINSON, EDITOR-AT-LARGE | APRIL 1, 2020 | ANALYSIS
Thomas Jefferson was not only the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States, but also an agrarian visionary who wanted America to be a nation of small family farms. Jefferson’s distaste for cities is well known. He called them “pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.” To his closest friend, James Madison, he wrote in 1787, the year of the American Constitution, “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as in Europe.”
From his disciplined reading of the Latin and Greek classics, Jefferson derived his belief that the ideal citizen of a republic was a modest family farmer living on the land, growing his own food, and providing his own shelter and clothing. Since this farmer depended on no other person or institution for his livelihood, he was truly free. His relations with the state were entirely voluntary rather than necessary. City dwellers, by contrast, could not grow their own food. By living away from the fecundity of nature, they were dependent on others for food, shelter, clothing and employment. This made them less free. But “those who labor in the earth,” Jefferson wrote, “are the chosen people of God.”
ジェファーソンの構想を具体化した街も後に生まれたそうです。
Later, in a letter to his French friend Constantin Volney, Jefferson outlined his visionary plan for future town planning: “the yellow fever …is generated only in low close, and ill-cleansed parts of a town,” he wrote. “I have supposed it practicable to prevent it’s generation by building our cities on a more open plan. take for instance the chequer board for a plan. let the black squares only be building squares, and the white ones be left open, in turf & trees. every square of houses will be surrounded by four open squares, & every house will front an open square. the atmosphere of such a town would be like that of the country, insusceptible of the miasmata which produce yellow fever. I have accordingly proposed that the enlargements of the city of New Orleans … shall be on this plan.”
In Jefferson’s vision, every other square (or block) of future towns and cities would be permanent grass or parkland. This would give everyone healthier air, more privacy, ground on which to plant vegetable gardens, and social distance. Jefferson’s idea was to ruralize the city, dedicating half of each city to open space, but so evenly distributed through the community that nobody would ever be confined to an urban jungle.
For all of his anti-urban bias and pronouncements, Thomas Jefferson loved cities. In this, as in so many other ways, he was a man of paradox. He thrived during his five-year residency in Paris (1784-89), and he regarded his years in Philadelphia, first as secretary of state and later as vice president, as among the most satisfying of his life. The home of the American Philosophical Society and the Library Company, Philadelphia was then the cultural capital of the United States.
It has been my experience that it is not bridges and flying that help you get through the night, but only the fraternal step. We are in the middle of the night. I once tried to combat it with words (Thomas Mann had published his abject Gedanken im Kriege). At that time I learned that whoever fights against the night must move its deepest darkness to deliver up its light and that words are only a way station in this major life struggle: and they can be the final station only where they are never the first.
the group of men including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin who helped to start the US as a country and to establish its government. They wrote the US's most important political documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the bill of rights.
These military leaders, rebels, politicians and writers varied in personality, status and background, but all played a part in forming a new nation and hammering out the framework for the young democracy.
Well educated and prosperous, Thomas Jefferson was a Virginia lawyer and politician who came to believe the British Parliament held no authority over the 13 colonies. In 1776, he was given the immense task of writing the Declaration of Independence, in which he famously declared that “all men are created equal” and “that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (A lifelong slaveholder, he did not extend these concepts to African-Americans.)
As secretary of state under Washington, Jefferson clashed constantly with Hamilton over foreign policy and the role of government. He later served as vice president to John Adams prior to becoming president, himself, in 1801.
This is a day of national consecration, and I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
かっこいいこと言ったぜ（キリッ）で終わっているわけではなく、先を進めてみると「この国には行動が、しかも今行動することが必要なのである。(This Nation asks for action, and action now.)」とか、「単に語るだけでは何ら貢献しない。我々は行動せねばならない。しかも迅速にである。（it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.）」とか、行動することに重きを置いているのがわかります。
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken Nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
How a man once doubted by so many led Britain from the brink, becoming one of the most respected leaders ever to walk the earth
By Jon Meacham | From Churchill, May/June 2018 | Printed as "Winston Churchill Portrait of Power"
Candor
Churchill believed in leveling with his followers. He also believed that the rest of the world tended to see the world as he did. In his cosmos there was joy in the journey; without darkness there could be no light. There was a fundamental democratic instinct at work, too: Churchill held out the possibility of heroism for all, not just great men. That was one reason he so often spoke of the “long story” of the nation—in that story there was room for greatness from the most ordinary of souls. “Trust the people” had been his father’s political motto, and Churchill shared it.
And the people deserved the truth, no matter how unpalatable. “There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away,” he recalled. “The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool’s paradise.” People respected candor, Churchill believed, so long as they believed their leaders had a plan for moving forward.
Roosevelt learned something from this Churchillian understanding of leadership. “The news is going to get worse and worse before it gets better and better,” FDR told Americans in the winter of 1942. “The American people must be prepared for it and they must get it straight from the shoulder.” It was, in a way, the covenant of democracy: Give it to us straight, and we will do what it takes. Such a view sustained Churchill through all the years of war, in defeat and in victory.
“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The . . . people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool’s paradise.”
自宅待機になって分厚い本を読むいい機会ではないかと思います。1993年に出版されたLa Misere du Mondeの翻訳が出ました。30年前の本ではないかというなかれ、一読すれば現在と重なり合う状況を読み取れます。先程の映画Les Miserablesの監督も20年間状況は何も変わっていないと不満を述べています。
Starting with shorts and documentaries including “Montfermeil Les Bosquets,” his films show an insider’s view of the working-class suburb where he grew up. When two youths were electrocuted during the riots, Ly redoubled his efforts to tell the neighborhood’s stories.
“Since the election of Macron, there’s more social problems. We’ve been protesting these conditions in our cities for 20 years, but nothing is happening. Before, people didn’t care because it was the suburbs, but now it touches everyone in France.”
Let us now speak in favor of billionaires. We refer specifically to Bill Gates, who was recently asked what good his fortune could do in this pandemic. “Governments will eventually come up with lots of money,” he replied on a TV show. “But they don’t know where to direct it. They can’t move as quickly.”
Once the virus is conquered—and it will be—the biggest risk will be the political campaign to expand government control over far more of American economic life. Society will be better off because Mr. Gates is the one spending his billions rather than having to turn them over to the ministrations of the U.S. Congress.
今回のコロナ危機について、色々な思索をめぐらしているエッセイがガーディアンに発表されていました。彼女の政治立場はサンダーズ寄りですが、WSJの社説を読んだ後は彼女のいうfreedom being another word for absolutely no limits on the pursuit of self-interestが実感としてわかります。
In the midst of fear and isolation, we are learning that profound, positive change is possible.
By Rebecca Solnit Tue 7 Apr 2020 06.00 BST
The idea that everything is connected is an affront to conservatives who cherish a macho every-man-for-himself frontier fantasy. Climate change has been a huge insult to them – this science that says what comes out of our cars and chimneys shapes the fate of the world in the long run and affects crops, sea level, forest fires and so much more. If everything is connected, then the consequences of every choice and act and word have to be examined, which we see as love in action and they see as impingement upon absolute freedom, freedom being another word for absolutely no limits on the pursuit of self-interest. Ultimately, a significant portion of conservatives and corporate leaders regard science as an annoyance that they can refuse to recognise. Some insist they can choose whatever rules and facts they want, as though these too are just free-market commodities to pick and choose from or remake according to one’s whims. “This denial of science and critical thinking among religious ultraconservatives now haunts the American response to the coronavirus crisis,” wrote the journalist Katherine Stewart in the New York Times.
When Bernie Sanders’s critics mocked his platform as just a bunch of “free stuff,” they were drawing on the past forty years of bipartisan consensus about social-welfare benefits and entitlements. They have argued, instead, that competition organized through the market insures more choices and better quality. In fact, the surreality of market logic was on clear display when, on March 13th, Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss the covid-19 crisis with executives from Walgreens, Target, Walmart, and CVS, and a host of laboratory, research, and medical-device corporations. There were no social-service providers or educators there to discuss the immediate, overwhelming needs of the public.
The crisis is laying bare the brutality of an economy organized around production for the sake of profit and not human need. The logic that the free market knows best can be seen in the prioritization of affordability in health care as millions careen toward economic ruin. It is seen in the ways that states have been thrown into frantic competition with one another for personal protective equipment and ventilators—the equipment goes to whichever state can pay the most. It can be seen in the still criminally slow and inefficient and inconsistent testing for the virus. It is found in the multi-billion-dollar bailout of the airline industry, alongside nickel-and-dime means tests to determine which people might be eligible to receive ridiculously inadequate public assistance.
Ly says everything in the film was inspired by real events and, except for the three leads and Balibar, has cast it with non-professionals from the area.
Equally impressive, and this cannot have been easy, he is sympathetic to all sides, even the police, honoring the complexity of the situation by refusing to offer easy solutions to intractable problems.
More than anything, especially with its unnerving ending, “Les Misérables” wants us to think. What have we done as a society, what do we continue to do, what can be done to change things before it is too late.
The news that Boris Johnson was admitted to hospital for tests on Sunday night with persistent coronavirus symptoms has shone a spotlight on the prime minister’s health.
Boris Johnson, 55, has said he is still suffering the symptoms of coronavirus after being admitted to hospital on Sunday, more than a week after he first tested positive for the disease.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was admitted to a hospital Sunday for tests, his office said, because he is still suffering symptoms, 10 days after he was diagnosed with COVID-19.
女王が口にした「We will meet again」は、第2次世界大戦中にイギリスで国民的応援歌として愛唱されたヴェラ・リンの曲、「We will meet again」にちなんだものと思われる。
どちらの辞書も丁寧に説明してくれています。The sentimental words express hope for the future at a time of troubleとの説明を読むとなぜこの言葉が選ばれたのかわかる気がします。
（オックスフォード ）
We'll Meet Again
one of the best-known songs in Britain during the Second World War, originally sung by Vera Lynn and still popular today. The sentimental words express hope for the future at a time of trouble.
（ロングマン）
We'll Meet Again
a popular song from World War II, sung by Vera Lynn, about people hoping to meet again after a long and painful time apart: We'll meet again, /Don't know where, don't know when, /But I know we'll meet again/Some sunny day.
「ウィール·ミーート·アゲイン」(Vera Lynn/が1939年にヒットさせた歌;1960年にもリバイバルヒットし,映画 Dr. Strangeloveのエンディングで効果的に使われている).
(Wikipedia)
The song gave its name to the 1943 musical film We'll Meet Again in which Dame Vera Lynn played the lead role (see 1943 in music). Lynn's recording is featured in the final scene of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove - with a bitter irony, as the song accompanies a nuclear holocaust which wipes out humanity.
The gravity of a human life far outweighs the earth.
こんな言葉が浮かんだのは少し前のクオモNY州知事の“We’re not going to put a dollar figure on human life.”と言う言葉を知ったから。ロックダウンは経済に影響を及ぼすと言う声がある中、3月30日のニューヨークタイムズの社説でもWhile policymakers must sometimes make trade-offs between life and money, this is not such a moment. The American economy needs to be shut down in order to preserve both human life and long-term prosperity.ときっぱり言っています。
If summer is to bring any sense of normalcy, the country’s leaders must act quickly.
By The Editorial Board
Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor of Texas, took the opposite view last week, arguing that Americans should go back to work even if that causes the deaths of their grandparents, whom he suggested would willingly sacrifice their lives for the sake of economic growth. President Trump grudgingly agreed Sunday night to extend the federal government’s social distancing guidelines until the end of April, but he too has made clear that he believes efforts to save lives will come at the expense of the economy.
This is a false choice. While policymakers must sometimes make trade-offs between life and money, this is not such a moment. The American economy needs to be shut down in order to preserve both human life and long-term prosperity. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, communities that quickly imposed stringent measures not only saved lives but experienced stronger economic rebounds, according to a new study. The message is clear: Coronavirus is a danger to life and prosperity; a strong public health response is the needed corrective.
It increasingly appears necessary that for the next eight weeks, and possibly for longer, all nonessential businesses should be closed, domestic travel restricted and the “shelter-in-place” measures being employed by some parts of the country extended to the rest. Such a shutdown will be enormously expensive in the short term, likely requiring fresh rounds of federal aid on top of the $2.2 trillion Congress approved on Friday. But scientists say that based on what they’ve learned from Europe and Asia, that’s the only way to get the virus, which is spreading like wildfire across the country, under control.
45 Pages Posted: 26 Mar 2020 Last revised: 1 Apr 2020
Abstract
What are the economic consequences of an influenza pandemic? And given the pandemic, what are the economic costs and benefits of non-pharmaceutical interven- tions (NPI)? Using geographic variation in mortality during the 1918 Flu Pandemic in the U.S., we find that more exposed areas experience a sharp and persistent decline in economic activity. The estimates imply that the pandemic reduced manufacturing output by 18%. The downturn is driven by both supply and demand-side channels. Further, building on findings from the epidemiology literature establishing that NPIs decrease influenza mortality, we use variation in the timing and intensity of NPIs across U.S. cities to study their economic effects. We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over. Our findings thus indicate that NPIs not only lower mortality; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic.
ニューヨークはまだそんな雰囲気ではないですが、今週のEconomistはまさにそのtrade-offs between life and moneyについて考察していました。長引くにつれてリーダーはこのtrafe-offsに向き合って回答を出さないといけないとして、どのようなポイントを考えればいいかまとめています。
The trade-offs required by the pandemic will get even harder
Leaders Apr 2nd 2020 edition
The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has declared that “We’re not going to put a dollar figure on human life.” It was meant as a rallying-cry from a courageous man whose state is overwhelmed. Yet by brushing trade-offs aside, Mr Cuomo was in fact advocating a choice—one that does not begin to reckon with the litany of consequences among his wider community. It sounds hard-hearted but a dollar figure on life, or at least some way of thinking systematically, is precisely what leaders will need if they are to see their way through the harrowing months to come. As in that hospital ward, trade-offs are unavoidable.
Seniors must submit their DUS Approved Exceptions forms before spring recess of the final term of their enrollment. There is no deadline for others: you can submit a DUS Approved Exceptions form after you have taken a class, while you are taking a class, or before you have taken a class.
ジーニアスでもWhat is the deadlineの例文を載せてくれていて、他の見出語でWhen is the deadlineの形もありました。ですが、ウィズダムのようにまとめてもらえると分かりやすいですよね。
After saying that states should use their own stockpiles first, Kushner on Thursday said, “And the notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile. It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use.”
And asked what Kushner meant by “our stockpile,” Trump snapped at a reporter, “You know what our means: United States of America...our. Our. It means the United States of America.”
Heaven help us, we’re at the mercy of the Slim Suit crowd.
By Maureen Dowd Opinion Columnist April 4, 2020, 2:30 p.m. ET
From the lectern, Kushner drilled down on his role as the annoying, spoiled kid in every teen movie ever made. “And the notion of the federal stockpile was, it’s supposed to be our stockpile,” he said. “It’s not supposed to be the states’ stockpiles that they then use.”
Our stockpile?
That’s the way the Trump-Kushner dynasty has approached this whole presidency, conflating what belongs to the people with what is theirs. Trump acts like he has the right to dole out “favors,” based on which governor is most assiduous about kissing up to him.
keep/bring somebody up to date (=to give someone all the newest information about something)
Our magazine will keep you up to date with fashion.
そうは言っても安心、安定のTOEIC。奇を衒ったものは今後も出ないでしょう。今回のbring XX up to dateに関しても分かりやすい形で使われていました。改めて見比べてみると、最新のは苦しいのか首回りを開けていますね。声もかすれていますし、現在の体調が心配です。
Good evening, I want to bring you up to date on some of the things the government is doing to defeat the coronavirus epidemic in this country and around the world.
ボリス首相はbring XX up to speedという表現も使っていました。
Hi folks
I want to bring you up to speed with something's that happening today, which is that I've developed mild symptoms of the coronavirus - that's to say, a temperature and a persistent cough.
（ロングマン）
up to speed
having the latest information or knowledge about something
Some school officials are only now getting up to speed regarding computers.
John will bring you up to speed (=tell you the latest information).
3月23日では動詞updateを使っていました。
And so tonight I want to update you on the latest steps we are taking to fight the disease and what you can do to help.
動詞updateはお馴染みですが、update XX（人） on ...という形はTOEICでもあまり登場していません。
（ロングマン）
spoken to tell someone the most recent information about a situation
update somebody on something
Can you update me on what’s been happening?
（オックスフォード ）
to give someone the most recent information about something; to add the most recent information to something
synonym bring up to date
update somebody (on something) I called the office to update them on the day's developments.
TOEICで登場したのはほんの最近で、用例もそれほど多くありません。
（公式L&R2 T2）
Before your shifts start this evening, I wanted to update you on our restaurants’s menu.
今晩、皆さんの勤務時間が始まる前に、当レストランのメニューについて最新情報を伝えたかったのです。
give you an update on...も同じように使われています。
（公式L&R5 T1）
Hi, Luisa. It's Jimmy, from B.A.J. Kitchen Remodeling. I want to give you an update on your kitchen renovations.
