Latest Entries »

Pot Kettle Black

There has been a terrific uproar since Indiana became the 19th or 20th state to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  As I understand it, the law was passed so that people would not be forced to lose their First Amendment right of freedom of religion by being forced to participate in activities that would violate their consciences.

Here is the ironic part of Indiana’s situation.  Several businesses and people have declared a boycott on doing business in Indiana because they believe Indiana is doing something immoral by allowing business owners to refrain from participating in activities that would cause them to violate their conscience.  These people cannot –IN GOOD CONSCIENCE–do business in a state that allows immoral activity, i.e. deciding not to provide services for a gay wedding. How is it okay for some people to refuse to do business because of moral concerns but not okay for others?  Isn’t that a hypocritical position?

Additionally, the people calling for a boycott of Indiana are attempting to force the state government to force business owners to violate their consciences.  The business owners are not trying to force anybody to do anything.  Why should they be forced?

Are there new definitions of fairness, respect, and tolerance that I don’t know about?

                                                               He is a kinsman to the Montague;
Affection makes him false; he speaks not true:…
I beg for justice, which thou, prince, must give;
Romeo slew Tybalt, Romeo must not live.


                                                                                                             Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare


I don’t know why anybody doesn’t like Romeo and Juliet. It’s probably the language, but knowing the basic plot, it’s not all that hard to figure out what’s happening, at least on stage or in a good movie version.

People’s ignorance of the play is a shame because, like so many of Shakespeare’s other plays, it is extremely relevant to what happens in our lives. In the speech above, Lady Capulet is demanding Romeo’s death because he killed Tybalt, her nephew. She automatically assumes that Benvolio, Romeo’s cousin, gave false testimony about what happened. Benvolio had told the truth, explaining that Romeo attempted to be at peace with Tybalt but killed him after Tybalt had killed Mercutio, Romeo’s best friend.

Unfortunately, I’ve reacted similarly when angry, making faulty decisions and prejudging situations before I’ve listened to people explain the circumstances. My emotions ran high, making my intelligence low.

A similar situation occurred with the Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. When news of the shooting broke out, people automatically rushed to judgment, blaming Wilson for shooting an unarmed black man who was trying to surrender, probably because Wilson was racist. Others, rushing just as fast, automatically assumed that Brown was a thug who got what was coming to him.

Both of these judgments occurred before there was any investigation. People saw the news on television, listened to radio commentators, and just assumed that Brown was guilty of assaulting Wilson or that Wilson was guilty of shooting Brown down in cold blood. Both sides assumed racism. Brown did what he did because he was a young black thug. Wilson did what he did because he was a white racist cop. It didn’t matter that no autopsy had taken place or that witness testimony had not been taken and investigated for accuracy. People saw the news and saw what they wanted to see.


Unfortunately, this “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,” as Dr. King said, did an awful lot of damage. Before any kind of serious investigation took place, crowds were out in Ferguson’s streets, protesting Wilson’s shooting of Brown. The militarized Ferguson police force attempted to use shock and awe to control or disperse the protestors, and the protests escalated. Over the following weeks, the protestors began destroying Ferguson businesses to communicate their anger.

The police were also hurt by people’s prejudgments. Officer Wilson had to go into hiding with his family out of fear for his life. His career as a policeman is over, even though he had an exemplary record and had never used his gun on a suspect before shooting Michael Brown. There was a declared war on police, with two officers in New York being killed execution style for no other reason than they were police officers.

Are there bad cops? Sure. But acting prejudiced towards them, assuming racism and ill will on their part, is just as bad as racism. A whole group of people are judged and condemned because of the actions of a comparative few.

Race relations also took a hit. Just like with O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman, people divided along racial lines regarding the guilt or innocence of the suspects. People rushing to judgment before serious investigation took place deepened the racist neural paths in our brains.


Seven months later, the investigations are complete. The grand jury in St. Louis, after examining the evidence—perhaps after examining more evidence than should have been available—declared in November that there wasn’t enough evidence to try Darren Wilson for murder or any other crime. Eric Holder’s Justice Department, after three more months of investigation, stated that Wilson committed no crime nor violated Michael Brown’s civil rights. Had there been any evidence to support his guilt, Darren Wilson would have been arrested on federal charges and given a court date by now.

Too bad that much of Ferguson burned to the ground, innocent policemen were killed, and racial tensions were stirred up before the investigations were completed. We could have avoided all that nonsense had we not rushed to judgment but waited for the investigators to do their jobs and let the truth come out. Perhaps we can get it right next time.

A good step in that direction would be for the people who condemned Darren Wilson prematurely to admit they were wrong and (let’s get a little crazy here) apologize to the man for prejudging him. Unless that happens, I’ll be surprised if at the next incident there isn’t yet another rush to judgment.

“SECOND, people purchase the health insurance they want from the insurer they want, just like car insurance. People could purchase an expensive comprehensive plan that covers routine care, a less expensive high-deductible plan, or a plan that only takes care of medical emergencies, like we had back in the 70s.”


So I wrote in the column on health care reform that appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch last Sunday. The underlined section was poorly worded to say the least. The phrase “medical emergencies” suggests car accidents, broken and bloody limbs, 3rd degree burns over the majority of someone’s skin, and the like. I should have chosen my words more carefully, which looks pretty bad for someone who wants to earn his living from writing.

A better phrase would be “catastrophic care.” This includes emergencies involving ambulances and emergency rooms, but it also refers to serious illnesses requiring expensive treatment. For example, treatment for cancer, lupus, Crone’s (?) disease, and serious mental illnesses would be paid for. Minor routine illnesses and injuries, would be paid out of pocket.

A really smart insurance company would pay for or at least subsidize routine checkups and standard diagnostic tests that would catch serious illnesses before they became serious. They could also give discounts for maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, and other good health habits, like they do with car and life insurance policies.

The Washington Post recently published an editorial comparing the Republicans’ opposition to Obamacare to the Democrats’ Massive Resistance to school desegregation in the 1950s. That’s comparing apples to chainsaws. In an op-ed rebutting the editorial, John Whitbeck, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, rightly points out the difference between opposing a very expensive and ironically named government program —the Affordable Care Act—and supporting racist policies and practices.

What would help the Republicans oppose Obamacare effectively would be to have an obviously superior conservative alternative that would bring down the cost of both health care and health insurance. Fortunately, I happen to have one right here.


FIRST, we take care of our health. We put down the potato chips, get off the couch, and do some yard work. Swim some laps. Get on a treadmill. Pump iron. Dance. Walk. Something!

The rest of healthy living isn’t exactly a secret. At the grocery store, more fresh fruit, vegetables, lean meats, skim milk and whole grain whatevers go in the cart, with less pizza, cookies, sodas, and beer. We stop smoking or, if we can avoid addiction, smoke a really good cigarette or cigar every once in a while. We get enough sleep.

If we took care of our health, we’d go to the doctor less and buy less medicine. We don’t pay for health care we don’t use. Who knows? The law of supply and demand could kick in, and we pay less for the health care we do use. In any case, we’d save money.

NOTE: This does not require an act of Congress. We don’t need anybody’s permission to take care of our health. We don’t need taxpayer subsidies. We can reduce our health care expenses simply by taking responsibility for our health.

SECOND, people purchase the health insurance they want from the insurer they want, just like car insurance. People could purchase an expensive comprehensive plan that covers routine care, a less expensive high-deductible plan, or a plan that only takes care of medical emergencies, like we had back in the 70s.

People could choose not to purchase health insurance. However, if they have a significant health crisis, they shouldn’t expect a bailout from the taxpayers.

There are advantages to the emergency-only plan to both the doctors and the patients. As routine care would not be covered, doctors wouldn’t have to pay somebody to file a claim in order to get paid. Just like when getting a flu shot at one of those mini-clinics inside grocery stores or pharmacies, we would pay the doctor directly for diagnosis and treatment of a minor sickness or injury. The doctor’s overhead decreases, and he or she can pass some of the savings on to the self-paying patients in reduced fees.

Because the insurance companies wouldn’t be negotiating the fees for routine care, the patients could know exactly what the fees are and shop around for the best care at the best price. They would save money since comparison shopping gives doctors incentive to charge reasonable fees. These savings are in addition to the lower premiums of emergency-only health insurance.

Able to shop for health insurance in the free market, workers would no longer be limited to the plans offered by their employers. Instead of giving a limited list of insurance options they subsidize at a fixed percentage, employers could now offer a subsidy for purchasing insurance, money towards the high deductible, higher wages, or some combination of the three as part of a benefits package. Or they could offer higher salaries as one more way to attract quality employees.

What happens to the huge tax break employees receive by purchasing health insurance with pre-tax dollars through their employers? We extend the tax break to everyone by making health insurance a deductible expense. Alternatively, instead of using the tax code to paternalistically punish or reward our behavior, we could simply lower taxes for everybody by about the same amount as the tax break.

What does Congress need to do to empower citizens to have real choices in purchasing health insurance? Using its constitutional power “To regulate commerce … among the several states,” Congress enacts a law that health insurance companies can operate in any state they want as long as their premiums are consistent in every state. People would be able to choose from any health insurance company in the nation. A free health insurance market would mean more competition, an incentive for companies to keep their prices low

THIRD, Congress reforms tort law. This means when doctors make a mistake, the victim doesn’t win the lottery. The lawyers argue over actual and not punitive damages. If a doctor’s error or negligence causes permanent injury, the victim will get lifetime medical care for everything related to the injury and some compensation for the pain and suffering. They won’t become multi-millionaires, nor will their lawyers.

When Congress reforms tort law, doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums (often more than $100,000 a year) decrease. Doctors can reduce their fees, which they would do to keep cost-conscious patients. Prescription costs would decrease a bit as drug companies wouldn’t have to spend so much money protecting themselves from lawsuits.

FOURTH, medical care for people who cannot afford it devolves to the states, localities, private charities, religious institutions, and individuals. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in medical care and can’t afford it anymore.

The first resource people should be able to look to for help with significant medical expenses is their families. Family helping family used to be normal. The next resources to look to would be a person’s place of worship and private charities. If they can’t help enough, local and state government should be a last resort.

Additionally, doctors could provide a certain portion of their services pro bono, like lawyers. Many (most?) already volunteer in free health clinics.


These reforms aren’t perfect. They don’t guarantee that all citizens get the health care they need. Plus, there are costs. We would have to take responsibility for our health and manage our health care expenses. We would have to be willing to help our family and neighbors with the occasionally unexpectedly high expenses not covered by insurance.

These reforms do, however, have a couple of advantages over the last two reforms (HMOs and Obamacare) we’ve tried. The cost of both health care and insurance would decrease. We would make most of our health care decisions, not IRS or insurance bureaucrats. The $2.0 trillion cost of Obamacare would be eliminated.

In other words, in exchange for taking personal responsibility for our own health care and helping those who need it with theirs, we get a lot more freedom, lower health care costs, and less expensive government.

The first step might be the hardest. Enough voters would have to say to our representatives and senators, “Stop trying to make sure we have adequate, affordable healthcare. You obviously can’t. We can. Restore the healthcare freedom which rightfully belongs to us.”

If enough of us speak loudly and clearly to our elected officials, we could make real reform happen.

Whatever else we can say about the Ferguson grand jury decision, we can’t say there has been a lot of debates, protests and rioting about it.  Everybody seems to have a strongly held opinion.

Unfortunately, 99.9999999% of us weren’t there to witness the incident.  We didn’t see Michael Brown charge Darren Wilson or Darren Wilson stand over Michael Brown’s body unloading his gun in it.

Therefore, those arguing for or against the verdict are most likely arguing from ignorance.  We rely on hearsay reports, including what the media (who rely on hearsay reports) says.  Arguing from ignorance, our opinions mean nothing.   They are based on nothing.  They carry no weight.

We can change that.  The grand jury report has been released.  It includes all of the testimony from witnesses, Michael Brown’s autopsy report, all of forensic evidence, and all of the expert testimony.  Did Darren Wilson kill an unarmed teenager who was attempting to surrender, or did Wilson use deadly force to defend himself?  We can check the evidence out for ourselves.   Until we do, we have nothing of value to say about the guilt or innocence of Darren Wilson.

People like Mark Warner.  I like Mark Warner.  I once participated in a town hall teleconference call of his.  He came across as open-minded, willing to listen to other points of view.  A Republican delegate in the General Assembly when Warner was governor said that he was very friendly and easy to work with.


Warner has branded himself as a moderate, willing to compromise and work with both sides of the aisle. He calls himself a radical centrist. This seems to be the voting public’s perception.


If only it were true.  Warner’s five-and-a-half year Senate voting record shows that he has voted almost exclusively the Democrat party line, otherwise known as President Obama’s agenda.  The numbers bear this out.  The Virginia GOP claimed that Warner voted for Obama’s stated positions 97 percent of the time.  Politifact investigated and ruled this claim as true.  In 419 senate roll call votes, Warner voted for Obama’s expressed position 406 times.


But wait.  That’s only 28 percent of Warner’s 1,473 roll call votes.  What about the other 72 percent?  Couldn’t those votes show Warner as much more conservative than the average Democrat?


Some people think so. The National Journal and Open Congress both conducted voting studies which show Warner as one of the most conservative Democratic senators.  Warner has sponsored or co-sponsored legislation to approve the Keystone pipeline and to permit drilling for oil and natural gas offshore of Virginia.  Unfortunately, this legislation never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.  Warner’s complete voting record, however, shows that saying that Warner is one of the most conservative Democrat senators is like saying Joe Smith is one of the most progressive members of the John Birch society.


According to Open Congress, Warner has voted the Democrat party line 92 percent of the time in the current Congress.  Over his entire senate term, he has voted against the party 243 times out of about 2700 votes, which still has him voting the party position over nine times out of ten.  If one factors in the times he abstained (101), which is not actually voting, his support for Democrat positions climbs to 94.5 percent.


Eliminating every vote except for actual passage of bills (no votes for amendments, procedural motions, impeachments and nominations) presents a different picture.  Since 2009, Congress has passed 752 laws according to  Warner voted against the Democratic position on three of those laws, hence, supporting the Democratic position 99.6 percent of the time.  The three bills were supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program, a trade agreement with Columbia, and the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.


This means that Warner has voted for virtually all major Democratic legislation.  He voted for Obamacare, providing the 60th vote and making it filibuster-proof.  He has voted for all of the debt ceiling increases and all of the spending bills that have added over $7 trillion to our debt in just over five and a half years.  He’s not a budget hawk, at least not with his votes.


My subjective perception of Warner is that he has a moderate temperament.  Perhaps he was able to use amendments to make some legislation less progressive.  Regardless of how moderate his temperament is, it hasn’t translated to his votes.  His efforts to bring more moderate legislation to the Senate floor have largely failed, which was perhaps inevitable in a senate run by Harry Reid.


In any case, Warner’s record lets us know where he stands on issues when it matters—when it’s time to vote.  Regardless of his rhetoric, a vote for Mark Warner is a vote for the progressive Democratic agenda of Barack Obama and Harry Reid.  He will vote to keep Obamacare, should it come up for repeal.  He will vote to raise the debt ceiling and for budgets which add hundreds of billions to our national debt every year.  Over 700 of his votes confirm this.


We don’t know how Republican Ed Gillespie will vote should he be elected.  He says all the right things at the moment.  Like so many other politicians, unfortunately, he could go back on his word.  Nevertheless, there is a chance that Gillespie will consistently vote for lower spending, reform of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, repeal of Obamacare, and other measures necessary for fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government.  We need to vote to give him the opportunity.

At first face, the persistence of those who want the Redskins to change their name seems admirable.  Neither Daniel Snyder  nor Redskins fans appear to be budging at all.  Nevertheless, the protesters keep pressing and continue to pick up supporters, Phil Simms and Tony Dungy for example.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the protesters are right.  Say that “Redskin” is a horribly degrading epithet, like “nigger,” “spic,” or “wop.”   The movement to change the name continues to gain steam, and somebody convinces Daniel Snyder or the next owner to change the name.  What happens next?   There are parties in the street.  The protesters congratulate each other and get lots of good press from the media.  Perhaps the few Native Americans who found “Redskins” offensive are interviewed and talk about how much they like the change.  And then the next 24-hour news cycle takes over.

Beyond the name, what has actually changed?  Nothing, at least regarding life for Native Americans.  The name change has not resulted in any reduction in alcoholism, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, unemployment, suicide, high school dropout rates, or any other social ill on Indian reservations.  For hundreds of thousands (millions?), life will be just as wretched as before.

Given the very real problems that cause actual misery, pain and death for Native Americans, what would be more admirable for the Redskins protesters to do would be to help them to overcome some of these problems.  Perhaps they could start Alcoholics Anonymous  and Narcotics Anonymous chapters on the reservations.  Or the businessmen among the protesters could mentor Native Americans in starting businesses and developing sustainable economies on the reservations.  Others could help fathers and husbands learn to connect with their families and stop the cycle of family dysfunction that spiritually and psychologically cripples the next generation.

If the protesters gave real help to Native Americans and challenged Redskins fans to do the same, there wouldn’t be victory parties with dancing in the streets.  There would be very few, if any, television interviews.  There wouldn’t be a single moment when everybody could declare victory and go home.

However, life would be a lot better for some Native Americans.  More of their children could go to bed in a house with both their mother and their father sleeping under the same roof.  More would finish school and successfully provide for themselves and their families, giving the next generation some hope.   Somehow, that just seems better than the symbolic victory of a name change.

Redskins protesters, if you want to do Native Americans some good, do the hard work that will actually make life better for some of them.  If not, just keep doing what you’re doing and smile for the cameras.

I’m just copying this from Momdot.  I have nothing to add except to question the teacher’s and principal’s sanity.


About 5 minutes ago one of my very good blogger friends shared that a family member of hers was allegedly sent to in school suspension for saying ‘Bless You’ in a high school class today.

Bless you.

As in someone sneezed and she said “Bless You.”


High School Sr Kendra Turner

 Did this seriously just happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave?? 

I am so glad that we have our priorities straight,  America. 

Now listen- I get that we have to be super politically correct for fear of actually teaching kids (in an educational facility of all place!) that some people (gasp!) have religious beliefs, but this one takes the major cake.  While saying “Bless You” is a form of religious stance for this young high schooler who has every RIGHT to be religious, the reality is that its also a common every day courtesy that is often rooted in nothing more than being polite.

I am blown away that in a society that claims itself to be so progressive and free, we have stripped away our religion so far down to the roots that our kids cannot say Bless You without fear of retribution.

I was so shocked about this situation that I asked Kendra to reach out to me and she did.

Here are her words on what happened today:

A girl sitting right next me sneezed in class. I said “Bless You!”  My teacher, (Name redacted by Editor) asked “Who said that?”  I said “me.” She said “Why did you say that?” I said “Because it is courtesy.” She said “Says who?” I said “Says my pastor.” She said “Well we don’t say that in my class.”

I asked her why it was a big deal to her. She yelled at me and said “We will not have Godly speaking in my class!” That is when I stood up and said “My pastor said I have a constitutional right -1st amendment freedom of speech.”  She said “Not in my class you don’t.”

 I said “I will defend my religion.” She said “You will not in my class because I trump everyone.” Then another student stepped in and said “You don’t over trump God.”  So she sent me to the office and the assistants principal said “if I didn’t want to respect my teachers rules then maybe My pastor should teach me because my freedom or speech and religion does not work at their school. 

Then they sent me to ISS (in school suspension). After I left the class room all my class mates stood up and defended me the teacher had to call assistants principal to control the class.

Now I could sit here and go on a serious rant about our freedoms and rights and even our education system not being very educational, but I’ll throw it to you instead…did Kendra deserve suspension for saying ‘Bless You’ to a classmate?



Here are additional news stories that have come out:

Edited to add: This is the story told to ME, which is why I published it from her own words. I am not a news organization or a journalist, but rather a concerned parent whom brought this to my website to share with other parents as was told. I fully understand that this could be untrue, true, or a version of the truth. Everyone has a story, including the school and teacher. A representative of this site attempted to call the school for a statement and were told throughout the day that they principal was in meetings. A call to the superintendent office was disconnected once we got him on the phone. I know there are other news organizations involved and if I get an updated article from a larger news source that includes a statement from the school,  I will edit to add them but as of now the only statement we have heard is the one in the clip above. You are welcome to debate your opinions in the comments as long as everyone is respectful. Thankyou.


This is worth a read.

Originally posted on everybody has a right to my opinion:

I feel a little embarrassed by this.  I’ve heard Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals referred to numerous times and was familiar with Rule 13, but I’d never read all of the rules, much less the book.  Now I feel compelled to get the book as these rules look way too familiar to me.

Rule 13 is particularly disgusting.  In debating progressives over various issues and incidents, I’ve seen this belief–one side is all good and the other all bad–far too often.  Unfortunately I encounter it on both sides.  Republicans believe that all Democrats want to destroy the country, and Democrats believe that Republicans just want to eat the poor.  I thought that it was just immature thought.  It amazed me that adults could possibly think that they were right about every issue 100 percent of the time while the other side was completely wrong and stupid.

Now I see that…

View original 730 more words

I feel a little embarrassed by this.  I’ve heard Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals referred to numerous times and was familiar with Rule 13, but I’d never read all of the rules, much less the book.  Now I feel compelled to get the book as these rules look way too familiar to me.

Rule 13 is particularly disgusting.  In debating progressives over various issues and incidents, I’ve seen this belief–one side is all good and the other all bad–far too often.  Unfortunately I encounter it on both sides.  Republicans believe that all Democrats want to destroy the country, and Democrats believe that Republicans just want to eat the poor.  I thought that it was just immature thought.  It amazed me that adults could possibly think that they were right about every issue 100 percent of the time while the other side was completely wrong and stupid.

Now I see that fostering this belief is part of a strategy to divide people and keep ill will stirred up between political opponents.  This is evil.  Abraham Lincoln addressed the consequences of division in an 1858 speech.  The title of his speech was “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.”  Like all good writers, he borrowed his best material.  This time it was from someone who spoke, as the people of His day said, with authority

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: ”  Matthew 12:25

In one of the introductory quotes from Rules for Radicals, Alinsky acknowledges at least one inspiration for his radicalism.  He states, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishmentand did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

People who encourage division and strife in our nation to achieve some ideological goal need to be stopped.  The radicals succeeded in stirring up strife in Nazi Germany, brought in a dictator to solve the problems they helped to create, and then watched as their nation fell and many parts burned to the ground.  The Nazi radicals were a small minority, but the peaceful majority failed to stop them from dividing the people into small groups the Nazis could conquer and so take over the nation.

We who want a strong, stable nation and government that protects the rights guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution must not fail to expose those who would attempt to divide and conquer us.  We need to know the “Rules for Radicals” and recognize when they are operating.


1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

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.)

4. “Make the enemy live up to its 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.”

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”

8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…    “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When you ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

     “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers