Higher Education: Creative Destruction?

Comment:  I came across this article Higher Education: Creative Destruction in 24Jun - 04July 2014 edition of 'The Economist'. I normally do not read The Economist for its outlook and truthfulness in reporting due to the publications strong bias. This article caught my eye after having written on Free-Market Capitalism.  After reading the article, I saw so much wrong with the fundamental logic purveyed, that I thought it may serve as a good example of the challenges facing U.S. Citizens. 

Download Higher Education: Creative Destruction   Morality of Capitalism Post

Higher Education: Creative Destruction?

The article opens with a glowing affirmation of welfarism as the unequivocated source of higher education's entitlement successes offering to the middle class what had previously been only for the elite. The article continues on to describe the Free-Market principle of ' Creative Destruction ' as a force operating in the remaking of the university. The article cites a variety of statistics, newer technologies, and market forces as evidence of the remaking. Specifically, the article cites Massive Open Online Courses, MOOCs, as the defining technology that will remake universities and upset the tenure system.  The MOOCs are still early in their development and research is ongoing to resolve long standing remote or distance training issues.  However, in general the MOOC offers classes for free and for a fee the student can transfer the course to an accredited status. The operative strategy of the MOOC is to reach as many people as possible training them in the values, knowledge, and perspectives of the course. 

The concept of 'Creative Destruction' is a Free-Market principle. Creative destruction replaces old technology with newer technology in service of humanity.  The article cites the older university system being replaced with MOOCs and provides value and benefits of the transition. However, the greater operative mechanism behind the transition is not human creativity in the production of wealth in a free market system but instead creative politics, institutional theft, and demeaning values of political ideologues.

The education system has been wrought with political ideologues for over the past 100 years.  Welfarism is touted as the champion of education but is nothing short of institutional theft which is rooted in political investments vice the production of free-market wealth. These political actors in the education system have introduced mechanisms for change that are not natural and not typical of the Free-Market system.  One such mechanism is Outcome Based Education which has the purpose of educating students according to planned outcomes. The misleading stated purpose is a systemic plan to prepare all students to meet high standards. The real purpose behind the misleading premise is a delivery system for new beliefs, values, and ways of thinking. The Father of Outcome Based Education is professor Benjamin Bloom stated, "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings, and actions of students" (Kjos, 1995, pp. 11-13).  In 1956 Professor Benjamin Bloom published  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in which he defined and classified learning behaviors into measurable categories that deny personality and the spirituality of a person stripping away individuality.  In doing so, Bloom changed the focus of education from a general education that benefited humanity to narrowly focused training based on behavioral psychologists' determination of what changes in thought, feelings, and actions are desirable and perhaps necessary for society as a whole. This led to Mastery Learning and Outcome Based Education (Coffman, 2012, p 203). 

The MOOC is a natural movement for political ideologues seeking globalization.  World-class standards seek new high standards for global challenges and a global economy. However, the new standards are low for literacy, comprehension, and factual learning but high standards for beliefs, attitudes, and group thinking to prepare human capital for the next century (Kjos, 1995, p. 11).   An upgraded version of Brave New Worldby Aldous Huxley is being implemented to include thinking skills based on feelings and experiences, not facts and reason (kjos, 1995, p. 29 ). The world has moved towards a high degree of confidence in unsupported personal beliefs; opinions are ok. For example, the method used for scholarly publication and citations by the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual, is deliberately designed to permit adaptations of the truth. The citation methods that the APA uses are paraphrasing in order to permit pliable and malleable adaptations of other scholarly works.

Evidence of the progress towards globalization and adaptation of the educational system is no more evident than this remark, "I have learned may things… children who are educated to respect other cultures, races, and religions generally grow into tolerant adults who raise tolerant children – Reema Sanghvi, grade 11 (Cummins and Sayers, 1997, p. 61).”   This is a political ideological view, a sound byte that sounds good, and not a critical assessment nor realistic as among religions there are intolerant paradoxes. For example, Islam's Surah 112:1-4 is direct denial of Christianity's ultimate revelation and well known verse, John 3:16.  Islam is directly denying Christianity holistically.  In another example, Islam's ultimate revelation is the Sword of Islam, Surah 9:5, states to kill the infidel. Christianity's counter point is Matthew 26:52, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.  In order for the Reema Sanghvi's remark to be upheld, the Muslim and the Christian must surrender their belief's to the secular belief rendering those beliefs mute to the secular belief. The issue is a struggle for dominance being taught in the schools not cooperation and tolerance.  The secular view is intolerant of others. "Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system [the secular system being installed] and to infect others with their discontents," Aldous Huxley (Kjos, 1995, p. 157).  Comment:  I received several remarks expressing concerns about this paragraph. I must stress that the Judeo-Christian theology is not built around one-verse localized context. The Judeo-Christian theology is built around an integrated message system that weaves its message through layers of complexity upon complexity. The principle involves internal consistency and is called the Entire Counsel of God. Therefore, any serious study of the Judeo-Christian theology goes well beyond any one-verse citation and may offer surprising nuggets of knowledge in ways not apparent without study.

Interesting enough, the American Forefather Thomas Jefferson commented on March 23, 1801, "The Christian Religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind," (Federer, 1996). Jefferson was referring to education and learning when remarking, "freest expansion of the human mind". A socialistic tax supported secular education today has become the topic of this Economist article that attempts to herald free-market concepts that are behind the Christian worldview and the socialistic system is rejecting.  Side note: Christian Doctrine promotes the free-market capitalism centering on the Lesson of Talents and stewardship in support of God's Plan for each individual. People are to be free to pursue their God-given talents. The Bible does discuss social justice as it discusses other bad things like theft and bad government leaders.  The early church, during times of crisis, pooled resources but this was short lived.  The Bible does not ordain social justice as legitimate.

The goal of a proper higher education is not designed to shape social systems or advocacy of political views. Higher education in support of free-market capitalism is designed to develop creative and critical thinking skills as well as sound reasoning abilities. Utilizing these kinds of skills people are able to envision and bring to market new technologies in service to humanity.  Creative destruction is only one component that is operative in a free-market.  Another operative component is innovation through which entirely new markets are possible. The MOOC is possible only because of the innovation of the World Wide Web.  Unfortunately, the MOOC may become a success for the wrong reasons and wrong purposes. Instead of promoting skills in support of free market capitalism, the student may be trained to think in terms of a labor job performing tasks after tasks with no end in sight. 

In conclusion, the authors of the article either have a fundamental misunderstanding of free-market capitalism and the operative mechanism of Creative Destruction or the authors are deliberately trying to mislead readers as they present this blend of socialist and capitalist mechanisms.  Closer to the truth is that the authors may be simply a product of the educational system that trained them in process obfuscation.  Secular thought sounds good but lacks critical assessment skills illustrating a myopic one sided view.  With a proper education, people can make better choices and reject bad things because they can see beyond the spin.

References: 

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual. (6th ed.). American Psychological Society: Washington D.C.

Coffman, M. (2012). Plundered: how progressive ideology is destroying america. Environmental Perspectives, Inc: ME

Cummins, J. and Sayers, D. (1997). Brave new schools: challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. St Martin Press. NY.

Economist, The (2014). The Economist: Higher Education, Creative Destruction. Vol 421 Nbr 8893. p. 11.

Federer, W. (1996). America's God and Country. Fame Publishing. ISBN: 1-880563-05-3.

Kjos, B. (1995). Brave new schools. Harvest House Publishers: OR. 

Morality of Capitalism: Part 1

American Democracy And The Judeo-Christian Bible Series

Figure 1: Morality of
Capitalism. Click to Buy

Comments: Many people do not think about capitalism's real contribution and value. Although, most hear more from capitalism's opponents who are quick to point to perceived flaws and problems in order to espouse their competitive system. The sound bytes echo over the airwaves as news media drive the spin home; corrupt corporations, greedy executives, and compensation deals that are out-of-this-world. In this post the morality of capitalism is explored. Originally, this was scripted for inclusion into a book being written several years ago and since that time this material was updated and concepts from the book "The Morality of Capitalism" were included. This book is not a single person's view but instead a set of essays from economists, marketers, political scientists, etc... from whom a broad perspective is offered.

Morality of Capitalism

Morality is a dialectic conversation within the mind of an individual as they search out the distinctiveness between right or wrong, good or evil, redeeming or demeaning, etc... Morality results in an internal character condition within the individual that reflects in their decision making. An individual's moral condition is impressed upon a system, institution, or process by management or the seat the individual may hold.  Moreover, a system, process, or institution may reflect a moral posture by design as well as by management.   For example, institutional theft is the confiscation or restriction of wealth instituted by those invested in political power, not invested in the production of wealth, and is considered to be the worse kind of theft. Thus, when organizing a new process, system, or institution care must be taken to ensure there is redeeming value. Leaders must engage in the dialectic conversation and examine the paradoxes carefully.

There is a moral paradox between selfishness and selflessness. When people are selfish disputes arise over exchanges deemed unfair and a resentment towards those who become rich. Similar dispute arise when both parties are selfless. In a hypothetical example, the buyer may not make a purchase if the price is too low for fear of taking advantage of the seller. However, the seller may not raise prices out of fear he may be gouging the buyer. The problem is a conflict of interest in either scenario and not a dilemma of rich vs poor cast often as privilege; the haves and have nots.  The solution to the problem is equal rights for everyone. In this way everyone has the opportunity to pursue wealth (Yushi, 2011). Success is another issue.

Regarding success, in free-markets some people become more wealthy than others and some loose their shirt. Markets do not generate equal outcomes nor do they require equal capitalization. Thus, a seeming paradox is setup between inequality and equality. Equality is necessary in order to trade, innovate, choose and reap rewards earned but the expectation of results generated is a risk.  People possess the equal rights to participate in the free-market but   equal results would be an economic absurdity even though that is upheld as a moral value by many people.  The scandal in equality thought is the gap between wealth of people in economically free societies and the wealth in unfree societies. Freeing people economically will create enormous wealth and close the gap.  Moreover, it would do so as a positive consequence of justice by eliminating unequal treatment of people in countries misruled by cronyism, statism, militarism, socialism, communism, corruption, and brute force. Economic freedom means an equal standard of justice, equal respect for rights of all to innovate, produce, and trade (Nokonov, 2011). Capitalism is a just alternative to these other systems. 

There needs to be a distinction between the forms of capitalism that are often equivocated as one by social intellectuals.  ' Crony ' capitalism is a system found in many nations and governments. In many nations, the aristocracy came about their wealth by birth or by alignment with the state and not through the means of production of wealth. Thus, these people, friends, relatives, and/or supporters inherently wield political power and are the ' Cronies '.  Being in such a privileged position they take it on themselves to reward some companies and harm others often using taxpayer money in the process for activities like bailouts, stimulus, pork barrel spending, and other activities. This is a corrupt system and should not be confused with Free-market capitalism refers to a system of production and exchange that is/has:

• Based on the Rule of Law and guiding discipline of profits and losses
• Equality of Rights for all
• Freedom to choose
• Freedom to trade
• Freedom to innovate
• The Right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, savings, and investments
• Freedom from Institutional Theft; confiscation or restriction of wealth by those invested in political power  rather than the production of wealth.

Free-market capitalism is often resented by the elite due to an inherent loss of status, power, and control. Free-market capitalism gives levity to the middle class and produces advances to human kind that do not have the magnitude of impact under other systems. 

Looking Deeper Into Free-Market Capitalism

So far, as we examined capitalism we considered the ' essence ' of Capitalism as a system that promotes equality, freedom, and opportunity.  We also considered the ' being ' of capitalism is a market where production and exchange occur.  Now we are going to look deeper at the ' virtue ' of capitalism or what good does capitalism bring about to humanity. We saw on a personal level that everyone was equal and that unjust systems have an alternative.  But what good does capitalism do for humanity?

Freedom is connected to capital economies as discussed in the post Biblical foundations for Freedom which are deemed to be natural and precede other economic forms (see notes) such as the collectivist views of socialism and the extreme form of communism. Capitalism is an economic system that combines cultural, spiritual, and ethical values in a mixture that puts human creativity to the service of humanity such that value is created as opposed to menially making stuff, things, or jobs (Palmer, 2011, pp. 1-3). Stuff, things, and jobs may be the outcome of creating value but making things serves no redeeming value in itself; every task is followed by another task as there is no foreseeable end or real purpose.  Politicians who do not understand capitalism create jobs rather than incentivize innovation. This is a very important distinction between creating value vice simply making things or creating jobs. Capitalist create value and new markets emerge causing the age old axiom, "Necessity is the mother of invention / innovation" to be an incorrect understanding. Nothing of value was ever necessitated as for example no one was sitting around complaining there needs to be a telephone.  The telephone was invented that caused the need that people saw value in having forming a new market.  The accurate depiction is "Invention / innovation is the mother of necessity" (Schwartz, 2004, p 13).  No one needed the smart phone until Apple / Steven Jobs created the value then lines were out the door for the smart phone. The innovation  disrupted the cellular market fundamentally changing the cell phone. Thus, the distinctive aspect of Capitalism is creativity in service of humanity which results in new markets and technologies that give levity to life in some way.  In the case of smart phones despite people playing games and texting, the device concentrated technologies of portable computing and telecommunications providing GPS maps, contact list consolidation, weather graphics, etc...  Of course, jobs were also created to manufacture, distribute, and sale the new phones. Creativity in service of humanity is a principle redeeming value of capitalism.

' Creative Destruction ' is a systemic action within capitalism that replaces the old with new  (McCloskey, 2011). The kerosene lantern was replaced by the light bulb and the light bulb is being replaced with the Light Emitting Diode (LED). Kerosene is a fossil fuel and these lanterns when knocked over cause fires. This was the cause of the Great Chicago Fire on October 8, 1871.  The incandescent light bulb is safer but burns large amounts of electricity. The LED bulb last longer and burns substantially less energy.  Thus, the service to humanity is a safer more energy efficient light source. Of course, there were jobs along the way created too but the advantage of capitalism is the value created in service to humanity and in this case was achieved through ' creative destruction '. 

Free-markets are considered natural and precede all other forms of economic systems. When free-market capitalism was instituted and protected by United States Government for the first time in human history and the middle class had dignity and liberty, a innovation explosion took place. There were all kinds of new devices, products, ideas, and society overcame many social ills. The poor had opportunity to move up,   women can assert their worth and races have equal opportunity. The redeeming value to humanity is an uplifting of dignity and liberty.  Overall,  Free-market capitalism has had the single most impact on humanity than any rhetoric, idea, political system or economic system (McCloskey, 2011). 

Notes: Free market capitalism is considered natural because when freed of all political, social, and human induced constraints, the market character persists.  The antithesis of free-market capitalism is social justice. I will look at social justice more closely in an upcoming post. 

BUY The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won't Tell You

References:

Kelley, D. (2011). The morality of capitalism; ayn rand and capitalism: the moral revolution. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 71-72.

McCloskey, D. (2011). The morality of capitalism;  liberty and dignity explain the modern world. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 27-30.

Nikonov, L. (2011). The morality of capitalism; the moral logic of equality and inequality in market society. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 55-62

Palmer, T. (2011). The morality of capitalism; introduction: the morality of capitalism. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 1-3. 

Schwartz, E. (2004). Juice: the creative Fuel that drives world-class inventors. Harvard Business Review Press: USA.   

Yushi, M. (2011). The morality of capitalism; the paradox of morality. Jameson Books, Inc:  IL.  pp. 1-3. 

Of Rebels and Radicals

Comment: This was organized rather quickly summarizing the Rules for Radicals in comparison to Rebels. Alinsky interestingly cited the forefathers quite often and compared his efforts to those of the founding brothers. As you read Alinsky's rules think about the Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun and Sun Tzu: The Art of War. I believe there are some parallels. Also do not forget that the likes of Margaret Sangar, John Dewey, Roger Baldwin, Earl Warren, Gloria Steinem, Ralph Nader, Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson, Billie Jean King, Bill Moyers, Bill Ayers, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Michael Moore are all progressives. Some were connected in some way with Saul Alinsky's work. Its kind of scary to think these people have little interest in a Constitutional America.

I am attaching to this blog post some additional documents for your review.

Hillary Clinton's College Paper on Alinsky

Alinsky's Book:  Rules for Radicals

Of Rebels and Radicals
Declaration of Independence verses Rules for Radicals

The American forefathers are often depicted as rebels due to their defiance of tyranny. They were open about their calling and cause. Rebels find themselves rooted in principles that they aspire towards and the American Forefathers aspired towards Judeo-Christian principles. Others see those principles as just and rally to the cause. In the case of the American forefathers, they wrote a Declaration of Independence stating their grievances and principles as guide posts for the rebellion:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (Jefferson, 1776).

Subversive actors are most often depicted as radicals who are extremist ideologues favoring fundamental and drastic changes in political, economic, institutions, habits of the mind, and social conditions within a society. The etymological meaning of radical is a medieval philosophical sensibility from the Latin word radicalis meaning "of or having roots”. Radicals are the political sense of “reformists" via a notion of drastic “change from the roots” or to fundamentally change away from the status quo. Radicals are considered subversives as they operate within a functioning society to undermine core values, principles, ethics, and virtues in order to replace them incrementally with their ideology. Radicals rarely have a large following and remain as a negligible portion of society but derive their influence from controversy and disruptive conduct. 

Figure 1: Saul Alinksy

Saul Alinsky, Figure 1, was a radical who sought to fundamentally change the United States and is thought of as the father of modern community organizing, the modus operandi for socialistic and communistic reforms. Community organization is different than the democratic processes of community leadership. Community organizers seek to create hostile circumstances from which they derive direct influence and power over decision-making bodies of governments, institutions, and corporations. The hostile means include but not limited to picketing, boycotts, sit-ins, petitions, and influencing electoral politics. These activities are not the end but instead a vehicle to a little known or hidden agenda. Community organizers are generally of three types; faith-based, coalition building, and grassroots. The Faith-based and grassroots efforts are built on the works of Saul Alinsky who was active from the 1930’s to 1972 before dying of a heart attack.

Alinsky was born in 1909 to Jewish Russian immigrant parents in Chicago, Illinois. During Alinsky’s formative years the United States was in the midst of the Progressive Movement which was circa 1890 to about the late 1920’s. Progressives were through out the political spectrum; Democrats and Republicans. As the Progressive movement ended, Alinsky began his activist life which concluded with the release of the book, Rules for Radicals, in 1971.

Figure 2: Rules for
 Radicals

Alinsky opens the book's, Figure 2, first chapter with a errant quote from the Bible citing “The life of man upon earth is a warfare…”; Job 7:1 (Alinsky, 1971, p. 4.). The correct citation follows; “Is there not a time of hard service for man on Earth? Are his days also like the days of a hired man?”; Job 7:1 NKJV, GB, NIV. Job likens human life to forced service in the army, the mercenary, or a hired man - a servant or slave. He feels that without meaning or purpose life for him is empty (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, p. 495.). Attempting to leverage theologies and faith in support of theory based ideological personal beliefs is not uncommon among those who have inconsequential faith themselves. Although, the errant citation indicates Alinsky’s disposition was that he was at war in which the pivotal cornerstone was ‘change’. Alinsky comments, "WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be (Alinsky, 1971, p. 4.).“ Alinsky builds a case in which the have-nots are justified in conducting a war against those who have. This has been the call, the mantra, of the socialistic and communistic movement throughout the 20th and 21st century.

In the book, "Rules For Radicals", Alinsky assesses the Ends and Means through a relativistic lens of the Post-Modernist that was strongly present during his adult life. The Post-modern movement questioned everything that was considered set in stone in either a deconstructive or a structuralist approach. Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser was a structuralist. Alinsky leans in this direction as well as evidenced by the relativistic, go with the flow Ends and Means rules:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue (Alinsky, 1971, p. 26.).
2. Judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment (Alinsky, 1971, p. 26.). In war the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky, 1971, p. 29.).
3. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point (Alinsky, 1971, p. 30.).
4. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa (Alinsky, 1971, p. 32.). The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means (Alinsky, 1971, p. 34).
5. General success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. (Alinsky, 1971, p. 34.).
6. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory (Alinsky, 1971, p. 34.).
7. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical (Alinsky, 1971, p. 35.).
8. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinksy, 1971, p. 36.).
9. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace (Alinsky, 1971, p. 45.).

The Ends and Means rules are cast in an amoral venue. The outcome is not pursued but instead a result of actions that disrupt, diminish, deter, and deny the status quo.  In classic form of information warfare (IW), ambiguity, innuendo, deceit, and truths are leveraged in order to diminish, deny, disrupt, destroy, deter, etc… their enemies morale and ability to fight back. The "Rules for Radicals" are a set of relativistic guide posts that leverage and reflect war fighting concepts.

1. Power is not what you have but what your enemy thinks you have (Alinsky, 1971, p. 127.).
2. Never go outside the experience of your people (Alinsky, 1971, p. 127.).
3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy (Alinsky, 1971, p. 127.).
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinksy, 1971, p. 128.).
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky, 1971, p 128.).
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128.).
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128.).
8. Keep the pressure on (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128).
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself (Alinsky, 1971, p. 128.).
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129.).
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129.). 
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129.).

By invoking the Rules for Radicals and the rules for Ends and Means, Alinsky was seeking specific outcomes layered behind the apparent.  Many folks jumped onto actions and efforts that seemed genuine on the surface but are ruses for the layered objectives. Alinsky alluded to some of these objectives; 1) The real action is in the enemy's reaction, 2) The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. 3) Tactics, like organization, like life, require that you move with the action (Alinsky, 1971, p. 136.). People power is the real objective; the proxies are simply a means to that end (Alinsky, 1971, p. 181). Then Alinky retorts citing Lincoln’s frustration with the Civil War, ”My policy is to have no policy.” as a supreme tactic (Alinsky, 1971, p. 166. ). The goal according to Alinsky is to be a quick moving target and keep the enemy reacting. In short, always be on the offensive.

Comment: These Rules for Radicals have become apparent and entrenched character actions of the left. 

"...Under careful scrutiny, progressive liberalism's distortion of the normal ability to reason can only be understood only as a product of psychopathy... The modern liberal mind, it's distorted perceptions and it's destructive agenda are the product of deeply disturbed personalities," Lyle Rossiter, Jr M.D.

NOTE: Many people try to vet urban legends and rumors through Snopes.com. Snopes was founded by Barbara and David Mikkelson. Snopes is considered to be a liberal propaganda machine by the right. Snopes has affiliation with the New York Times and the owners have appeared on almost solely left leaning media outlets.  In reading their postings, they often use left tactics, language, and take left leaning positions.  Is the Owner of Snopes.com a Liberal?  The Snopes.com site claims to be apolitical.  Snopes for all intents should be considered a mechanism to obfuscate truths; rule 8. 

For a deeper exploration into the Original Intent please see the series American Democracy and the Judeo-Christain Bible

References:

Alinksy, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: a practical primer for realistic radicals. Random House: New York

Jefferson, T. (1776), The charters of freedom: The united states declaration of independence. Resourced 14 February 2014 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

radical. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical

Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1999). King james: bible commentary. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville

Wess, R. (1987). Leadership secrets of Attila the hun. Warner Books: New York. Radicals