Marine looks blonde. Very blonde. She says she feels France's pain.
Macron's body language isn't helping him. He really can't even fake warmth.
Really impressed by MLP's hair and makeup. So much better than the last time she debated EM.
MLP is explaining that she's going to reduce taxes and increase spending on social programs. She'll increase wages, too. It will be an economic miracle.
Macron: Mme Le Pen is quite right to mention numbers. We've all heard that people can't make ends meet. He's going to cap energy prices, which will be much better than reducing VAT. Mme Le Pen voted against this cap.
"Next, work. We've created 1.2 million pay slips. I was looking at your platform, and was pleased to see there's no mention of unemployment. I suppose this means you recognize what we've achieved."
He's laughing at her: "You can't even remember what you voted for."
She's going for a lot of wonky details off the bat to show she understands them.
He's telling her that the president doesn't get to decide whether employers give bonuses.
MLP is blaming high gas prices on Germany. She's going to fix things by getting out of EU energy market and getting rid of VAT. EM is pointing out that she has her inflation numbers wrong.
EM: Withdrawing from EU energy markets would be an enormous mistake.
EM: We need to fix the EU, not withdraw from it. Getting rid of VAT won't make much difference. Your measure would benefit supermarket chains, not consumers.
EM: We need to fix the EU, not withdraw from it. Getting rid of VAT won't make much difference. Your measure would benefit supermarket chains, not consumers.
Next up: International relations.
Macron: War is raging once again on the Continent. Times are serious indeed. Russia is strengthening its offensive. This will lead to humanitarian catastrophe. France must support Ukraine, give them defensives & offensive equipment.
We must welcome Ukrainian refugees. We need to stay the course and do more while making sure there's no escalation & the war doesn't spill over. I've been speaking with China, India, Gulf States. That's why a strong Europe is so important.
That's why France has invested in a strong army over past 5 years. We must bring Russia back to reason.
MLP: I express my solidarity and absolute compassion to Ukrainianians. Russia's attack is unacceptable. Monsieur Macron, your efforts to secure peace are commendable. I agree we should provide aid, weapons.
But we need to be careful. Delivering weapons to Ukraine could turn France into a co-belligerent. I don't agree on banning gas imports. It will hurt the French people and have unintended consequences.
MLP: I am concerned we'll throw Russia into the arms of China. That they'll turn into a superpower. This is a huge risk for the West. (No one has told her this has happened already, I guess.)
EM: You, Madame, are in Russia's grip. He reminds her of her views on Crimea. Says when there are important decisions to make, her banker makes them. Russia interfered in campaign on your benefit in last election.
You can't defend French interests because you're in their pocket.
MLP: INDIGNANT! I AM A PATRIOT! HOW VERY DARE YOU!
MLP: Crimea .... We'll get to that. *You* hosted Putin at Versailles.
EM: I hosted a head of state, not my banker!
MLP--Mister Macron, let me tell you--
EM--you still haven't paid their money back!
MLP--and millions of French people have taken out loans, just like me.
EM--In a French bank. Not a Russian bank. Not paid back.
MLP---I can't let you say that.
EM--you said it yourself!
MLP--there's honour in not having a lot of resources.
EM--but you owe Russia money. A bank close to the Kremlin. So many of your choices can be explained by this.
MLP--this is simply not true.
EM--you're just saying "wrong, wrong." I have loans to buy a house, a car, but not from a Russian bank.
MLP--it's dishonest to blame me for getting a loan from Russia when you wouldn't let me get one in France ...
Quite the dustup.
Now we move to pensions. Oh, wait, the EU.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I fell asleep about halfway through the debate. (I'm not really an evening person.) I just watched the second half on re-run, and I pronounce the debate "unlikely to change things in any way." Macron won't have picked up a single vote from Le Pen, but nor will he have lost any.
She wasn't quite as bad a train wreck as she was in 2017, but she was a pretty bad train wreck.
And I join the rest of France in thinking I'd be just as happy not to see them shrieking at each other on TV ever again.
He came off as Macron: arrogant, impatient, aloof, but *competent.* She tried very hard at first to soft, calm, and approachable, but as soon as he reminded her that she really has no idea what she's talking about, the thing turned into 2017 redux, with her shrieking again.
We don't have a sadistic impulse to terrify our readers, but the truth is the world *is* facing a convergence of extremely serious crises.
Recently, for obvious reasons, Global Eyes has been weighted toward European news.
but in principle, we weigh the regions of the world more-or-less evenly, and always include at least the most important items from every region. (Our categories: ASIA, EUROPE, AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST, AMERICAS.) In doing that,
There should be a word for this phenomenon: Reading something you wrote long before and realizing, at once, that you'd forgotten about it completely--someone else might have written it--and that it's a fine piece of writing. Or that you were *exceedingly* right.
There's a curious combination of emotions when it happens. Pleasure, of course. But also puzzlement.
When the fragment or essay is very old, I worry that I've lost my youthful intellectual powers. And when it's very recent, I'm sure of it.
(This happens a lot, too. I can write something on Monday and read it with all the pleasure--or dismay--I'd feel in reading a complete stranger's work by Friday. I guarantee that by next week I'll have forgotten writing this, for example.)
What does it do to us, morally, to read report after report about this and to know, "We're not helping as much as we could to end this as fast as possible?" How much *permanent* damage to our souls does this do?
I mean "permanent," first, in the obvious sense--if hell exists, don't you think it will be full of people who read this kind of thing and decided, "Well, that's sad," and went back to eating breakfast?
But also in the less obvious sense of, "How do we continue to function as a society?" And by "we," I mean the US, because I'm American and because we're the country most able to help--and we're also the one that has the *most* invested in the idea that we are a good country.
If you haven't subscribed yet, and you're thinking of it, this would be a good place. We sat down and said, "We've got a problem. Foreign news coverage is just far too shallow, far too facile, and often in absence completely. What can we do."
And we said, "Well, why don't we start providing the kind of coverage we'd like to see, and see if there's a market for it?"
And there is, so far. People actually *do* want to understand the history, the context--cultural and political--behind the flickering headlines and tweets.
Or some people do. It requires willingness to read. We won't compromise on that. Some things cannot be communicated by means of listicles and bullet points. We believe in long, classic, expository essays that demand your time and attention.
Here's the very short version of the 30,000 word doctoral thesis I compulsively wrote for Politico about why France just cannot abandon its Russia fantasies.
It emerged out with a major editing error, which annoys me: politi.co/37rgJIZ
I wrote that FOUR French nuclear-launch capable submarines have been at sea for the first time in decades. They edited out the word four, making it sound as if these submarines are never at sea.
Truth be told, I do not know for sure that four are at sea. I did not swim out, personally, to count them. But the reports of "four" seemed reliable. The idea that none have been out in decades is obviously ludicrous.