PNAC

McCain/Palin Truth, Fantasy and Gibberish

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:18

Truth is that Alaskans are pissed.  They had another huge demonstration in Anchorage yesterday, and here's a music video montage of what it looked like:

The fantasy--reported in the Sundy Times--is that marrying off her pregnant daughter would change the dynamics of the campaign!

The gibberish, well, there's just so much of it.  But an Alaskan blogger helps decode Sarah's blather about hungry markets and flagging molecules.  All on the flip, and all to make the point that these folks are certifiably insane.  And increasingly it looks like folks are starting to notice.  It's part of what's making McCain appear more and more like Ross Perot.

There's More... :: (10 Comments, 1202 words in story)

Paul Wolfowitz: The Ultimate Bad Penny

by: MBoz

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 13:51

The news that Iraq is enjoying a record budget surplus while the US creaks under the weight of record deficits is fueling calls for Iraq to use those costs to pay for its own rebuilding efforts, a politically posthumous vindication of Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz's belief that the war could be fought "on the cheap," and Iraq could pay for the country that we (that's us, America) wrecked with its own money. It's all bullshit, of course--a way to justify abrogating responsibility for the damage we've caused.  
There's More... :: (0 Comments, 657 words in story)

Hegemony, Iraq And the SOTU

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:34

I've been writing a lot lately about Antonio Gramsci's ideas about cultural hegemony--the ways that a dominant ideology embedded in diverse institutions serves to control what is politically conceivable--and how it can be overthrown via a two-stage process, the "war of position" (or "culture war") to gain control of institutions, and the "war of maneuver" (or "war of movement") to seize state political power once the institutional positions have been readied.

Gramsci's thinking was formulated in a Marxist context, but contains significant insights that can be more generally adapted to other purposes.  The two sides need not be the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, nor does there need to be a once-and-for-all seizure of absolute state power.  The war of position and war of manuever can proceed in tandem.  A post by Dday at Digby's place in advance of the State of the Union sparked some thoughts that can help illuminate the usefulness of a Gramscian perspective.  It's called "Rally 'Round The Flag"....

There's More... :: (8 Comments, 779 words in story)

There Is No War On Terror(ism)-There Is A War FOR Terror(ism)

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 14:41

(1) There can be no war on terrorism.  Terrorism is a tactic, or at most a strategy of assymetric warfare.  A "war on terrorism" makes as much sense as a "war on sneak attacks" or a "war on blitzkriegs."

(2) There can be no war on terror.  War is terror.

Thus, it is obvious, from a moment's reflection, that the dominant political narrative of the past six years is-and has to be-a lie.

Al Qaeda was a specific organization that attacked us on 9/11.  As a non-state actor, there could be no war on al Qaeda, either.  We could, however, obliterate them from the face of the earth-either the smart way or the dumb way-if we had any interest in doing so.  We did not.

Since I began front-paging last weekend, I've been working off of an underlying theme-that opposition to the Iraq War-however important-is not the key to a genuine realignment, but only one part of the puzzle.  I wrote several diaries about the importance of economics, and this is, in a way, yet another one of them, because it's about empire and neo-feudalism.  But it moves the two subjects substantially closer together.

The thesis here is simple: We are not fighting to defeat terror(ism), but to spread it.  We just want 100% market share, that's all.  And until the Democrats are willing to stand up and say this, in no uncertain terms, our realignment will not be complete.  So if you think stabbing MoveOn in the back was bad, we have much, much farther to go than just putting that shit to rest.

Impossible as this may seem, there is a precedent for it-the abolition of slavery.  Although the Republican Party originally emerged in opposition to the political power of slave states, it was not clearly committed to abolition when Lincoln won the presidency in 1860.  And yet, five years later, when the Civil War ended, so, too, did slavery.  Many things came together to make that transformation possible, but the key dynamic, without which all else would have failed, was that the forces of slavery were put on the defensive, and ultimately discredited themselves, even in the eyes of a white northern power structure that was still deeply stained by its own racist assumptions.  And this is the key for us as well-we must place the forces we face on the defensive, and do so so decisively that they, too, ultimately discredited themselves, even in the eyes of those in high places who share certainly deeply-held prejudices in common with them.

I take as my text a recent story on Alternate that updates a story that Project Censored selected as the #1 censored story for 2002-2003-a story for which I was one of five people who wrote about it.

There's More... :: (22 Comments, 2224 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox