Saul Alinsky in his "Rules for Radicals" stated that one must so overload the system with have-nots that it would collapse making way for a remodel in the fashion of Marxism. Funny thing is the presumption that those who wrought such a disaster would be in a position to remake society in their image.
Watching the leaders of this leftist movement and then reading the posts by their most loyal sheep on these sites eases my mind greatly since the utter stupidity of "capsizing Guam" and the barely conscious mutterings of the trolls on here shows that no matter how well planned or executed, the incompetence of the players will destroy this movement before it gets far. The mewling whines of the leadership over the peaceful gathering of intelligent citizens shows that even the dimmest leftist sees the writing on the wall.
 Nevertheless one would have to be as dumb as a Democrat to become complacent now. And the least among us would not make that mistake. Yet the time to relax is far in the future. I encourage folks to channel their anger into voting in November and into activism at the source of this illness, namely the university system and it's curriculum of ignorance. (Detachment of government funding and a reversal of the student loan portion of this bill is a starting point). I wonder if a properly vetted and more traditional selection of information could possibly yield ideologues like our president or the radicals appointed by him. When I recall what I was taught in some of my classes I see a connection between the elected's rote regurgitation of nonsensical half truths, disinformation and outright lies and the syllabus of socialism that appears to dominate the education system's philosophy. It is surprising to me that the philosophy of marxism and collectivism is not held up as a model of failure given the obvious connection between this ideology and the failed governments of the last two centuries especially when you consider that more than 100 million deaths can be directly attributed to just a few leaders of different versions of this movement. Yet I remember discussions and debates that included these philosophies as equal in stature or held up as idyllic in opposition to, our republican government. The danger in this is evident given the increasingly rapid rise of the leftist movement in just the last 30 years during which the professorships of most colleges have been assumed by the graduates of the 60's radical movement. The insular nature of academia has protected their philosophical position from the reality of life in a productive economy and as such has allowed it to thrive without real world testing although the failures in other parts of the world should have been food for thought for these pedagogues. So, why do they insist on retaining this failed philosophy and even promote it?
Narcissism, egocentricity and the presumption that they can do it right and that they know better than society what is best for all. Their fundamental mistake and our hope for the future of this country is their misjudgement of the population's independence and self reliant nature. They have underestimated the independence of our citizens and the value we place on individual responsibility as well as the general feeling of discomfort in the thought that our government is less responsible than it's citizenry. Profligate spending of money that does not now nor will it be produced by society in the near future has a visceral effect that bubbles up into displeasure with our elected representation on a level they cannot imagine inside the bubble of insularity provided by Washington D.C.'s disconnection from the populace. While this discussion raises questions about the polarization and division of our citizenry it misses, like all other discussions I have heard about the state of our nation the ultimate and critical point we should be addressing.
The ultimate point it is necessary to iterate: We Do Not Have Enough Money,Property or even the Potential to obtain enough money To Pay for What the Government Already provides. Even when you leave health care out of the discussion we are looking at 100 Trillion (100,000,000,000,000) dollars in debts(Medicare,Social security) in a time frame in which our society can only produce 210 trillion dollars in total (at 2007 levels which we do not come near in 2010). So, nearly 50 percent of all the money we can possibly make needs to go to government to pay for stuff we already owe. That is without interest. Question:  how can government take 50% of All income and not hurt or critically damage our society? And how much can we burden our productive sector before it shrinks to a level that cannot provide even enough to just pay interest?
 Those questions are looming large before us especially given that a recent report from SSA indicated that they have already run out of money 7 years earlier than they predicted just 10 months ago!! And I do not see ANY elected officials addressing them except possibly Ron Paul who is nearly universally heaped with scorn among his congressional peerage and by the complacent media.
Does that sound like a crisis to you? I don't hear much about it anywhere yet I hope to come this fall. It needs to be addressed NOW before it cripples us or at least inserted in the discussion when we choose who to replace the current crop of ne'erdowells with at the voting booth.
As you can see from the above paragraphs this blog post started with an indictment of the prevailing handbook for foolishness adopted by the leftist movement and ended at what I believe is the final point of discussion that should dominate the political landscape for the next twenty years or until a solution is implemented but the problem is we are expected to tolerate among us followers of the very philosophy that has put us in this position to begin with. My point being, why should we listen to the left at all when they have proven beyond any doubt that anything they support or promote will have intolerable consequences IN the foreseeable future?
 Should we fear that their philosophy will prevail and change our landscape in years to come? Not likely given the increasingly desperate economic situation. One wonders what form "Change" will assume when it inevitably dominates the discourse in the next few election cycles. The British stoic resignation (or quiet desperation as Roger Waters put it) is unlikely and so is the violence of the French and Greek  reformists. As dissatisfaction turns to frustration and anger I haven't the foggiest idea. I do know that a failed ideology promulgated by a few uninformed personality cultists is Not going to wash with the productive portion of society regardless of the reach of their bullhorns in the media.

 The recent statement by the former director of the OMB under Obama showing the accounting tricks used and the recent report by a Heritage Foundation fellow as well as hard numbers obtainable from any reputable source(not Wiki) are the sources for the numbers provided above.

Happy New Year to all. May it bring us a stabilized economy and political inactivity protecting us from those that would "protect"us. May we NOT have universal health care or New/Square Deal programs. May it bring us together as a nation against foreign aggression(without the loss of lives or landmarks) and realign the world with us still on top. May we all lose weight that want to and gain weight those that need it. May we all stop smoking except our enemies' corpses(heh). May we save our money and live within our means so we have a dry place on a rainy day. May we tell our children these are NOT the good old days but they Are yet to come. May we count our blessings and be grateful and those without a God thank their lucky stars(or spaghetti monsters or tarots or trees or whatever) for their good fortune. God Bless All(even you atheists).

I wonder

   What kind of person would take a job in our government if EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF THEIR LIVES 24 HOURS A DAY WERE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY? No time off, no private moments at all.none(insert scatological visual here). I wonder if nepotism would even be possible. Or for that matter liberal thinking. What liberal can anyone name would not be completely put off by a "truman show" life? Hmmm. This might be an idea.Pillory by election.Would the apparent ambition to feather ones own nest be a motive any longer? I think we would end up with people possibly from both sides of the aisle who would truly and without qualification put the betterment of their country above all else.
As for the argument that there are things that need to be done in private...What?? I am not referring to appointed positions such as State dept. postings although the argument could be made that those appointed by the President should be subject to the same scrutiny.  Imagine if a person knew they could not accept a dinner from a lobbyist without a few people in his district knowing about it. I am not saying this would be entertaining or even watchable, I am saying it would motivate people to consider their actions in the context of scrutiny and perhaps try to do better in their dealings on the behalf of the constituency. Another argument against might be that good people would not take the job. Fine. Only altruists who are willing to give up their privacy entirely for their term of service would consider taking the job. This would cull those who have ulterior motives. And make a point about the value of our freedoms at the same time. Would you vote for a person willing to do this? I absolutely would. I will suggest this as an idea for a person I judge worthy that is considering running for office.