as an example of automatic cynicism the kissinger example proves useful. however, what we find so far is that
“And if Barack Obama drinks, as it appears he will, the dark elixir of war and imperial power offered to him by the national security state, he will accelerate the downward spiral of the American empire.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081117_americas_wars_of_self_destruction/
Obama’s transition: A who’s who of imperialist policy
19 November 2008
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n19.shtml
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081118_bracing_for_a_major_disappointment/
“The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obama’s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state—which makes no sense whatsoever.”
also look at how rapidly the agenda with which he won and instilled hope has been abandoned:
http://www.change.gov/agenda/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/obama-campaign-pulls-issue-pages-from-transition-site/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/changes-at-changegov-return-of-the-agenda/?scp=4&sq=obama agenda&st=cse
OLD AGENDA!!!
http://notatypewriter.com/Obama-ChangeGov/
i am willing to wait and see for a while. and i acknowledge that he starts off in a big hole dug by you know who but not entirely by you know who either.
Posted by mikerol69 on Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 PM
If nothing else, Obama is the supreme pragmatist.
His entire career has been a matter of using (associating with outrageous or radical individuals) who could advance his cause for as long as useful and then moving on.
While in the Illinois legislature avoiding votes on anything controversial which may later haunt him.
While in the U.S. Senate writing two books about himself and no bills.
Mastering the use of the sound bite and slogan to appeal to emotions with little explanation of plausible methods.
Pardon my continuing cynicism, but I voted for him once and am still waiting for any results. His choices for his administration read like the American Movie Channel classics
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 15, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I highly respect Slavoj ZIzek, however he entirely disregards his own material. I am someone that worked on the Nader campaign and talked to literally thousands of people on why they were voting for Obama. What I found is that these individuals were voting for symbolism over substance. They were betraying their drive for their desire. As Zizek states many times, a revolution must occur through following your drive at the point of the previous failed attempts. However the majority of these individuals that were voting for Obama knew very well that he was not going to bring systematic change, but they continued to vote for Obama rather than Nader or McKinney (the individuals that support their ideas) - they were clearly following ideology (“they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it”) and not their drive. Voting for Obama was purely symbolic, the only cynics, were those that supported Obama when they wanted to vote for third parties or independents. These individuals cynically justified voting for the two party system rather than voting for the candidate they wanted to vote for. A substantial change is not voting black, then again its more than voting, but in regards to voting, a substantial change is vote for a new system. Voting for Obama was once again, the lesser of two evils, betraying their true desire. This time I have to side with Chomsky, sorry Zizek.
Posted by Ehren Stuff on Jan 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
as an example of automatic cynicism the kissinger example proves useful. however, what we find so far is that
“And if Barack Obama drinks, as it appears he will, the dark elixir of war and imperial power offered to him by the national security state, he will accelerate the downward spiral of the American empire.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081117_americas_wars_of_self_destruction/
Obama’s transition: A who’s who of imperialist policy
19 November 2008
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n19.shtml
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081118_bracing_for_a_major_disappointment/
“The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obama’s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state—which makes no sense whatsoever.”
also look at how rapidly the agenda with which he won and instilled hope has been abandoned:
http://www.change.gov/agenda/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/obama-campaign-pulls-issue-pages-from-transition-site/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/changes-at-changegov-return-of-the-agenda/?scp=4&sq=obama agenda&st=cse
OLD AGENDA!!!
http://notatypewriter.com/Obama-ChangeGov/
i am willing to wait and see for a while. and i acknowledge that he starts off in a big hole dug by you know who but not entirely by you know who either.
If nothing else, Obama is the supreme pragmatist.
His entire career has been a matter of using (associating with outrageous or radical individuals) who could advance his cause for as long as useful and then moving on.
While in the Illinois legislature avoiding votes on anything controversial which may later haunt him.
While in the U.S. Senate writing two books about himself and no bills.
Mastering the use of the sound bite and slogan to appeal to emotions with little explanation of plausible methods.
Pardon my continuing cynicism, but I voted for him once and am still waiting for any results. His choices for his administration read like the American Movie Channel classics
I highly respect Slavoj ZIzek, however he entirely disregards his own material. I am someone that worked on the Nader campaign and talked to literally thousands of people on why they were voting for Obama. What I found is that these individuals were voting for symbolism over substance. They were betraying their drive for their desire. As Zizek states many times, a revolution must occur through following your drive at the point of the previous failed attempts. However the majority of these individuals that were voting for Obama knew very well that he was not going to bring systematic change, but they continued to vote for Obama rather than Nader or McKinney (the individuals that support their ideas) - they were clearly following ideology (“they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it”) and not their drive. Voting for Obama was purely symbolic, the only cynics, were those that supported Obama when they wanted to vote for third parties or independents. These individuals cynically justified voting for the two party system rather than voting for the candidate they wanted to vote for. A substantial change is not voting black, then again its more than voting, but in regards to voting, a substantial change is vote for a new system. Voting for Obama was once again, the lesser of two evils, betraying their true desire. This time I have to side with Chomsky, sorry Zizek.
This attitude is best encapsulated by the French expression
register a new account »Posting Security