Welcome to my blog! My name is Rosie, and I am a sociologist of religion with a master’s degree in Middle East Studies. I also have a background in the public sector and government.
This blog serves as a platform for my reflections on current affairs, history, politics, and, of course, religion. As a passionate lover of the arts, I often draw on literature and other artistic forms to enhance and illustrate my thoughts. Alongside sharing my opinions, I aim to shed light on happenings that don’t always make it to the front pages of newspapers.
As a novice blogger, I greatly appreciate any feedback I might receive. At the same time, I reserve the right to express my opinions freely.
If you enjoy reading my insights and would like to stay updated on my latest posts, please subscribe to my blog for email notifications. Subscription is free!
Thank you for visiting, and I hope you find my writings engaging!
Chuck Schumer may have inadvertently provided the Democratic Party with a critical opportunity to unify.
Let’s face it: things haven’t been going well for the Dems in a while. The party has been struggling to connect with middle-class and rural Americans for years. They were blindsided by Joe Biden’s declining health, despite his age, and they allowed insufficient time for Kamala Harris to mount a robust electoral campaign. Would it have made a difference? That remains uncertain, but the absence of a solid campaign strategy was certainly noticeable.
Now, the Democrats are in disarray. Calls for new leadership echo within the party, but there’s little consensus on what that should entail. In the House, Democratic members are divided into four distinct factions, complicating any efforts to rally around a single agenda. Initially, one might have thought being in the minority in the House and Senate would provide the Democrats with the space they desperately needed to regroup. That hasn’t been the case, to much frustration.
However, circumstances have shifted more rapidly than one could anticipate. Peace talks concerning Ukraine are stagnant at best, the economy is floundering, the stock market continues to tumble, and the ongoing tariff war is causing widespread anxiety. To add to these challenges, fundamental human rights are under siege. Figures like Trump and Musk have begun to target essential services like Medicare and Medicaid, leaving even some Republicans questioning the decisions they’ve backed. Yet, in the face of a daunting array of issues, the Democrats have struggled to land a solid blow—especially when the target is so large.
Just when it seemed the Democrats might be adjusting to these endless challenges, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate Minority Leader, announced his decision to vote in favor of a continuing resolution. This was especially notable given the collective ‘nay’ votes from House Democrats, who felt justified in opposing it.
On one hand, you could argue both sides of the issue. A government shutdown would have far-reaching, detrimental effects: government employees could lose income or even their jobs, and halting such a vast enterprise would impact Americans across the country. Contrary to the belief of some, civil servants contribute significantly, keeping essential services running. On the other hand, if political figures like Musk succeed at laying off civil servants, it could lead the federal government to a standstill. Ultimately, in American politics, perception often outweighs objective reasoning.
And therein lies Schumer’s miscalculation, as well as his unexpected role as a unifier. His stance—that a government shutdown is detrimental—while valid, does little to demonstrate leadership from a minority party, especially when an opportunity arises to make a bold statement. The political landscape is hardly devoid of issues; the timing could have been ripe for Democrats to seize the momentum. Public fatigue towards Trump’s decision-making is evident, with some Republicans even expressing doubts about cutting healthcare for the vulnerable. True politicians recognize when to act decisively; Schumer’s hesitance reveals a profound lack of instinct.
However, in an unexpected twist, Schumer’s announcement has united the four factions within the Democratic House. They are not only rallying against the continuing resolution but are also demanding stronger leadership—a Senate leader who is not content to relax in a back room but who will fiercely advocate for their principles. They crave someone who is unafraid to challenge the status quo and address uncomfortable truths, someone who will stand tall and fight for what they believe in. The time for hesitation is over.
So, if you’re a Democrat feeling frustrated with Schumer’s vote alongside the opposition, it’s completely valid to be upset. Yet, perhaps there’s a silver lining to his decision. He has unwittingly paved the way for a more resilient and combative party, which could ultimately benefit them in the long run. The key now lies in their willingness to embrace this moment. Only time will tell.
If you enjoy reading my insights and would like to stay updated on my latest posts, please subscribe to my blog for email notifications. Subscription is free!
This past Sunday, March 9th, the British observed their annual Covid Day of Reflection. In London, a Highland piper led bereaved relatives and well-wishers along the national Covid memorial wall, which features 3,000 photographs of individuals who lost their lives to the virus—a small portion of the total 227,000 deaths in the UK alone. According to the World Health Organization, at least 3 million people died, directly or indirectly, due to Covid infections in 2020 alone. As of March 9th, 2025, there have been 7,090,763 confirmed Covid-induced deaths reported worldwide.
Moreover, it has been estimated that, as of January 2023, taking into account likely Covid-related deaths through excess mortality, the pandemic has caused between 19.1 million and 36 million deaths globally. (1)
With so much unfolding in the world, the pandemic seems like a distant memory. But it has only been five years, and the world is still grappling with its aftermath. In an article published in Nature magazine in August 2024, titled “Long COVID: Science, Research, and Policy,” researchers Ziyad Al-Aly et al. stated that “the cumulative global incidence of long COVID is around 400 million individuals, which is estimated to have an annual economic impact of approximately $1 trillion—equivalent to about 1% of the global economy.”
Beyond the economic distress, the effects of long Covid are devastating for those affected. Many are battling a chronic illness that the medical community has yet to fully understand, let alone treat. Most have lost their jobs and sources of income, becoming socially isolated due to debilitating fatigue among other symptoms. Prospects for a cure appear bleak, as this multi-system disease manifests differently in each individual, complicating efforts to develop a universal treatment.
In addition to the emergence of a new chronic disease, Covid—along with the measures implemented during the pandemic—has been identified as a contributing factor in the rising number of individuals struggling with mental health issues. Many of these individuals are children and young adults who have struggled to cope with the shutdown of schools, social distancing mandates, community lockdowns, and strict quarantine measures. The lack of social interaction and the fear of contagion have left an indelible mark on an entire generation.
Family members of those who died during the pandemic continue to feel the pain of not being able to hold their loved ones’ hands in their final moments or say goodbye in person. They remember poignant moments, such as the funeral of the late Prince Philip, where Queen Elizabeth II sat alone in her seat wearing a face mask, unwittingly becoming a symbol of the grief many faced—most of whom were denied the chance to organize proper funerals due to restrictions.
Socio-Political Shifts
In 2021, Kahl and Wright published their book “Aftershocks,” analyzing the pandemic’s impact and long-term effects on national and international politics. They draw comparisons to the Great Influenza of 1918, arguing that pandemics can “shape international order by undermining the material capabilities of key states and by producing contingent historical events that ripple through time. The agitation of underlying forces within and between countries can strain economies, worsen inequality, and contribute to social and political unrest.” The parallels to our post-Covid era are striking. Various scientific publications have noted that deglobalization and increased nationalism and isolationism are socio-political shifts that can be traced back to the pandemic.
So, what does this mean for us? History teaches us that the post-pandemic era following the Great Influenza was fraught with challenges that preceded even darker times. The Roaring Twenties, a period where many sought refuge in entertainment after the devastations of the Great Influenza and World War I, was short-lived and led to the Great Depression and the rise of Nazism. History also demonstrates that in times of crisis, people often focus on protecting ‘their own,’ unwittingly alienating ‘the other.’
Today, we find ourselves witnessing economic decline, increased protectionist measures by governments, a rise in nationalism and white supremacism in the Western world, and deglobalization—all against the backdrop of influencers and reality shows. Despite the warning signs and the voices of the alarmed, the masses remain unconvinced that catastrophe could loom if the tide does not shift.
Lessons to Be Learned
In contemplating the lessons to be learned from the pandemic, there appears to be a predominant focus on organizational aspects: How do we respond to the next pandemic? Should we reserve funds? How do we structure our health systems? Who needs a seat at the table to determine necessary measures?
What seems to be overlooked is the impact of the Covid pandemic on geopolitical affairs. Had this been a focus, perhaps the discussions taking place today would be different. World leaders would analyze social movements and seek to address the sources of discontent among their citizens, rather than merely responding to it with political rhetoric. They would heed the warning signs of emerging nationalism and protectionism and recognize where this path led a century ago. They would come to understand that global connectivity is essential to preserving humanity.
Is Covid entirely to blame for our current global situation? No, of course not. But it is a contributing factor that should not be dismissed. Covid has not only impacted our health and economies; it has, whether consciously or unconsciously, altered our perceptions of the world in which we live. The more aware we are of this, the more we can do to reverse its effects before it’s too late.
If you enjoy reading my insights and would like to stay updated on my latest posts, please subscribe to my blog for email notifications. Subscription is free!
Who doesn’t enjoy participating in a trend? Admittedly, I usually refrain, but this one has compelled me to join in.
The internet brims with messages from individuals reaching out to their 100-year-old selves. Some are more intriguing than others, but the endeavor of writing to one’s future self is thought-provoking, even if most of us won’t live long enough to actually read our letters.
So, what do I wish to convey to you, my future self? In truth, there’s likely nothing about me that you don’t already know. Thus, the essence of this letter is hope—hope for your happiness and health. Hope that your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren still carve out time to visit you and share in those moments of joy. And I sincerely hope you retain the capacity to savor their company.
I also hope that life has treated you kindly. Given the medical challenges you’ve faced, have you still been able to pursue the dreams you held dear? Have you written those books, wandered through the museums, cheered on the grandkids at their sports events, celebrated their graduations, learned to sew, or mastered French as though it were your mother tongue? Have you managed to embrace life fully, relishing its highs and lows alike?
It wouldn’t be a letter from me if it didn’t include a touch of curiosity about the future itself. Has humanity succeeded in creating a world without war? Did we, as women, manage to bridge the gender gap? Has the human race finally realized that the world thrives when everyone is allowed to live in peace, have access to education and healthcare, and understand that giving is far more fulfilling than demanding? Or have computers truly taken over, relegating humanity to a state of submission?
Aging is a peculiar phenomenon. We all perceive it differently. Once, I asked a woman who had just celebrated her 100th birthday what her secret to longevity was. She replied, “There’s no secret. It just happens. You keep on living until you don’t anymore.” It’s quite a sober perspective, if you ask me. Perhaps you might echo this sentiment: “You simply keep putting one foot in front of the other.” That certainly sounds like me.
Reaching the milestone of 100 years is a remarkable achievement. If you’ve done so in good health and high spirits, you are luckier than many. I hope you find yourself among the fortunate, still enjoying life with family and, hopefully, a circle of friends who’ve journeyed with you this far. I hope the world has evolved into a better place and that you have discovered peace in knowing you did your best—and that your best was more than good enough.
Happy 100th birthday, dear self. I hope it has been a magnificent journey.
If you enjoy reading my insights and would like to stay updated on my latest posts, please subscribe to my blog for email notifications. Subscription is free!
One word comes to mind when I reflect on February: geopolitics. Although it may not be the most alluring term, there is no better way to encapsulate the state of the world today. As the global landscape becomes increasingly fraught with challenges, the imperative to strive for improvement remains clear.
Throughout February, former President Trump continued to astonish both allies and adversaries with his unpredictable decrees and statements. His administration generated considerable turmoil, highlighted by Vice President Vance’s attendance at the Global Security Conference in Munich. Trump’s approach toward the ongoing war in Ukraine has raised eyebrows, as he openly sought closer ties with Russia. He has demanded that Ukraine repay the United States a staggering $500 billion in rare earth minerals, framing it as compensation for U.S. expenditures related to the conflict. Moreover, the Trump administration recognized Russia’s control over specific regions in Ukraine, asserting that these areas should be considered Russian territory before negotiations have even commenced.
In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered a counter-proposal regarding the rare earth minerals. His plan suggests utilizing these resources as a means to guarantee a peaceful future for Ukraine, proposing an arrangement to “pay” for U.S. support should Russia launch another invasion. This clever strategy acknowledges that a portion of the minerals lies in territories currently under Russian control or disputed ownership. On this last day of the month, Zelensky and Trump are to meet; the world now watches closely for Trump’s reaction to Zelensky’s initiative.
As the geopolitical landscape shifts, Europe is finally taking steps toward unity in response to Trump’s rhetoric. Leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer have stepped forward, attempting to salvage the transatlantic alliance while demonstrating that they will not be intimidated. Friedrich Merz, the incoming German chancellor, has expressed skepticism about the need for a U.S. alliance and has advocated for the establishment of an independent European defense alliance. This move reflects a positive development in European political collaboration, even as the continent seeks a unifying leader. If Europe is to avoid being left vulnerable, the emergence of strong leadership is urgently needed.
On a domestic front, the Trump administration has remained busy with various controversial actions, including implementing tariffs, undermining human rights, terminating a significant number of government employees, and arguably disregarding constitutional norms. The administration’s stance on immigration, particularly its focus on detaining undocumented individuals and banning certain literature, has drawn widespread criticism. Notably, a nationwide boycott of major retailers and fast-food chains was organized on February 28, reflecting the mounting frustration among Americans regarding the rising cost of living and discriminatory employment practices against women and non-white individuals.
While many focus on the disintegration of transatlantic alliances and the de-democratization of the U.S., we must not overlook pressing issues elsewhere. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a perpetual source of tension. As we enter the next phase of the Gaza war ceasefire negotiations, Israel’s actions in the West Bank have been brutal, further complicating the possibility of a two-state solution, particularly given U.S. support leaning towards the aggressor.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a mysterious virus has claimed 60 lives. Initial findings indicate that while a severe strain of malaria was detected in 54% of blood samples, the WHO has labeled this as a typical prevalence and suggests it may not be the source of the new virus. Given the highly contagious nature of the outbreak, which can prove fatal within 48 hours, swift action to control it is crucial. Compounding this issue, the DRC continues to grapple with a war in its eastern regions and the persistent threat of Ebola, illustrating the multifaceted challenges facing its citizens despite millions in international aid.
In the Central African Republic, violent attacks by the 3R rebel group have resulted in the deaths of nine and widespread destruction of hundreds of homes in Bamingui-Bangoran. Since 2013, this country has faced conflict and has consistently been recognized as one of the poorest countries in the world.
On a more uplifting note, there is a positive development emerging from Africa: the Senegalese government has reached a peace agreement with the Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance, effectively ending a 40-year conflict. This milestone, mediated by the neighboring Bissau-Guinean President Umaro Sissoco Embalo, brings hope for lasting peace.
In South America, the Brazilian Public Prosecutor’s Office has taken legal action against mining giant Vale S.A. and the state of Pará for mass metal poisoning affecting the Xikrin indigenous community in the Amazon rainforest. Their territory, crucial for their livelihood, has suffered not only from pollution but also from the displacement caused by the construction of the Belo Monte dam, which has dramatically altered their river system and environment, displacing thousands and disrupting their way of life.
As we turn to Chile, a nationwide power outage has impacted the majority of the population, halting significant industries temporarily.
In Australia, health authorities remain vigilant as a melioidosis outbreak, attributed to flooding in Queensland, has resulted in at least twelve fatalities. This bacterial infection poses a serious threat to local communities, necessitating awareness and preventive measures.
This recap offers just a glimpse into the events of February, emphasizing the complexities and struggles that define our world today. While mainstream narratives often concentrate on the “big players,” countless issues across the globe merit our attention. Environmental crises, health concerns, and human suffering paint a daunting picture, reminding us that we indeed live in challenging times.
However, amidst these difficulties, humanity’s resilience and creativity shine through. We have the capacity to discover joy and magic in everyday life and the opportunity to commit to acts of kindness. Regardless of the geopolitical turmoil surrounding us, each of us possesses the power to contribute positively to our communities. This February recap serves not only as a reflection of the challenges we face but also as a call to embrace goodness and extend it to those in need. We can—and must—do better, for the future of this world and humanity.
Geopolitics have taken a significant turn this past week. The U.S. has revealed its lack of commitment to Ukraine, surprising many European leaders in the process. In response, these leaders have intensified discussions in an unprecedented attempt to unify, showcasing a unity not previously seen in European politics. With both sides risking a substantial fracture in the trans-Atlantic alliance, the phrase, “Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!” from Aesop’s Fables, comes to mind.
The recent German elections have introduced a new chancellor to the stage. While coalition negotiations are still pending, it is already a foregone conclusion that Friedrich Merz will become the new German chancellor. Just an hour after the world collectively sighed with relief at the AfD’s failure to secure victory, Merz delivered a strong and unexpected message during an ‘Election Day’ television interview. He stated: “An absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible, so that, step by step, we can achieve real independence from the USA.” He further added that “the Americans are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.”
His statements were surprising for two reasons. First, Merz has always been deemed a ‘trans-Atlanticist’. His call to sever ties between the U.S. and Europe is extraordinary for someone who has consistently worked to enhance relations within this alliance. It appears that the messaging from figures such as Trump, Vance, and Rubio has resonated deeply with him, perhaps leading him to lose faith in this alliance. Second, Europe has historically relied on the U.S. for military support and defense—arguably over-relying, which has contributed to the frustrations surrounding NATO funding. This reliance stems from the lessons of World War II; Europeans are acutely aware that they could not have defeated the Nazi regime without American and Canadian military aid. NATO was not simply an alliance created to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War; its foundations rest on the ethical and fundamental principles of defending democracy and recognizing the role each nation plays in upholding democratic values in the Western world. The concentration of defensive forces was intended not only to deter aggression but also to promote democratic ideals while keeping communism at bay. When the leading country in NATO threatens to seize Greenland (an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark), interferes with the elections of a member state (Germany), and warns that Europe cannot count on its support for protecting its borders, something has to give. And it has. Europe now feels deeply offended and betrayed; the response has been unprecedented.
On Monday, Emmanuel Macron visited President Trump, and a remarkable moment unfolded when Macron publicly fact-checked Trump live in the Oval Office during a press conference. Macron’s mission seemed twofold: to persuade Trump to adopt a more constructive stance on NATO and the war in Ukraine (it has been suggested that Trump finds Macron agreeable) and to convey that Europe is no longer pleading for U.S. support. Europe is taking a stand: if you’re not with us, we can manage without you. This represents a significant shift over the past few weeks.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is scheduled to visit Trump this coming Thursday. Reports suggest that his mission aligns with Macron’s; however, the British are more committed to salvaging their relationship with the U.S. The Sun, a British newspaper, has even proposed that Starmer invite Trump to Balmoral, King Charles’s outdoor retreat, as a means of wooing him. Others have suggested bestowing an honorary title upon Trump, knowing that he is an anglophile and that such gestures might appeal to his ego. Importantly, the U.K. stands firmly behind Ukraine and is unlikely to waver in its position. They hope the U.S. will ultimately support Europe’s efforts to protect Ukraine from Russian aggression, yet they are prepared to maintain their stance without sacrificing Ukraine to appease the U.S..
Some argue that Trump’s bark is worse than his bite, referring to his first term when he made many bold statements but followed through on very few. His countless changes of mind have led to a belief that he will act similarly in this administration. However, I consider this a false hope. Trump unexpectedly stumbled into the White House in 2016, surrounded by seasoned political advisors who kept him within the bounds of democratic norms, guiding him to respect long-standing socio-political agreements. This time, however, Trump has thoroughly prepared for his presidency and has surrounded himself with like-minded advisors. There is no one in this administration to temper his impulsiveness; if anything, they are inclined to push boundaries even further. His words will most likely translate into actions, as demonstrated in his first month in office.
Where does this leave the world? The U.S.’s flirtation with Russia, its stance on Ukraine, and its isolationist policies will likely result in increased isolation for the U.S.. Russia is not a friendly ally; Putin is as formidable a force as Trump—albeit more cunning and strategically savvy. He welcomes this newfound relationship with the U.S. as long as it serves his interests, potentially leaving the U.S. completely isolated at a critical juncture.
As for Europe? If the strategy is to sever ties with the U.S.—militarily, economically, or politically—Europe will need to strive for unprecedented levels of unity. European alliances have mainly been economically driven, with military collaboration largely sustained through NATO. A politically unified Europe remains a goal yet to be realized, especially when it comes to substantial, defining issues.
Perhaps the European leaders and Trump will ultimately find it best to part ways, recognizing that their aspirations no longer align. It’s possible they will conclude that Europe and the U.S. have grown apart, and perhaps they will entertain the notion that letting go is the healthiest choice. To that, I say: Be careful what you wish for…
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Martin Niemöller’s famous quote has been echoing in my mind lately. As we navigate this new era of political uncertainty, the impact of rising protectionism and isolationist policies remains to be fully understood—not to mention the alarming ascent of right-wing extremism.
It is not merely the state of affairs in the United States that troubles me. For years, we have witnessed the slow but steady rise of far-right populist political parties across Europe. In some countries, a political firewall has been constructed as a safeguard against extreme views on migration and diversity. Yet, in a minority of European nations, far-right parties have managed to gain power, as seen in Hungary. The banishment of extremism from the political arena has proven to be a formidable challenge, leaving politicians from established democratic parties at a loss regarding how to address these societal shifts.
Many have drawn comparisons between this period and the 1930s—the era of Nazism and the Third Reich. I have touched on this theme in my blog post titled “Humanity at a Crossroads: Revisiting Yeats in Troubling Times.” The parallels are stark and unmistakable. The pressing question remains: is this a reversible trend in Western democracies, or are we on the brink of a dramatic shift in the course of Western civilization?
J.D. Vance surprised both supporters and critics with his remarks at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025. He asserted that European institutions and the right to freedom of speech are being undermined. Vance further claimed that the firewall erected around the AfD (Alternative for Germany) should be dismantled, directing European countries to prioritize more pressing issues, such as migration, rather than silencing unconventional viewpoints. He characterized Europe’s main challenge as migration, accusing European nations of shirking their responsibilities in this regard. According to him, in a democracy, all opinions—including those of the AfD—merit consideration. He even met with the AfD’s chairwoman.
In all honesty, Vance’s position isn’t entirely without merit. In a democracy, every voice deserves to be heard. It is up to society to discern which opinions align with its socio-ethical values. These values are fluid, never static, and can shift faster than one might imagine.
Furthermore, attempts to construct a firewall, stigmatizing extreme political parties and marginalizing them from the political sphere, have not proven effective in keeping them at bay. Recent election results indicate growth for these parties, and polls suggest they may continue to gain traction. The essential question is: why haven’t such initiatives curbed the rise of far-right populist movements and political parties?
Connecting Past and Present
There are significant parallels between the 1930’s and today. The post-pandemic world, economic downturn, and the rise of individualism are defining characteristics of both times. The exuberance of the roaring twenties—offering a release after the pandemic and the war—was soon overshadowed by the Great Depression, echoing today’s challenges.
In the 1930’s escapism, society’s opium, led the masses unsuspectingly toward an impending collapse of their world—great economic despair and a desperate search for scapegoats to avoid confronting their complicity in their fate. This sense of disillusionment allowed Germans and Austrians to rally around a leader who promised them what they craved: dignity and economic renewal. They believed they could reclaim their legacy on the international stage. Little did the majority anticipate that discrimination could culminate in mass gas chambers or concentration camps; they did not foresee the catastrophic loss of neighbors, family members, and their livelihoods. They never imagined living in fear, and ultimately, in war.
Warnings were plentiful, yet many chose to ignore them. Other nations recognized that the threat of a dictator and the devastation of Europe must be halted. They rose to the challenge: great leaders of the time—Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle—foresaw the full potential of a Nazi regime. Many were inspired by their resolute words and actions, believing in a freedom anchored in democracy. The resistance fought valiantly, the armed forces engaged, and eventually, they triumphed—only to uncover the horrific realities of the regime afterward.
Today, we perceive unsettling similarities to the Interwar period. In our post-pandemic era, people are still grappling with the consequences. Mental health has emerged as a pressing issue, with many facing loneliness and despair. The Western world is increasingly struggling to reboot its economies, while escapism flourishes on social media, where influencers dictate standards of beauty, success, and popularity. Television entertains with a plethora of talent shows and competitions, serving to numb the mind. Yet, discontent festers—people are unhappy with their lives, dissatisfied with the rising cost of living, and losing faith in their political leaders. Housing is unaffordable, healthcare costs are astronomical, and democratic values seem not to suffice in addressing basic needs.
So what does this analogy teach us? Why do so many resist acknowledging the lessons of history?
Most people do not envision atrocities happening to themselves.
The role of social media
One crucial distinction between the Interwar period and our time is the advent of social media. This fictional realm allows individuals to achieve fame, wealth, and popularity with a mere click. Displeased with someone’s presence? They can be effortlessly erased from your virtual world. Have a strong opinion about someone you’ve never met? It’s all too simple to voice your comments. We can curate our own bubbles, managing a reality that aligns with our preferences. That is not all; the influence of social media must not be underestimated.
It provides marginalized communities—shut out by mainstream media—a platform to express their views. In this space, individuals can share their ideas anonymously, and virtual communities can mobilize rapidly. Social media has also paved the way for misinformation to spread unchecked. Historical events can be questioned, human rights violations can be denied, and the integrity of the law can be challenged. With such disinformation, discerning truth from falsehood becomes increasingly difficult. If someone you follow contests the murder of six million Jews, who determines the truth? If an influencer claims that immigrants are the reason for your financial struggles, who is to say otherwise? While social media has its virtues, it can also exacerbate fears and insecurities, feeding into the narratives of the discontented. For those who harbor malicious intentions, social media becomes a breeding ground.
Defending democratic values
In this era of discontent, extremist movements find fertile ground to flourish. We are witnessing a resurgence of agitation, as people seek scapegoats and quick fixes to their frustrations. The complexities of modern-day politics, economics, and foreign policy overwhelm them. They crave immediate solutions and leaders who can deliver results in an instant. Many yearn to erase their discontent as swiftly as possible.
We have lost sight of the idea that meaningful change requires time and effort. In our digital realm, tasks can be accomplished in moments. Our attention spans have adapted to a quicker pace, making speed a qualifying factor for decision-making with detrimental effects. Media-savvy individuals who can captivate audiences are more likely to be perceived as effective leaders. It no longer matters how knowledgeable someone is; the ability to convincingly project empathy and the assurance of solving problems is what engenders trust. Social media plays a crucial role in this dynamic, where images and narratives can be manipulated to appear real.
The danger of allowing extremists ample room to thrive is that those who are discontent often fail to realize that such rhetoric can easily be turned against them. No one is immune to persecution. Once in power, narcissists, dictators, and oligarchs can and will pivot their views in an instant. Supporters can swiftly be labeled enemies if they demand too much or become interchangeable. The harrowing reality is that one’s potential victimization by extremists is beyond personal control; it is dictated by the leader. This is precisely why many believe it won’t happen to them. They ignore the scenario where they too could face discrimination and persecution. Frustrated and in scapegoating others, they lose sight of what lay ahead for their society—a situation reminiscent of the Germans in the 1930s, who could never fathom the atrocities that would unfold, especially against their neighbors, friends, or themselves.
Vice President Vance is correct in asserting that we should not suppress divergent voices in society. If anything, we must know they are there so we aren’t taken aback when they fully manifest. We must continue to nurture a society where free speech is one of our greatest goods. Moreso we must be vigilant in defending the vulnerable and upholding our democratic values. We cannot remain passive when our legal principles are under attack, human rights are violated, or our collective humanity is put to the test. Ideally, we should act proactively to avert such crises. As we refrain from creating firewalls, we should ensure the public understands the potential dangers that hover on the horizon, and we must actively engage in moral combat to preserve our shared humanity. Only this will save us from an echo of the 1940’s.
When I was a child, one of my uncles shared a story about the iconic sliding doors from the sci-fi series Star Trek. According to him, the developers at NASA were so impressed by how the doors automatically opened for crewmembers that they reached out to the show’s producers to uncover their secret. The producers responded, “We have a man on both sides of the door, and they pull the doors open when someone approaches.” Regardless of its truthfulness, my uncle’s storytelling always brought laughter to anyone who would listen.
We often regard sci-fi as mere fiction, tales of uncharted galaxies and glimpses into our future. Growing up in a family of sci-fi enthusiasts, I’ve absorbed countless stories. As a realist, I’ve typically enjoyed these narratives without delving deeply into debates about their potential truth or prophetic nature.
However, my perspective has shifted in recent years. As our phones have evolved into powerful mobile computers and artificial intelligence has seeped into virtually every aspect of our lives, I’ve begun to see parallels between our reality and the sci-fi tales of the twentieth century. While I don’t expect a Terminator to arrive from the future, I do wonder if the plot line of machines taking over the world is less far-fetched than it once seemed.
The development of A.I. is progressing at an astonishing rate, far more rapid than many anticipated. Even Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, admitted in a recent podcast (Uncanny Valley, December 5, 2024) that the evolution of ChatGPT has far outpaced the expectations his team initially set. Versions with advanced capabilities that were projected to launch in ten years are now forecasted for release within just a few years.
A.I. is growing exponentially, and humanity is not entirely prepared for it. While there are undeniable benefits—like assisting in medical diagnoses or empowering those with disabilities to communicate more effectively—each technological leap brings with it new challenges.
Just as with any new technology, we must remain vigilant about potential dangers. I do not seek to halt progress, but I find myself asking: Are we truly aware of where we’re headed? How will we recognize the tipping point when A.I. shifts from being a tool we control to something that controls us?
Such questions often get brushed aside by tech developers who argue against interfering with their progress. While it’s crucial not to stifle innovation, we need to consider the implications of A.I. in defense and military contexts. How can we ensure that A.I. does not supersede human judgment? Who will ultimately hold the reins—the machine or mankind? What influence will A.I. exert on global economies, and what ramifications will follow? The need for a thoughtful strategy regarding A.I. limits has never been more pressing.
Ethical considerations loom large, too. As humans, we create rules based on our values and the societal norms of our time. Yet, as we assign more responsibilities to computers and A.I., ethical questions become paramount. Which spheres should remain exclusively human? Without preemptive limits, we risk being caught unprepared.
Human beings possess unique qualities—empathy, intuition, creativity—that A.I. cannot replicate. Ironically, some experts suggest that A.I. may even evoke greater empathy during interactions than real humans do. In the aforementioned podcast, Sam Altman noted how people often feel more understood by an A.I.-generated ‘person’ than by a flesh-and-blood counterpart. This raises profound questions about what constitutes genuine connection and humanity.
So, does it truly matter whether a computer or a real person is communicating with us? Does it matter if an algorithm decides what crops to plant, which nations wage war, or whether religion remains a cornerstone of society? Will it matter if computers dictate electoral outcomes or question the very necessity of elections?
For now, computers follow our instructions, their outputs relying heavily on our inputs. But that dynamic is bound to shift. We must prepare for a time when A.I. operates independently—and we need to decide what we want, who should maintain control, and what safeguards we can implement while we still have the power to do so. Skynet may have begun as a fictional nightmare, but it teeters on the edge of reality, threatening to materialize sooner rather than later.
Currently, I am immersed in the unabridged journals of Sylvia Plath, one of America’s most gifted writers and poets. Tragically, she took her own life at the tender age of 30 after battling years of clinical depression. Plath possessed a remarkable ability to observe the intricate details of everyday life, translating her experiences into powerful prose and challenging societal norms. Though often associated with themes of depression and death, she adeptly illustrated the social constraints imposed on individuals in post-war America. One of her key themes was the stifling moral and societal expectations that constricted young women. She articulated female rage and grief in ways not done before.
I first read The Bell Jar in high school, and from that moment, I was captivated by Plath’s work. As I delved deeper into her reflections on the societal expectations and limitations she faced, I became increasingly aware of my own experience as a young woman in today’s world. I felt grateful that, as a young woman, I enjoyed greater freedoms in how I navigated my life, including the autonomy to make choices about education, work, sexuality, and what we now term reproductive rights. I could do things my mother was denied, like open my own bank account and work after marriage.
Plath’s portrayal of the era in which she came into her own as a woman encapsulates a crucial chapter in women’s history during the 20th century. This century sparked a movement for women’s rights that included the suffrage movement, employment rights, reproductive rights, and the quest for equal pay—a fight that continues today. Women began to define themselves on their own terms, free from societal dictates.
The 21st century promised a further evolution of women’s rights, alongside the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals and other marginalized groups often overlooked by legislation shaped predominantly by straight white men. We saw significant progress with increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage, advancements in the legal recognition of transgender rights, and the right of same-sex couples to adopt. Women in the public eye—whether CEOs, entrepreneurs, or multimillionaire performers—became more visible and empowered, proudly owning their femininity while breaking barriers. Female leadership in politics gained momentum, with more women stepping into roles as ministers and prime ministers, and the contributions of female economists, environmentalists, and scientists gradually receiving the acknowledgment they deserve.
Yet, now it feels as though these hard-won rights are crumbling at an alarming pace. The overturning of Roe v. Wade marked a significant setback for women’s rights. Not only are our choices regarding reproduction at risk, but access to birth control is increasingly compromised in more states across the U.S. Under the Trump administration, the rights of women and members of the LGBTQIA+ community have been severely undermined, often with a literal stroke of a pen. Commentary on social media has begun to draw comparisons to a dystopian reality akin to The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.
When people used to ask me how I felt about issues like affirmative action and women’s rights, I would reply, “As long as we’re still talking about it, we’re not there yet.” Now, not only are we still “not there yet,” but we seem to be regressing to the days of Sylvia Plath. It is my heartfelt hope that we collectively recognize the impending danger. Let us not raise our daughters to believe they lack the right to choose, to desire, or to aspire. May the world be their oyster, and let us embed those possibilities in robust legislation.
“When they asked me what I wanted to be I said I didn’t know.
‘Oh, sure you know,’ the photographer said.
‘She wants,’ said Jay Cee wittily, ‘to be everything.’”
The Labour government finds itself grappling with a daunting array of challenges. Beyond the urgent need to address the budget deficit, they must also carve out their stance on a multitude of pressing issues: health care, defense, the alarming rise in (hate) crimes, crumbling infrastructure, a critical housing shortage, and the pursuit of environmental goals—while striving to keep the economy afloat. To put it mildly, the economy is struggling to stay above water; but why kick a country when it’s down? And let’s not kid ourselves; this list barely scratches the surface of the obstacles they face.
Keir Starmer, alongside his ministers, is doing his utmost in these trying times. Yet, given the current geopolitical landscape, they may need to redouble their efforts. In recent months, Starmer and his finance minister have courted potential partners and investors to help revive the British economy. They have undertaken diplomatic missions to China and engaged with the new American president, Donald Trump. Today, Starmer finds himself in Brussels, attempting to rekindle relationships with European leaders in hopes of revisiting agreements after the tumultuous Brexit fallout. The British government seems to be aiming for the best of both worlds—a veritable bowl of cherries—with economic and political allies to choose from, ensuring that their ambitions rise to the forefront.
However, the reality is that plans often go awry, sometimes through no fault of one’s own. President Trump announced trade tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China just this past weekend. In response, Canada and Mexico have promptly introduced their own tariffs on American products, strengthening their collaboration within North America. Meanwhile, China, having anticipated these moves, is expected to unveil its response to the new measures soon.
Adding to the complexity, Trump recently declared his intention to impose tariffs on European products, citing, “The behavior of the EU is atrocious,” during a brief BBC interview, without providing any specifics on these alleged offenses. He hinted that Great Britain might face tariffs as well but left the door open for negotiations, suggesting that Britain could avoid such penalties if it complies with certain (unknown) demands from the United States.
Let’s not overlook the contentious issue of NATO funding, which stands at the forefront of discussions regarding the U.S.’s role within the alliance. Alarmingly, there are whispers that the U.S. is contemplating the acquisition of Greenland—part of an NATO member country, Denmark—through force. This would represent an unprecedented crisis within the NATO alliance.
So, the British government has some serious thinking to do. So far, it hasn’t demonstrated much strategic strength, and now it must navigate treacherous waters. This complex geopolitical situation doesn’t lend itself to cherry-picking; decisive action is essential. Britain finds itself between two colossal powerhouses: the United States and the EU. Aligning too closely with China carries its risks, to put it mildly, while the recent Canadian-Mexican alliance is still in its infancy and lacks the strength needed to support Britain effectively.
Prime Minister Starmer, your challenge is clear: where will you turn for alliances in defense and economic growth—the U.S. or the EU? Attempting to play both sides may only prove ineffective, leaving the UK isolated, particularly if Trump’s policies persist. Tough times lie ahead, and the British government needs to adapt quickly. They’ve entered the big leagues now, with little room for maneuver. It’s time for blood, toil, tears, and sweat.
This morning, January 30th, many Americans awoke to the devastating news of a military helicopter colliding with an American Airlines plane, sending both tumbling into the icy waters of the Potomac River. By now, the rescue efforts have transitioned into a recovery mission. My heart aches for the families and friends of those caught in this tragedy—yet another reminder of our fragile existence in this unpredictable world.
Consuming the news during times like these feels heavier than ever before. Honestly, it’s still only the first month of the new year, and I can’t shake the exhaustion that has settled in my bones.
It’s not the winter blues or the weight of chronic illness dragging me down; it’s the relentless barrage of alarming events happening across the globe, each seeming to tumble headfirst into the next. In truth, I’m not merely fatigued from trying to keep up; it’s the emotional toll these stories extract that leaves me feeling drained.
We opened the year on a tragic note when a car plowed into a crowd in New Orleans on January 1st, killing 14 and injuring 25 people. On the same day, a car explosion rocked Las Vegas. Both perpetrators, dishearteningly, were born in America, yet radicalized, inspiring them to commit such heinous acts.
The political landscape has only added to the turmoil. We witnessed a new president stir national controversy within mere hours of his inauguration, even before it began, in fact. He was apparently distraught by the decision to lower the flag to half-staff in honor of the late President Carter on the day of his inauguration.
President Carter passed on December 29th 2024; his death and legacy dominated the news of the fresh year. Yet it feels like it happened ages ago. Touched by the loving and poignant words spoken at his state funeral many hoped that his legacy would inspire the new leadership. Show that executive power means more than ‘ruling the world’. It requires compassion, empathy, humility, and grace. Unifying instead of dividing. The state funeral was an inspirational moment in time.
Since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, the United States has been confronted by whirlwind of chaos: the release and pardon of January 6 rioters, the withdrawal from the WHO and the Paris Agreement, astonishing confirmation hearings beset by questionable candidate qualifications, the cessation of foreign aid, aggressive deportation measures targeting undocumented migrants, and plans to transform Guantanamo Bay into a holding base for deportees. We’ve seen the dismantling of transgender recognition and rights through initiatives like “Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” a rollback of government DEI programs, and new military policies regarding transgender personnel. All this, alongside the absurd suggestion that Canada should become the 51st state while Greenland is folded into U.S. territory and control over the Panama Canal is pursued.
Yet, amidst the political clamor, we’ve witnessed vast wildfires ravaging parts of Los Angeles, historic snowstorms in the southern U.S., a faltering peace treaty between Israel and Hamas mere weeks after its signing, and the relentless impact of storm Éowyn sweeping across Ireland and Scotland. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine continues to loom large, and I could fill pages with the countless other crises that have unfolded—just within a single month.
Each of these events carries with it a weighty emotional burden. I find myself scrolling through posts on Bluesky and Facebook, devouring columns in newspapers and opinion magazines, engaging in conversations with anyone who’s willing to talk, and watching programs on TV. I hear the echo of voices urging me to turn it all off—“don’t read about it, shut yourself away.” And yes, perhaps stepping back would lessen my exhaustion, soften my despair, and dim the negativity that seems to pervade our world.
But there’s a cost to disengagement. In turning away, I would become less informed, less enlightened, and blissfully ignorant of the destructive shifts reshaping our society. If I don’t consider it vital to follow the news and voice my opinions, how can I hold others accountable for the societal unraveling I witness? Many may be disillusioned with the current state of affairs, but it is our collective responsibility to engage, to listen, and to welcome diverse viewpoints—not necessarily to echo my own, but to foster participation and accountability in our shared community.For now, I offer a prayer for those in need, those facing adversity, those mourning lost loved ones, and those gripped by fear. May February arrive with kinder intentions and a more hopeful spirit.
RosieGlobal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.