My reply to @tdal1moe in The Financial Times

@tdal1moe

Thank you for your comment. One of the reasons I came to read The Financial Times is that Chomsky recommended its reporting as more reliable. Iv’e been a reader since around 2007 and I’m inclined not to agree with Chomsky.
As the ‘reporting’ ,especially on Argentina and Macron, has steeped a kind of paranoia about the return of de Kirchner ,and a wan apologetics about the collapse of Macri’s Neo-Liberalism Lite, in the near free-fall of the peso. And Macron as the return of political sanity to France, via the now discarded Jupertarian Politics i.e. Rule by Decree. Not to forget that 36.5 % of the French electorate rendered their ballots uncountable. The spontaneous political manifestation of both the gilets jaunes and then the gilets noir, is a sign of deep anger about Macronism, and it attempts to Neo-Liberalize France. The naked character of Macron’s attempt ,to become the titular leader of the foundering European Utopia, is both darkly comic as it is mendacious. This internal rebellion no longer ‘reported’ in The Financial Times, Except for one lone interview with the least radical of the resistors:

https://www.ft.com/content/82624d98-f72f-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654

I was ‘guilt tripped’ into voting for the utterly misbegotten Hillary, you and a great many American voted for Trump. He is all you say about him and more, yet the New Democrats have based their Impeachment on hearsay, as Jim Jordan’s questioning of Taylor amply illustrates: ‘I heard that…’ . The center of the case against Trump is hearsay combined with the fact that the New Democrats haven’t got the votes to convict in a Senate controlled by the Republicans.

Regards,

StephenKMackSD

https://www.ft.com/content/7b8f8a12-0661-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca?commentID=db29fb34-5131-4495-bb5f-f6844d40c348

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.