I ignored his reply but this pretty much explains how he and Alinsky parallel and why he is a troll when it comes to politics.
[FONT="]. There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents. The latter must be depicted as being evil.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If his compulsion to “agitate” makes it sound as if the organizer is disinclined to converse with those with whom he disagrees, that is because, well, he is. Alinsky is blunt on this point: “You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue” (89). It is true that “moral rationalization is indispensable,” (43) that the organizer must “clothe” one’s goals and strategies with “moral arguments” (36). But there can be no conversation with one’s opponents, for to converse with them is to humanize them.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The organizer’s objective is to demonize those who stand in the way of his designs for change.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The reason for this is simple: “Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” The organizer “knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree” (78).[/FONT]
[FONT="]. There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents. The latter must be depicted as being evil.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If his compulsion to “agitate” makes it sound as if the organizer is disinclined to converse with those with whom he disagrees, that is because, well, he is. Alinsky is blunt on this point: “You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue” (89). It is true that “moral rationalization is indispensable,” (43) that the organizer must “clothe” one’s goals and strategies with “moral arguments” (36). But there can be no conversation with one’s opponents, for to converse with them is to humanize them.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The organizer’s objective is to demonize those who stand in the way of his designs for change.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The reason for this is simple: “Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” The organizer “knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree” (78).[/FONT]
Summary of Hillary thesis:
The thesis was sympathetic to Alinsky's critique of govt anti poverty programs but was critical of them as largely ineffective. The thesis also said Alinsky model was largely ineffective.
This is one of the many reasons you idiots are so stupid. You act like it was some glowing review.
Dont you guys get tired of tasting my knuckles? How many times do you want your jaw broken? This is like birth certificate, social security number, Obama at Columbia....all over again. I scattered your teeth on those issues as well. You guys just live to be wrong.
The thesis was sympathetic to Alinsky's critique of govt anti poverty programs but was critical of them as largely ineffective. The thesis also said Alinsky model was largely ineffective.
This is one of the many reasons you idiots are so stupid. You act like it was some glowing review.
Dont you guys get tired of tasting my knuckles? How many times do you want your jaw broken? This is like birth certificate, social security number, Obama at Columbia....all over again. I scattered your teeth on those issues as well. You guys just live to be wrong.
Hillary's opening statement of her thesis:
"Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote,
I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.”
She thanks particularly “Mr. Alinsky for providing a topic, sharing his time and offering me a job.”
"Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote,
I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.”
She thanks particularly “Mr. Alinsky for providing a topic, sharing his time and offering me a job.”
[FONT="]Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Saul Alinsky[/FONT]
[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html[/FONT]
[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html[/FONT]
[FONT="]I've never joined any organization - not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. Saul Alinsky[/FONT]
[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html[/FONT]
[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html[/FONT]
[FONT="]The first step in community organization is community disorganization. Saul Alinsky[/FONT]
[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html[/FONT]
[FONT="]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.html[/FONT]
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. Saul Alinsky
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.htm
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/saul_alinsky.htm
[h=2]Records Show Obama Hired Behavioral Experts to Expand Use of Govt. Programs[/h]SEPTEMBER 08, 2016
EmailPrintText Size
The Obama administration quietly hired 20 social and behavioral research experts to help expand the use of government programs at dozens of agencies by, among other things, simplifying federal forms, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. The controversial group of experts is collectively known as the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) and it functions under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
In 2015 Obama signed an executive order directing federal agencies to use behavioral science to sell their programs to the public, the records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. By then the government had contracted “20 leading social and behavioral research experts” that at that point had already been involved in “more than 75 agency collaborations,” the records state. A memo sent from SBST chair Maya Shankar, a neuroscientist, to OSTP Director John Holdren offers agencies guidance and information about available government support for using behavioral insights to improve federal forms. Sent electronically, the memo is titled “Behavioral Science Insights and Federal Forms.”
The records, obtained from the OSTP under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), also include a delivery by Holdren in which he insists that the social and behavioral sciences “are real science, with immensely valuable practical applications—the views of a few members of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding—and that these sciences abundantly warrant continuing support in the Federal science and technology budget.” Holdren, a Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate is a peculiar character who worked as an environmental professor at Harvard and the University of California Berkeley before becoming Obama’s science advisor. In the late 70s he co-authored a book with doomsayer Paul Ehrlich advocating for mandatory sterilization of the American people and forced abortions in order to depopulate the country. A head of the OSTP Holdren technically oversees the SBST.
Information about this absurd behavioral team remains sketchy because the administration, which claims to be the most transparent in history, withheld nearly 100 pages of records that could have shed light on the taxpayer-funded group’s secret operations. The Obama administration cited an exemption—officially known as B5—that applies to deliberative process, which allows government officials to discuss policy without the discussions being made public, or attorney client privilege. In this case it appears that the administration used the deliberative process exemption to withhold the records since it’s unlikely that attorney client privilege applies. B5 is the most abused of the FOIA exemptions and is regularly used to hide material that may embarrass the government.
That appears to be the case in this instance, though we’ll never know for certain because it’s unlikely the SBST records will ever be released since it’s very difficult to challenge B5 exemptions. Americans should be concerned that the government is employing behavioral experts to use psychological techniques in order to manipulate the behavior of its citizens. This makes it all the more imperative that the discussions between these government officials be exposed to the public and not shielded through a specious claim of “deliberative process.”
In its first annual report to the president last year, the SBST writes that it works to identify how behavioral insights can be integrated into federal agency programs in order to help agencies achieve their missions and objectives. This, it claims, will better serve the nation. The new group’s projects “are designed to address only the behavioral barriers that affect how people engage with programs,” the report says. It includes a list of federal agencies that have worked with SBST to coordinate the application of social and behavioral research to “advance policy and program goals.” They include the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Treasury, Justice and Labor as well as the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). “When behavioral insights—research findings from behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them—are brought into policy, the returns are significant,” according to the SBST report.
EmailPrintText Size
The Obama administration quietly hired 20 social and behavioral research experts to help expand the use of government programs at dozens of agencies by, among other things, simplifying federal forms, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. The controversial group of experts is collectively known as the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) and it functions under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
In 2015 Obama signed an executive order directing federal agencies to use behavioral science to sell their programs to the public, the records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. By then the government had contracted “20 leading social and behavioral research experts” that at that point had already been involved in “more than 75 agency collaborations,” the records state. A memo sent from SBST chair Maya Shankar, a neuroscientist, to OSTP Director John Holdren offers agencies guidance and information about available government support for using behavioral insights to improve federal forms. Sent electronically, the memo is titled “Behavioral Science Insights and Federal Forms.”
The records, obtained from the OSTP under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), also include a delivery by Holdren in which he insists that the social and behavioral sciences “are real science, with immensely valuable practical applications—the views of a few members of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding—and that these sciences abundantly warrant continuing support in the Federal science and technology budget.” Holdren, a Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate is a peculiar character who worked as an environmental professor at Harvard and the University of California Berkeley before becoming Obama’s science advisor. In the late 70s he co-authored a book with doomsayer Paul Ehrlich advocating for mandatory sterilization of the American people and forced abortions in order to depopulate the country. A head of the OSTP Holdren technically oversees the SBST.
Information about this absurd behavioral team remains sketchy because the administration, which claims to be the most transparent in history, withheld nearly 100 pages of records that could have shed light on the taxpayer-funded group’s secret operations. The Obama administration cited an exemption—officially known as B5—that applies to deliberative process, which allows government officials to discuss policy without the discussions being made public, or attorney client privilege. In this case it appears that the administration used the deliberative process exemption to withhold the records since it’s unlikely that attorney client privilege applies. B5 is the most abused of the FOIA exemptions and is regularly used to hide material that may embarrass the government.
That appears to be the case in this instance, though we’ll never know for certain because it’s unlikely the SBST records will ever be released since it’s very difficult to challenge B5 exemptions. Americans should be concerned that the government is employing behavioral experts to use psychological techniques in order to manipulate the behavior of its citizens. This makes it all the more imperative that the discussions between these government officials be exposed to the public and not shielded through a specious claim of “deliberative process.”
In its first annual report to the president last year, the SBST writes that it works to identify how behavioral insights can be integrated into federal agency programs in order to help agencies achieve their missions and objectives. This, it claims, will better serve the nation. The new group’s projects “are designed to address only the behavioral barriers that affect how people engage with programs,” the report says. It includes a list of federal agencies that have worked with SBST to coordinate the application of social and behavioral research to “advance policy and program goals.” They include the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Treasury, Justice and Labor as well as the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). “When behavioral insights—research findings from behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them—are brought into policy, the returns are significant,” according to the SBST report.
