The GOP Convention: is there an accusation that needs to be made?

I have been watching the G.O.P. Convention. Several of the speeches address deficiencies of the current Presidential Administration and Congress. E.G. Not passing a budget in three years; over Five Trillion in budget deficit in this Presidential Term; unemployment over 8% (20 million plus) for the majority of this term; the credit rating of the US Government being downgraded; forcing Obama Care down the collective throats of the American People, etceteras, etceteras, etceteras…

As I hear about these, I am left to wonder: Are these, and all the other supposed deficiencies of the current Presidential Administration and Congress really deficiencies?
Or are these deliberate?

If they are deliberate, why are they being done, to what end?

Frankly, I am kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop, and this accusation to be made, but I seriously doubt the Romney/Ryan Campaign will directly make this, and probably not indirectly either.

 --

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

What document does this list come from?

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

What document does this list come from?

Riddle me this:
If a Politician Speaks,
and there is no one around to hear,
Is he still lying and pandering?

Answers:

The first list comes from the Communist Manifesto.

The second list is compiled from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

The riddle: answer it for yourself.

Bye, Max. Good boy...

I helped my parents put their thirteen year old, geriatric german shepherd down today.

Max was acquired as a puppy at the same time that my sister got another female dog, Sadie, from the same litter. The two of them played together most of their lives.I enjoyed tossing the stick for them to retrieve, and taking max, or both of them together, for walks.

Three years ago Max started to develop the problem where his nerves in his spine go bad and he began to loose control in stages of everything behind his ribs. We expected he would somehow contract some illness as a result and pass, but he was stubbornly healthy, aside from his troubles with control.

Sadie died suddenly just over one and a half years ago. We were all surprised she went first.

Over the last six months Max’s quality of life began to diminish. He had rough function of his back legs at best, and could not get around well anymore. He had to fight to lever himself up onto his hind legs, and then keep his back end up. Holding his tail for him let him pull himself, and you along. When he lay down somewhere, he would ‘zone out.’ His hearing did not seem to substantially diminish, nor did his eyesight, but his attention did. In the last weeks, he began to loose cognitive control of himself, and would not move to where he could relieve himself.

As Mom and Dad discussed this, they came to the conclusion that it was time, that Max was increasingly distant, and upset. So they called the vet.

They live in an in-law’s apartment attached to my sister’s house, on a large yard that has been in the family for three generations. My brother-in-law chose a spot, and one of my nieces started to dig. I spent two and a half hours finishing the grave. I finished by putting part of his dog-bed in the bottom.

When the time came for the vet to show, I took Max out to a spot in the yard and lay him in the sun. Mom and Dad, and my sister, her husband, and some of their children came about. My sister ended up taking her two younger sisters on an outing, as the vet arrived.

The vet evaluated Max, and gave a clinical agreement that this was the best course, though it hurt to do.

Mom and Dad stood by as I cradled Max while the vet administered the cocktail of narcotics that relaxed and put him to sleep, then the vet gave him the last shot, and within a minuet he was gone.

I wrapped Max in part of his dog-bed and using the vet’s litter, the vet helped me carry Max to his grave. We lowered him in; I adjusted his body some to cover it properly. The vet then left. For a few moments I was alone as my geriatric parents slowly made their way to the spot. For a moment I sobbed uncontrollably. Mom and Dad arrived, and after some prayer, threw the first shovels of dirt in. Dad and I then filled the rest in, and I put some temporary stones around the pile.

Normally I am a very stoic person, but I broke down somewhat as the vet did his job. Then again after putting Max to his final rest. And again as I write this.

I refused to have Max spend his last alive moments near the grave, feeling like it would be taking the condemned to the gallows, as opposed to a final rest spot. It is expected that the pile will settle over the next month or so, and the stones around it will be adjusted to final place, and my brother-in-law may make a marker of some kind.

I do not question the wisdom of the actions, for he was old and disabled, but I will miss Max.

Good boy, Max, Go home now...