Re: new immanence - Chirac cheats!

A few notes--I'm beginning to wonder about this dichotomy I keep 
hearing--immanence, good; transcendence, bad.  I thought postmodernity was 
supposed to deconstruct binary oppositions.  In the nineties, we always heard 
constructivism, good; essentialism, bad--whatever happened to that one?

The moral impeachibility (or not) of the multitude has little to do with 
whether or not its actions may have impact in the present or the future.

Wars are won or lost on the cultural plane--i.e., one side becomes convinced it 
cannot win, or trying to continue to fight would have excessive consequences.  
This was even true of  Japan's fight with the US in World War II--atom bombs 
intimidated Japan definitively, rather than actually disarm their army.  If the 
US  is brought to heel, it will involve a number of factors--those it is 
directly fighting with, 'allies', 'world public opinion', domestic politics.  
All of these have to be watched and analyzed to understand how the situation is 
unfolding.

The key differences between the present and the cold war--Western Europe does 
not believe it urgently needs the protection of the US, and the weak economic 
position of the US.

Steven Sherman