Friday, June 10, 2011

Let's Cloward-Piven the NYT/WaPo witch hunt

Because their hatred for Sarah Palin is are "just too darn irresistible"
The Cloward-Piven strategy is a leftist tool which can be turned against them. Developed in the mid-1960s by Columbia University sociologists Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, their strategy owes much to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The strategy’s original purpose was to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading government bureaucracy until the wheels grind to a halt.

Some examples of Cloward-Piven are overloading electoral systems with overwhelming numbers of new voter registrations, never mind whether the bogus "voters" are among the living or the deceased; shaking down banks and mortgage houses, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development with affirmative-action loan applications; and creating a national financial "crisis" by demanding subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with no feasible means of repaying the loans. Those toxic mortgages helped lead to the financial bailout. Again, the key dynamic of Cloward-Piven involves overloading government with impossible demands until it breaks down under the burden.

But just as the Cloward-Piven strategy has worked for the left, it can be made to work against them. And just as it works when applied to government agencies, it will also work when aimed at other types of institutions. Although he doesn't mention Clward-Piven by name, AWR Hawkins suggests using a form of the strategy against The New York Times and The Washington Post as they enlist their readers' help in sorting through some 24,000 of Governor Palin's emails in search of anything they can use to try to destroy her. Here's how:
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times prove they’ve yet to learn how much the people love Palin. But we can help them learn this lesson after 1 pm by sending a ton of emails that have absolutely nothing to with Palin’s correspondence cache.

In other words, the Washington Post reports they’ll be posting Palin’s emails here, and they’ll include a link whereby readers can respond when they find that “most noteworthy” information. The New York Times has been kind enough to say they’ll post Palin’s emails here, and they will likewise include a link whereby readers can respond when they find that juicy nugget that’s going to prove Palin doesn’t love America after all (or that she really shot her Caribou from a distance of 120 yards instead of 123).

Our job is simple: once the emails post, we need to click the links for each paper (cited in previous paragraph) and send both of them an email (or emails) about the noteworthy information we found. But instead of sending something from Palin’s emails, send them your favorite line from a Charlton Heston speech or movie. Or send them your favorite line from your favorite song or from a piece of classic literature.

Even if both papers figure out what’s happening rather quickly, the knowledge that we’ve sent random information will them force to research and verify every email (and re-open and re-research those which they took for granted upon receiving them). In turn, this will ruin all their fun and shut this little experiment down before it even gets rolling.

Oh yes, and it will do one other thing too: it will teach them once more that America loves Sarah Palin.

Whether she runs for President or not (or whether you plan to vote for her or not), we can all agree that she stands for something the mainstream media ought not drag through the mud.

Spread the word folks. Recruit your friends. At 1 pm, it’s game on.

Yes, the corrupt media is indeed vulnerable to a Cloward-Piven operation. In the words of Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton, justifying the witch hunt, "Sarah Palin and her e-mails are just too darn irresistible." Well, the Washington Post, New York Times and their hatred for Sarah Palin are "just too darn irresistible" as well. Sauce for the gander. Any questions? Very well. Carry on.

- JP


  1. Josh,

    Will you post the emails here so it will be easier for us to 'one stop shop' and find them?

    I'm all in for this.

  2. It finally hit me the "near bumpersticker" quality of the rhetorical question that destroys the justification to keep preferential regulations:

    Example a house loan for ethnic minority:
    Claim...We need to provide more opportunity for minorities to obtain the American dream of home ownership.

    Clarifying question: The lending of money is based on likely ability of repayment and you wish to add ethnicity to that criterium. All people can be evaluated on probability of repayment.
    "How can you discriminate against loan applicants who cannot, by definition, become ethnically advantaged?"

    This rationale can be use across a wide spectrum of programs. Encourage lib heads to fracture when the fact that anti-discrimination, discriminates goes viral.

    Return to individual responsibility and good neighbors. Yep.