|
|
|
September 29, 2008
So many dots! So little time!
I'm of two minds about the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" theory of Obama and Ayers, which is explained here and represented in the following chart:
While I first heard about it last night thanks to a comment from Donna Barber, it is a very interesting theory and it might well be true. In that respect, it is worthy of study. As is Gramscian Marxism. However, there's another side of me that tends to worry about conspiracy theories (whether true or not) being used as an obfuscatory tactic, especially when they complicate relatively simple issues and appear out of nowhere and muddy the waters just when relatively simple issues have become tough to ignore. I refer to Bill Ayers, and his close association -- possibly even mentorship of --Barack Obama, over a long period of time. Over the past few days it has struck me that this is just about to "break through" from the blogosphere and talk radio and into the MSM. And now that it seems about to do that, there's a sudden interest in what may or may not be the "root cause" of the Ayers-Obama association. Forgive me if I seem blunt, but what's damning is Obama's association with an unrepentant terrorist. A guy wearing a bracelet bearing the name of an NCO killed by a terrorist IED was a close collaborator and friend of a guy who wanted to kill other American NCOs with IEDs, and who regrets he did not do enough. This -- the one thing that will outrage middle America more than anything about Obama -- is the subject of a desperate media and campaign coverup. Yet suddenly, the topic shifts to a tactic floated by obscure Columbia professors in 1966. Again, the theory might be correct. But why right now? I'd hate to think that when Obama is finally asked about Ayers, he'll be able to snark back with something like, "Yes and they're also saying that my friendship with Ayers is part of something called the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy,' which I'd never heard of until now" -- to great laughter from a pliant and clueless audience. If Obama is elected, there will be plenty of time to look for root causes. I may be wrong, but right now, I think the focus should be on Ayers. MORE: M. Simon aptly summarizes the Cloward-Piven strategy as a practical application of Lenin's "Worse is better," and Alinsky's Rules for radicals. No doubt it is both. As I've noted many times, the fact that socialism does not work because it requires more socialism means that failure is success. But saying that won't win an election. posted by Eric on 09.29.08 at 10:19 AM
Comments
Yes, I remember well. And when Vincent Foster's files and hard drive disappeared from his office under grossly improper circumstances, the focus became whether his body had been moved (which led to infinite conspiracy theories going in endless circles, while the missing files were ignored.) Eric Scheie · September 29, 2008 10:46 AM I think an even worse issue than Ayers is Obama's political lifetime of being joined at the hip with ACORN. Regardless, throughout Mister Nonpartisan's adult life he has willfully associated himself with reprehensible (by mainstream standards) people and thuggish, anti-democratic behaviour. His idea of "reaching across the aisle" is to bridge the gap between the left and the hard left, up to and including violent terrorists and totalitarian goons. You don't need to draw lines on a chart to be appalled by his associations. Steve Skubinna · September 29, 2008 01:59 PM Thanks. Exposure to DU during the last election made me really suspicious of anything requiring dots to be connected. I hadn't considered this as a campaign distraction, perhaps because the Ayers-Acorn-Obama connection isn't news to me. Donna B. · September 29, 2008 03:01 PM Obama and Ayers is merely the tip of the iceberg. Horowitz has done us a great service at his "Discover The Networks" in revealing Barack's World http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=800 I have been trying to summarize the wealth of info he provides at my blog onto one page, to give the reader an 'immersed experience' into the depth of this Cloward Piven Network. SadimTouch · October 1, 2008 02:50 AM Okay, seriously, friend, if you're going to draw graphs like that and be that paranoid, you really should just smoke cannibis. There is no coup. There is no coverup. Nothing is going on. Noting beyond needless paranoia and a strange fixation on the 1960's. What's the deal with that? We're in the year 2008. The least you could do is work the Grateful Dead or Jefferson Airplane onto that chart. How about Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters? Or Laugh-in? Sigh. It's always radicals and socialists and communists, isn't it? There's never just someone who has a different opinion. There's never a moderate. It's always some sort of evil, menacing threat that hides in the closet. Trust me on this. There's no boogeyman out to get you. There's no great conspiracy out to destroy America and your way of life. Except for JFK. That was a conspiracy you can feel paranoid about ;) daniel thomas macinnes · October 1, 2008 11:01 AM "if you're going to draw graphs like that and be that paranoid"? I'd click on the graph's link before accusing me of drawing it. Not that I haven't drawn graphs, mind you.... I consider this one to one of my supreme graphic achievements! http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/07/capitol_hill_bl.html Eric Scheie · October 1, 2008 11:08 AM What if Bill Ayers studied under Cloward and Pivin, as well as Obama? Jan · October 7, 2008 01:21 AM Bill Ayers got his PhD at Columbia in 1987, the same time that Obama was there. (Obama was Editor of Harvard Law Review in 1990 - after 3 years of law school.) And Cloward died in 2001 - thus raising the possibility that both Ayers and Obama knew him, and/or studied under him. Perhaps that's why all Obama's info. from Columbia is missing. Janp · October 7, 2008 01:26 AM |
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "Will this put a stop to the idiotic rumors? Of course not!"
• Soothe The Monkeys • McCain Is Against Coal • All speech is like pornography! And libertarians don't exist! • The election is over, but the geographical literacy campaign continues • The Obama Economy - An Anecdote • cynically naive? • Criticism is not hatred • Marxing Off A Cliff • A time for hope?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Hey, it worked for Clinton in the 90s.
If you said something about one of Clinton's proven illegalities, the response always involved dead hookers and state police smuggling cocaine.