Translate

Tupac Amaru Shakur, " I'm Loosing It...We MUST Unite!"

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

The Unlikely Kennedy Who Ended the Kennedy Dynasty


For most of the 60-year history of the Kennedy dynasty, it’s been easier to imagine its last act as coming in a burst of triumph, a spasm of violence or a dream-shall-never-die promise of enduring hope. On Tuesday, however, what might be the final note of this political symphony was written not in glory or tragedy, but in numbers, the sad prose of politics.

Sen. Ed Markey 54 percent, U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III 46 percent.

In a Democratic primary. In Massachusetts.

The 74-year-old Markey, who was first elected to the House in 1972, was supposed to be the type of proud, uncharismatic incumbent whom Kennedys routinely dispatch to retirement homes or ambassadorships. Joe Kennedy’s grandfather, Robert, famously ended the 18-year political career of New York Sen. Kenneth Keating, a 64-year-old Rockefeller Republican, without even moving to the state until shortly before the election. In a 1962 debate, Massachusetts Attorney General Edward J. “Eddie” McCormack Jr. told political neophyte Edward Moore Kennedy that if his name had been Edward Moore, his Senate candidacy “would be a joke.” The joke, of course, was on Eddie McCormack, who lost the Democratic primary, 69-30.

Those victories were, however, a long time ago. JFK’s assassination will have its 57th anniversary this fall. It’s been more than 52 years since the murder of Robert Kennedy, and 11 since Ted’s death from a brain tumor. Only voters old enough for retirement have real-time memories of the Kennedy administration. Even fewer feel the powerful sense of attachment that followed the Kennedy assassinations—the belief that this family’s name was synonymous with enlightened public service. And much of what remains in photos and video clips of the once-famous Kennedy style is obnoxious to the public mood: Sleekly dressed men with sometimes leering eyes, captive spouses, cocktails and cigarettes.

Joe Kennedy knew this. What made the 39-year-old grandson of Bobby and Ethel Kennedy special was that he wasn’t like the Kennedys of the ’60s, at least in personality. He had all the family’s looks and charm, and more native intelligence than most of his kin. But he was also kind and deferential to his elders, unassuming in his manner, studious in his approach to politics and warmly conventional in his personal life.

He was different from other Kennedys in part because he was raised to be, by his divorced mother. She, and he, knew that if the Kennedy tradition of public service were to continue it would require a different kind of standard-bearer. He was raised for the job.

The irony on Tuesday was not that the Kennedys finally got the electoral slap in the face, the comeuppance, that they managed to evade after sex scandals and Chappaquiddick. It’s that nice, earnest young Joe Kennedy somehow allowed himself to get tangled up in a tired mystique that was ripe for a backlash and offensive even to some of his closest relatives.


Joseph P. Kennedy III was in high school when his mother wrote the book that effectively destroyed his father’s political career.

His parents had been divorced for two years when his father, U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, the anointed successor to the family dynasty, tried to get their marriage annulled. He was Catholic; his ex-wife, Sheila Rauch Kennedy, was not. He wanted to marry his secretary. The only way to do so and remain in good standing with the church was to claim that their marriage, despite the presence of twin sons, had been invalid from the start.

To Joe II’s apparent surprise, Sheila objected—so viscerally that upon receiving his written request she was sick to her stomach. It was well-known that the church had been granting annulments to certain rich, powerful Catholics who wished to remarry. Joe II, seemingly oblivious to his privilege, regarded annulment as simply the Catholic way of divorce. Sheila, the non-Catholic, set about studying the matter, and discovered that an annulment meant the marriage had never existed in the eyes of God. When she presented the facts to her former husband, he replied, according to her account, “I don’t believe this stuff. Nobody actually believes it.”

Damage was done, and kept on being done. Four years later, in 1997, Sheila wrote her book about the subject, casting herself as a well-meaning divorced mom, with no serious resentment against her ex, who nonetheless refused to be tossed in the dumpster by her former husband and the Catholic Church: “My concern was for my children’s moral development. . .” The book, “Shattered Faith,” featured on its cover a wedding picture of a lightly smiling Sheila and a broadly beaming Joe II. Her dedication read: “For our children.”

Within a year, Joe II announced he would not seek re-election to the House seat he had held for 12 years. The decision was widely attributed both to the annulment and the death in a skiing accident of his brother Michael, whom he had made his successor as head of Citizens Energy, the non-profit company he founded to deliver low-cost heating oil to needy families. Michael himself had been the focus of a recent scandal over a longstanding affair with his children’s teenage babysitter.

Those weren’t the first reversals in Joe II’s life. The eldest son of Bobby and Ethel Kennedy carried the burden of having been deeply affected by his father’s death. His subsequent years included his expulsion from several private schools and an accident in which he was cited for reckless driving and a young woman was paralyzed. He was serving in Congress when his first cousin, William Kennedy Smith, was accused of raping a woman at the family compound in Palm Beach and later acquitted.

Bombastic in manner, and clumsy with words in the same manner as his Uncle Ted, Joe II confronted a fair amount of skepticism in his political career. He was hardly the charismatic figure his father and Uncle Jack had been. But like his Uncle Ted, he stuck his neck out for causes that other politicians shunned, such as peace in Northern Ireland, the creation of the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to end discriminatory lending and his signature issue, the provision of heating oil to needy families in cold parts of the country. In his outspoken style could be seen both the power and detriments of entitlement. He could seem obnoxious and courageous in the same breath.

Growing up in the house Sheila bought in a middle-class area of Cambridge, overseen by a diligent, attentive mother who nonetheless seemed wise to all the ways that Kennedys could run amok, Joe III and Matthew were instilled with the modesty that some others of the clan lacked. Joe III visited Hyannis Port in the summers, drinking in the Kennedy aura and sharing in the family playfulness, but then returned to Sheila’s more disciplined abode.

The young man that emerged was both the perfect flower of the Kennedy political species—a red-haired amalgam of Bobby and Jack, but with a quieter manner—and its antithesis. Where Teddy had been caught cheating at Harvard and Joe II struggled to obtain any sort of college degree, Joe III buckled down and studied his way through Stanford and Harvard Law School before becoming an assistant DA on Cape Cod.



When Barney Frank announced his retirement from Congress, Joe III joined a crowded field to replace him. Taking nothing for granted, he worked hard and met thousands of voters face to face. His victory in 2012, with memories of Ted’s emotional send-off still fresh in voters’ minds, was both an affirmation of the power of the Kennedy name and a recognition of its limits: Joe seemed likely to succeed as long as he followed his anti-Kennedy script, earning his way ahead, respecting senior colleagues, taking pains not to appear presumptuous.

But a certain presumptuousness—a willingness to use fame to give voice to the voiceless—is built into the Kennedy image, and voters could only wonder if this new-generation Kennedy was really a Kennedy at all.


Over four terms in Congress, Joe III behaved like a scaled-down version of the family archetype. He championed health care, like his Uncle Ted, but seemed content to accept a lesser role on the crowded roster of Democrats scrambling to remake the system. He raised his voice at times, particularly in delivering the Democrats’ rebuttal to Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech in 2018. But he was nothing like the passionate crusader that his former law professor, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has been in pushing progressive causes. At times, he expressed a preference to spend more time with his young family: He and his wife Lauren, a former law-school classmate, have a 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son.

But being a Kennedy means being perpetually groomed for greater things. Ted Kennedy struggled with these kinds of expectations on a far grander scale. Like the inheritor of a family business, he felt a responsibility to the hundreds of high-profile minions—many of them eminent in their own fields—who had attached their fortunes to the Kennedy name. Despite the inevitable fraying of family ties in the absence of Ted’s unifying presence, and the competing ambitions of some cousins, the family torch was being carried by Joe. Its fuel was ambition. There was a real danger of it being extinguished on his watch.

In July of 2019, POLITICO’s Stephanie Murray reported that many Bay State Democrats believed Markey was ripe for a takedown in the Democratic primary. It seemed like a smart bet. Just a year earlier, Ayanna Pressley had routed long-serving Rep. Michael Capuano in a district that covered Boston, Cambridge and Somerville. Her appeal to generational change, diversity and a firmer commitment to progressive causes mirrored that of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in defeating Joe Crowley, a seemingly entrenched New York incumbent. Markey bore more than a passing resemblance to Capuano and Crowley.

Markey’s dilemma was also Kennedy’s: What if another young upstart took down Markey? That person might be expected to hold the Senate seat for decades, while Joe’s own sense of promise would fade as he passed through middle age. Kennedy’s supporters put out word that Joe was open to challenging the incumbent. No doubt many felt that Markey, staring at his 75th birthday, might prefer to be handed a gold watch and key to K Street riches rather than go toe-to-toe with a man 35 years his junior; plus, Markey would be handing the seat to someone he evidently liked and shared his values.

This was hardly an unlikely scenario. Markey seemed far more comfortable on the floor of Congress than on the campaign trail. He had enjoyed 40 years of easy, pro-forma re-elections to his House district north of Boston. When he advanced to the Senate, in the special election following John Kerry’s elevation to secretary of State, his victory was a tribute to his long years of service more than dynamic campaigning. The race was the most lackluster for a highly contested seat in recent Massachusetts history.

But Kennedy, his advisers and many other people underestimated Markey’s vitality, campaign skills and, especially, his sense of determination. Being put out to pasture by a Kennedy seemed to him the greatest affront, the height of indignity, and he made others see it that way, too. Soon, Markey was appearing in ads shooting baskets with a panther-like agility that Donald Trump and Joe Biden could only dream of; in recognition of Markey’s decades of support for clean energy, none other than Ocasio-Cortez offered her endorsement, cementing Markey’s position to Kennedy’s left—the key to a huge trove of votes in a Massachusetts Democratic primary.



Kennedy, meanwhile, struggled to articulate a reason for running. His politeness seemed to prevent him from offering the most plausible answer, that Markey had lost his effectiveness. Instead, he made oblique references to generational change, while Markey essentially accused him of running a vanity candidacy, funded in part by a PAC led by Joe II. Then, with his back to the wall, Kennedy played the very card he had been raised not to play, the family legacy. If he had to bear the burden of being a Kennedy, he seemed to believe, he might as well reap the benefits. It was a disastrous calculation.

Ethel Kennedy, Joe’s 92-year-old grandmother, cut a video for his campaign. Shot in extreme closeup, as if someone shoved a cell-phone camera in her face, the withered matriarch repeats, “I hope with all my heart you vote for Joe. . . He reminds me of Bobby and Jack and Teddy.” Black-and-white photos of the Kennedy brothers in their prime crawl across the screen. The presence of the rarely seen Ethel and the vintage photos seemed to emphasize the vast number of decades that had passed since Camelot. She is a living link, to be sure, but only in the sense of the last survivors of D-Day or Iwo Jima, offering their frail salutes at Memorial Day parades.

Suddenly, Joe Kennedy became the candidate of the past, older than Ed Markey.



A few states away, in New Jersey, Amy Kennedy, the wife of Joe’s cousin Patrick, is making a surprisingly plucky campaign for a House seat against Democratic Party turncoat Jeff Van Drew. But no one is comparing her to Bobby and Jack and Teddy. She’s running as part of a more ordinary dynasty: Her father, Jerry Savell, was an Absecon city council member. Patrick Kennedy, himself an ex-congressman, appears only in a family photo with their kids. The race, which once seemed to be Van Drew’s to lose, is now rated as a tossup. So Congress may yet have a Kennedy family member in January.

Amy’s victory, if it comes to pass, would only be further proof that the Kennedy political dynasty, like the Kennedy mystique and all the sepia-toned memories that it engenders, has reached its generational end. But the Kennedy legacy of public service continues, not just in the person of Amy but in the causes advanced by other family members, from the Shrivers’ Special Olympics, to Joe II’s Citizens Energy, to Bobby Jr.’s global environmental campaign and more. They stand as proof that Kennedys can play roles in public life without having to don the clothes of their grandfathers.

And some qualities once associated with the dynasty, forgotten in the fugue of privilege and entitlement, haven’t lost their viability, either. Arguably, the Kennedys practiced a form of charismatic politics that bridges the gap between today’s anti-establishment populism and government as usual: The Kennedys were populist believers in government. And Joe Kennedy’s talents seem too useful to slumber forever in a law firm or on the board of his father’s energy non-profit. In two years, Massachusetts’ popular attorney general, Maura Healey, is expected to give up her job to run for governor. It would be a perfect venue for a skilled lawyer and politician to prove himself to be his own man.

The Kennedy dynasty is dead. Joe’s Senate loss places a 2020 marker on its gravestone. Yet no one should be more relieved than the Kennedys. Now they are free to be themselves and discover their own ways to make a contribution.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3biQSRf
via 400 Since 1619

Chadwick Boseman’s ’42’ to return to theaters as tribute to actor

The star died after a long battle with colon cancer on Aug. 28, which also happened to be Jackie Robinson Day.

The Jackie Robinson biopic 42 is getting a theatrical re-release this weekend in honor of Chadwick Boseman.

Robinson was the first Black player in Major League Baseball in 1947, and Boseman played him in the 2013 sports drama. AMC Theaters will screen the film in more than 300 locations starting Thursday. Tickets will cost $5 and go on sale late Tuesday, PEOPLE reports. 

The actor died after a long battle with colon cancer on Aug. 28, which also happened to be the same day the MLB celebrated Jackie Robinson Day. The tribute was initially set to take place on April 15 but was pushed back when the season was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. 

Read More: ‘Wire’ actor Clarke Peters breaks down over Chadwick Boseman

In the days since Boseman’s death, fellow celebrities and fans have flooded social media with tributes. His 42 costar Harrison Ford, described him as “compelling, powerful and truthful as the characters he chose to play,” Ford said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “His intelligence, personal dignity and deep commitment inspired his colleagues and elevated the stories he told. He is as much a hero as any he played. He is loved and will be deeply missed,” he added.

The Jackie Robinson Foundation also paid tribute to Boseman.

“Chadwick was a dear friend of the Foundation – lending his time and visibility to help advance our mission,” the charity posted on Twitter Saturday. “Preparing for his starring role in ’42,’ he studied extensively and spent considerable time with [Jackie’s wife] Rachel Robinson. A consummate professional, he absorbed every story, every memory and every photo and film excerpt he could consume to help translate the soul of an American hero. And now, Chadwick will be etched in history as a hero in his own right, especially having shown millions of black and Brown children the power of a superhero who looks like them.”

Read More: Michael B. Jordan honors Chadwick Boseman: ‘I wish we had more time’

Meanwhile, Boseman’s final movie, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, co-starring Viola Davis, will be released posthumously on Netflix.

As we previously reported, the film follows the rising “tensions and temperatures over the course of an afternoon recording session in 1920s Chicago, as a band of musicians await trailblazing performer, the legendary ‘Mother of the Blues,’ Ma Rainey.”

Over the weekend, Twitter announced that Boseman’s final post was the most liked tweet ever in the history of the platform.

Have you subscribed to theGrio’s podcast “Dear Culture”? Download our newest episodes now!

The post Chadwick Boseman’s ’42’ to return to theaters as tribute to actor appeared first on TheGrio.



from TheGrio https://ift.tt/351e5GN

Ed Markey wins his Senate primary — fending off a challenge from Joe Kennedy 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Announces Presidential Bid In Lawrence, Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) waves as he arrives on stage during Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) event announcing her official bid for president on February 9, 2019, in Lawrence, Massachusetts. | Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Markey ran on his longstanding environmental policy record in a heated campaign.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has won his primary, successfully holding off a challenge from Rep. Joe Kennedy, a scion of the famous Massachusetts political family.

Markey, a longtime US lawmaker, is known for being a stalwart champion of environmental policy including cosponsoring the Green New Deal, as well as landmark House legislation on cap and trade 11 years ago.

There had been a limited ideological case for Kennedy’s run since the two lawmakers both identify as progressives, and Markey leaned heavily into his legislative work on both climate and tech to carve out an advantage. A robust digital presence bolstered by his social media team and some of his younger supporters on TikTok and Twitter also played a role in rebranding him as an accessible policymaker, despite his age. (Markey is 74.)

The race between the two men was competitive, though Markey ended up leading in surveys taken the week ahead of the election, perhaps buoyed by endorsements from progressives including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, as well as the Sunrise Movement.

Markey has said he’s eager to continue serving in Congress to keep fighting for the Green New Deal and ambitious proposals that address climate change. “We’ve got to absolutely crush Trump in November, but if we’re going to end this era of chaos, that won’t be enough. We gotta make sure President Biden signs the Green New Deal. We can’t wait,” he’s said in a campaign ad.

The primary challenge marks the first time a member of the Kennedy family has lost a state-level political race in Massachusetts, and has pushed Markey to reintroduce himself to constituents in a place where he hadn’t previously been viewed as a high-profile lawmaker.

“It’s been a weird campaign and I think it’s surprised not just the candidates themselves, but everyone in the state,” Tatishe Nteta, a political science professor at University Massachusetts Amherst, previously told Vox.

With this primary win, Markey has raised awareness of what he stands for, and set up high expectations for what his leadership will bring in the next term.


Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work, and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.



from Vox - All https://ift.tt/3jOkXeP

Five years on, is France still Charlie?


PARIS — A show trial opens in France today.

Fourteen people will be tried for their alleged part in the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in January 2015 and the slaughter at the Hyper Cacher Jewish supermarket that followed the next day.

The 10 weeks of evidence and pleading will be filmed and the footage preserved for posterity — a first in French judicial history.

Only three of the defendants are said to have been directly involved in the 17 killings. They are being tried in absentia after fleeing to the now-defunct Islamic State caliphate in Syria and Iraq. They may well no longer be alive.

The 11 other defendants are alleged to have played minor parts in helping Chérif and Saïd Kouachi before they attacked the satirical magazine or assisted Amedy Coulibaly before his hostage-taking and murders at the Jewish supermarket. All three principal protagonists died at the time.

And yet, this 10-week televised trial of 11 minor figures is significant all the same. The court will try to unravel in public the often-confused ideological motivation of the killers and their helpers. It will also examine the blunders in the French security apparatus that failed to forestall the attacks.

It may be a show trial, but it’s a very welcome one.

It’s also an opportunity to look back five years and eight months and ask what, if anything, has changed in France.

The Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks — followed within 10 months by the even more murderous assault at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris — were declared at the time to be “France’s 9/11.”

France would never be the same again, it was said. There would be a before January 7, 2015 and an after January 7, 2015.

More than 3.7 million people took to the streets of Paris and other French cities four days later. These people were not fulminating against Muslims or against radical Islamists. They were declaring themselves — white, brown and Black, left or right, Muslim, Catholic or Jewish — to be united in support of French republican values of tolerance and solidarity.

Their catchphrase was “Je Suis Charlie” — “I am Charlie.”

That slogan also came — for some of the marchers, not all — to mean support for the principle of freedom of opinion and for Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish cartoons representing the Prophet Mohammed. (It is important to stress that the drawings did not mock the prophet. They mostly showed him despairing at the behavior of some of his most radical followers.)

Many French people who had never read Charlie Hebdo regarded the assault on the magazine —  which killed several celebrated cartoonists and 12 people in all — as an attack on the French and Western way of life.

To them, Charlie Hebdo represented not just freedom of speech but France’s love of vituperative wit; its truculence; its sense of permanent rebellion.



Five years on, what remains of the two strands of “Je Suis Charlie”?

First, free speech.

The magazine has brought forward its publication date to publish once again on Wednesday the cartoons of Mohammed that provoked the attack. Its editor “Riss” (Laurent Sourisseau) said that he had not done so this time to lampoon radical Islam but to mourn the decline of freedom of speech in France — and the West generally — in the last five years.

He said the magazine’s front-page headline — “Tout ça pour ça” (“All of this for this”) was an attack on the “tyrannical associations and navel-gazing minorities” who had brought cancel and no-platforming culture to France.

“We’ve seen universities cancel conferences, plays boycotted, all sorts of attempts to prevent divergent views on social media,” he said. “It’s astonishing to see how popular censorship has become.”

Riss is right. The free-speech strand of “Je Suis Charlie” is in poor shape in France in 2020 — and especially on the radical Left.

The other strand — support for French republican values of tolerance and solidarity — seems to be doing just fine.

In hindsight, it appears that the January 2015 attack was not really France’s 9/11. The country was not changed radically in the way that, arguably, the U.S. was changed radically by the fall of the Twin Towers.

From 9/11, you can follow a thread that winds through the Patriot Act, the Iraq way, Guantánamo Bay, the polarization of opinion and politics, and then, after a detour through Barack Obama, to Donald Trump.

After the Charlie Hebdo killings, France followed a thread in which the failed Socialist François Hollande was replaced by the centrist Emmanuel Macron.

There has been no radical turning away from tolerance and democracy — no widespread or systematic backlash against France’s 5,000,000 Muslims. Support for Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally remains strong (at around 23 percent) but no stronger than it was in 2014 before the attacks.

To be sure, there has not been any continuation of the “Je Suis Charlie” spirit — the spirit of common values — of the 3.7 million-strong marches of January 11, 2015. French political life rapidly returned to its ill-tempered normality. Hollande’s favorable ratings, which doubled after January 7, 2015, fell so far and so fast that he decided not to run in 2017.

But while politics in the Macron era may be sharper and more polarized and have a more negative edge than before, that can be explained in several ways — the power of social media, the perils of being a centrist.

France’s annus horribilis, 2015, produced neither a deeper intolerance nor a lasting new sense of common purpose. For good or ill, France, five years after Charlie Hebdo, remains, for the most part, stolidly France.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/32MiY3E
via 400 Since 1619

French president’s expectations clash with reality as Lebanon commits to reforms


BEIRUT — Emmanuel Macron's close-contact diplomacy paid off on Tuesday, when the French president succeeded in getting Lebanon's embattled political parties to commit to a roadmap of reforms tied to concrete deadlines, but early elections and the disarming of Hezbollah were left out of the plan.

"They all, without exception, committed to a goals-oriented government to be formed in coming days," Macron said at his closing press conference at the end of his two-day visit to Beirut.

The new government will have political buy-in and support to empower it to undertake the needed reforms, but won't be formed by members of the political parties that have been the focus of consistent protests since October 2019.

The reforms are to be carried out over the next three months. The first deadline is in 15 days, Macron said, by which time parties are expected to form a government. That process is usually arduous and drawn-out in Lebanon, and can take several months. The new government will then have a month to deliver on a range of pre-agreed reforms, as a way to prove good faith and avoid a repeat of past prevarications.

"We cannot go back to business as usual, that would be folly," Macron said.

If Beirut doesn't deliver, Macron repeated his threat of punitive measures, starting by withholding a vital international financial bailout.

French authorities will regularly follow up on the implementation of the reforms, having set concrete dates Beirut must work toward.

Macron said he would return to Lebanon in December — which would be his third trip to the country since the port blast — enshrining his unusual level of personal investment in this initiative. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian will visit the country in November. And France will organize two Lebanon-related conferences in mid-October: one focused on reconstruction aid (with a location to be confirmed); the second, more political one (to be held in Paris), on "building international support" for the reform agenda and "shielding Lebanon from regional power plays."

Lebanon has long been vulnerable to regional and international meddling and score-settling, particularly by Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

Expectation vs. reality

But while some welcomed the political parties' commitment to the reforms roadmap as concrete progress and a step in the right direction, critics were disappointed that demands for early elections and the disarming of Hezbollah, the Iran-backed armed group that has a significant block of seats in parliament, were not included.

While on Monday, Macron told POLITICO early elections to be held within six to 12 months would be part of the reform roadmap, he walked back on that commitment at Tuesday's presser.

Macron said it was more "useful" to focus on ensuring Lebanon gets closer to having a reliable power supply and conducting a rapid-fire financial audit to enable the country to start stemming the financial meltdown that has sent it spiralling into hyperinflation and severely limited depositors' access to their cash.

"There is no consensus today among the political parties" for a snap poll, Macron said, adding: "Holding early elections shouldn't be a prerequisite to implementing reforms, because that would postpone reforms for a few years."

It was a tacit admission of the profound political deadlock over any overhaul of Lebanon's electoral law.

The French president also said Tuesday that he had discussed Hezbollah's weapons with the head of the party's parliamentary group, Mohammad Raad.

"I told him very clearly that there is a problem of articulation between military presence and a political representation and that [Hezbollah's weapons] aren't part of this reform program of the next three months, but that it's a topic that needed to be discussed," Macron said, adding: "He agreed."

Know your audience

Also on Tuesday, Macron marked the centenary of the creation of modern-day Lebanon under the French mandate.

In honor of the occasion, planes from the French air force performed aerobatics in the Beirut sky, painting it with the colors of the Lebanese flag. The gesture was meant as a celebration, and authorities had publicized the event ahead of time. But it still startled some in the capital.

The roaring of fighter jets was a reminder of recent conflicts; the trail of red smoke used to draw the flag was reminiscent of the pink fumes that billowed from the Beirut port the day of the explosion, which killed at least 190, injured 6,500 and left 300,000 people homeless.

It was something of a metaphor for what may still lie ahead: Regardless of Macron's efforts and vigilance, the deeply ingrained Lebanese political system may yet prove unreformable.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3bjmRRn
via 400 Since 1619

Black Faith

  • Who are you? - Ever since I saw the first preview of the movie, Overcomer, I wanted to see it. I was ready. Pumped. The release month was etched in my mind. When the time...
    5 years ago

Black Business

Black Fitness

Black Fashion

Black Travel

Black Notes

Interesting Black Links

Pride & Prejudice: Exploring Black LGBTQ+ Histories and Cultures

  In the rich tapestry of history, the threads of Black LGBTQ+ narratives have often been overlooked. This journey into their stories is an ...