(To understand President Obama and his political techniques, one must understand the teachings of his mentor, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a master of stirring up dissention in the Chicago south side to produce political and social change. His techniques fully endorsed the dictum that “A particular end is justified by a particular means.” The following is copied from http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/Rules_for_Radicals.html.)
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
His “rules” derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege.
For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.
According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.
Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
Monday, January 23, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Are The Rich Really Ripping Us Off?
We hear a lot these days about how the rich are not paying their fair share of federal taxes. I would invite each of my readers to look carefully at the Wall Street Journal article referenced in the following link. You will see clearly that the rich certainly ARE paying their fair share of federal taxes, e.g., the top 1% of income earners are paying about 40% of the money flowing into the fed treasury.
An excerpt from this article reads: “In any event, raising tax rates has not over time succeeded in increasing tax shares from the rich. When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the 1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes. Liberals say this is because the rich earn a larger share of income. But when tax rates are lower, the rich have less incentive to seek tax shelters and more incentive to put their money to work in income-earning, revenue-producing ventures.”
The whole article can be read by linking to http://on.wsj.com/wRaqz4.
An excerpt from this article reads: “In any event, raising tax rates has not over time succeeded in increasing tax shares from the rich. When the top income-tax rate was as high as 70% in the 1970s, the top 1% paid about 19% of all federal income taxes. At the current rate of 35% the top 1% pay just under 40% of all income taxes. Liberals say this is because the rich earn a larger share of income. But when tax rates are lower, the rich have less incentive to seek tax shelters and more incentive to put their money to work in income-earning, revenue-producing ventures.”
The whole article can be read by linking to http://on.wsj.com/wRaqz4.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Why Does Winter Happen?
Today, listening to Science Friday on NPR, I learned the answer to a question about which I had long wondered. My question: The winter solstice is on December 22; that is the day on which the sun reaches its most southerly position in the sky. After that, the sun moves gradually farther north every day. My question is, if the sun is moving north, why do the days get colder and colder throughout our winter in the northern hemisphere?
Most people think that the reason our winters occur is because we move farther from the sun during that season. That is not the truth. The earth’s orbit describes an almost perfect circle around the sun, maintaining an almost consistent distance from the sun—there is a slight variation, but it is insignificant.
The earth’s north/south axis is tipped 23° from its horizontal orbit. In the winter, we, in the northern hemisphere are located on the part of the tilt that is away from the sun. This tip causes radiation from the sun to be more diffused than it is in the summer, when the sun’s rays strike the earth in a more perpendicular direction. Therefore, heat from the sun is spread over a larger area, and that heats the surface of the planet less than in the summer.
The reason for the lag in the onset of cold weather after the winter solstice is that the earth soaks up and radiates heat slowly in response to the abundance or the paucity of the sun’s heat radiation. Water, which covers 71% of the earth’s surface, is especially adapted to slow heat transfer. Liquid water is a mitigating influence on rapid changes in weather as the tilted earth rotates around the sun.
We are indebted to the changing seasons for much of life, as we know it. If the earth did not have the 23° tilt, there would be no seasonal changes. This would plunge much of northern Europe, Australia, the southern tips of Africa and South America, and northern Asia into a perpetual ice-crusted no-man’s land. Many crops are dependent upon a changing season system; and that would impair the growth of human populations.
Most people think that the reason our winters occur is because we move farther from the sun during that season. That is not the truth. The earth’s orbit describes an almost perfect circle around the sun, maintaining an almost consistent distance from the sun—there is a slight variation, but it is insignificant.
The earth’s north/south axis is tipped 23° from its horizontal orbit. In the winter, we, in the northern hemisphere are located on the part of the tilt that is away from the sun. This tip causes radiation from the sun to be more diffused than it is in the summer, when the sun’s rays strike the earth in a more perpendicular direction. Therefore, heat from the sun is spread over a larger area, and that heats the surface of the planet less than in the summer.
The reason for the lag in the onset of cold weather after the winter solstice is that the earth soaks up and radiates heat slowly in response to the abundance or the paucity of the sun’s heat radiation. Water, which covers 71% of the earth’s surface, is especially adapted to slow heat transfer. Liquid water is a mitigating influence on rapid changes in weather as the tilted earth rotates around the sun.
We are indebted to the changing seasons for much of life, as we know it. If the earth did not have the 23° tilt, there would be no seasonal changes. This would plunge much of northern Europe, Australia, the southern tips of Africa and South America, and northern Asia into a perpetual ice-crusted no-man’s land. Many crops are dependent upon a changing season system; and that would impair the growth of human populations.
Friday, January 13, 2012
How Beneficial Are Biofuels, Anyway?
We live in a world where species of wild animals are disappearing and a billion people are barely able to get enough to eat. Is this the time to clear rain forests to grow palm oil or give up food-crop land to grow biofuels so that people can burn fuel derived from carbohydrate rather than hydrocarbons in their cars? This paucity of food-producing land is already driving up the cost of food for human populations.Five percent of the world’s crop land has been taken out of growing food and put into growing fuel; in the United States, that figure is 20%. Drought in Australia and more meat eating in China has pushed the world food supply below world food demand. In 2008 the food shortage caused food riots all over the world. Between 2004 and 2007, the world corn harvest increased by 51 million tons; but 50 million tons went into fuel ethanol, leaving nothing to meet the increase in demand for food. American car drivers were taking carbohydrates out of the mouths of the poor to fill their tanks.
This might be okay if the money spent on ethanol would save Americans money so they could afford to buy more goods and services from the poor and help them out of poverty. But…Americans are taxed three times for their ethanol hunger—they subsidize the growing of corn through the government; they subsidize the manufacture of ethanol; and they pay more for their food. Ethanol production actually impairs the ability of people to contribute to the demand for manufactured goods.
In order to produce fuel ethanol, a farmer must use fuel for his tractors, petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, truck fuel, and distillation fuel. So…on balance, it takes just about as much fuel to produce the new ethanol fuel as the ethanol fuel, itself contains. Drilling and refining fuel from oil and coal reserves, of which there are many, gets you a 600% energy return on your energy used.
Making fuel from Brazilian sugar cane is more efficient, because it is produced by armies of underpaid laborers.
Using oil to drive cars releases CO2, which is a greenhouse gas; but using tractors to grow crops releases nitrous oxide from soil, which is a stronger greenhouse gas with nearly 300 times the warming potential of CO2.
The ultimate argument against the use of biofuels is that these fuels require land for their production; and the earth’s land area is finite. The human population, which uses land for food production, is increasing. By 2050, the earth’s population will need every bit of arable land for food production. We need to quit using biofuels until some more efficient way of producing them is discovered.
Data for this blog post were taken from The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.
This might be okay if the money spent on ethanol would save Americans money so they could afford to buy more goods and services from the poor and help them out of poverty. But…Americans are taxed three times for their ethanol hunger—they subsidize the growing of corn through the government; they subsidize the manufacture of ethanol; and they pay more for their food. Ethanol production actually impairs the ability of people to contribute to the demand for manufactured goods.
In order to produce fuel ethanol, a farmer must use fuel for his tractors, petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, truck fuel, and distillation fuel. So…on balance, it takes just about as much fuel to produce the new ethanol fuel as the ethanol fuel, itself contains. Drilling and refining fuel from oil and coal reserves, of which there are many, gets you a 600% energy return on your energy used.
Making fuel from Brazilian sugar cane is more efficient, because it is produced by armies of underpaid laborers.
Using oil to drive cars releases CO2, which is a greenhouse gas; but using tractors to grow crops releases nitrous oxide from soil, which is a stronger greenhouse gas with nearly 300 times the warming potential of CO2.
The ultimate argument against the use of biofuels is that these fuels require land for their production; and the earth’s land area is finite. The human population, which uses land for food production, is increasing. By 2050, the earth’s population will need every bit of arable land for food production. We need to quit using biofuels until some more efficient way of producing them is discovered.
Data for this blog post were taken from The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
How Good Are We—Really?
It is common understanding that we, humans, are not the pillars of righteousness and beauty we think we are. We have more shortcomings than we care to admit—especially when it comes to the issue of confronting culture with the truth.
A recent study from Penn State University found that half the students said they would object if someone made a sexist comment; but in practice, fewer than one-sixth had ever said anything in objection to a comment like that.
In essence, we are afraid to confront society about things we think are politically incorrect. Especially, are we uncomfortable when it comes to telling people about our belief in Christ. In this matter, we need to remember the words of Christ, himself: “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32, 33)
Despite the prevalent idea that living a good, Christian, lifestyle before an unbelieving world will make people want to emulate the Christian belief that motivates such a lifestyle, this kind of “presence evangelism” just does not work. Words must be used. It is not possible for an unbeliever to distinguish a Christian from a Hindu or a Muslim based on a perceived moral lifestyle—those sects all look the same when judged on the basis of outward morality. But…there is a great difference; and it must be articulated in words.
Reader, do not despair! Telling the truth publically is not so dangerous. I remember a saying that was used by my Scoutmaster years ago: “If public opinion had any real power to harm, the skunk would have been extinct long ago.”
A recent study from Penn State University found that half the students said they would object if someone made a sexist comment; but in practice, fewer than one-sixth had ever said anything in objection to a comment like that.
In essence, we are afraid to confront society about things we think are politically incorrect. Especially, are we uncomfortable when it comes to telling people about our belief in Christ. In this matter, we need to remember the words of Christ, himself: “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32, 33)
Despite the prevalent idea that living a good, Christian, lifestyle before an unbelieving world will make people want to emulate the Christian belief that motivates such a lifestyle, this kind of “presence evangelism” just does not work. Words must be used. It is not possible for an unbeliever to distinguish a Christian from a Hindu or a Muslim based on a perceived moral lifestyle—those sects all look the same when judged on the basis of outward morality. But…there is a great difference; and it must be articulated in words.
Reader, do not despair! Telling the truth publically is not so dangerous. I remember a saying that was used by my Scoutmaster years ago: “If public opinion had any real power to harm, the skunk would have been extinct long ago.”
Monday, January 9, 2012
Monkey See, Monkey Do… or, Young People Act Out TV Model
About half of American girls eleven to seventeen regularly watch “reality” TV, with another 30% watching it sometimes. And it’s bad for them, according to a study sponsored by the Girl Scout Research Institute. Thirty-eight percent of these girls think a girl’s value is based on how she looks, for example compared with 28% of those who do not watch reality television. Almost 40% of the first group but only 24%of the second group believe “you have to lie to get ahead.”
The reason we can guess. What you see, if you see it often enough, begins to feel normal—even if you start watching it because you think it is not normal.
(In case you don’t know… “reality” TV is a genre of TV programs, supposedly unscripted, that show supposedly non-actors, i.e., “normal people,” in unusual or stressful situations. The language and behavior are street language and behavior, complete with vulgar words and ideas. On example of this kind of programming is the program, Wife Swap.)
The reason we can guess. What you see, if you see it often enough, begins to feel normal—even if you start watching it because you think it is not normal.
(In case you don’t know… “reality” TV is a genre of TV programs, supposedly unscripted, that show supposedly non-actors, i.e., “normal people,” in unusual or stressful situations. The language and behavior are street language and behavior, complete with vulgar words and ideas. On example of this kind of programming is the program, Wife Swap.)
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Larger the Government, The Smaller the Citizen
We live in an era of burgeoning government. One hallmark of the Obama Administration has been the Dodd-Frank Bill (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act H.R. 4173) designed to identify risks to the financial stability of the U.S. and promote market discipline. The other has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, designed to make health care much more of a responsibility of the Federal Government by adding layers of regulation into health care access.
I have looked as carefully as I can into these two bills; and I find them incomprehensible in their complexity and sheer size. In my opinion, they will almost double the size to the Federal Government.
We, as citizens of the United States, need to be very suspicious of such sweeping legislation and look at burgeoning governments of the past to evaluate such programs.
In The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, I read, “Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialization; thus, even Genghis Kahn’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlors.” Later, however, a pattern was set which has been followed by governments ever since. Aging governments “employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak to speak of ‘market failure,’ and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure.’ Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.”
I have looked as carefully as I can into these two bills; and I find them incomprehensible in their complexity and sheer size. In my opinion, they will almost double the size to the Federal Government.
We, as citizens of the United States, need to be very suspicious of such sweeping legislation and look at burgeoning governments of the past to evaluate such programs.
In The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, I read, “Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialization; thus, even Genghis Kahn’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlors.” Later, however, a pattern was set which has been followed by governments ever since. Aging governments “employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak to speak of ‘market failure,’ and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure.’ Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
