Real nice sound bite and insult, MWMI.

I read Alinsky throughout the years to see what he was about, what he advocated; and then again to see where one of his disciples, Hillary Clinton, was coming from. (See her Wellesley thesis, There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, which interestingly was kept a State secret during "the Clinton years".)

Hence, the difference between a reader of Alinsky and a student/disciple of Alinsky.

I wanted to refrain from using the trigger word "disciple", however if that gets my meaning across more clearly, then substitute it for "student."

I read Alinsky throughout the years to see what he was about, what he advocated; and then again to see where one of his disciples, Hillary Clinton, was coming from. (See her Wellesley thesis, There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, which interestingly was kept a State secret during "the Clinton years".)

Hence, the difference between a reader of Alinsky and a student/disciple of Alinsky.

Read my post again. I don't give anyone a pass for using or advocating Alinsky's ideology or methods. I believe Alinsky's methods to be destructive.

No. However, I believe there are many non-readers who do what their "leaders" or "organizers" tell them to do without knowing the origin of impetus or ideology behind it.

According to Alinsky, the difference is who has "power", which Alinsky claims is "the very essence of life." Who has the power, mdean? Obama will remind you that he does.

Yet, the only I see you holding accountable is the Left.

Read my post again. I don't give anyone a pass for using or advocating Alinsky's ideology or methods. I believe Alinsky's methods to be destructive.

Can one be just a casual reader when they are both using the book in practical application?

No.

There is no 'end justifies the means.'

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".

Yeah...good luck convincing Alinsky's disciples of that. We recently saw B.O., Pelosi, and Reid thumb their collective noses at that assertion.

Instead, the President is taking the high road. He's a better man than I am.

H. Clinton's thesis pointed out flaws in Alinsky's rules. She was not a supporter of his theories. One of her major disputes with his rules is this: his rules are written for those who are working for change from OUTSIDE the system;

... 1) find a wailing wall and feel sorry for themselves; 2) go crazy and start bombing, warning that would lose support and turn people to the right; or 3) learn the lessons, go back to their states, organize, build power, and be the delegates at the next convention.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their 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.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.