As to Starbuck's comment that two people can read one thing and get an entirely different interpretation, I will cite my own experience listening to the link to Levine you suggested should scare the living shit out of them who heard it. Attempting to listen PAST Levine's tone to Alinsky's scary words was not, for me, all that scary. Seemed like the same kind of deal as Art of War or The Prince, with a different agenda. Levine's interpretations, however, remind me of those records from the late 60s by preachers using rock lyrics talking about the downfall of America, or videos of the religious right from the 80s interpreting lyrics to songs and saying they mean things they don't: Levine was predisposed to interpret Rules for Radicals one way, and he did. My own ears failed to hear, for instance, exploitation and would hear, weirdly enough, patriotism instead. Then I would be told the words I just heard were exploitive. Always a weird experience.
If you're going to bash Salon.com for being biased please know you've just thrown most of your links into serious question, particularly said Levine piece. That's clearly an OPED and anyway, not presented as news, and, what, he's on the table for McCain as an inspirational icon but off the table for any kind of scrutiny?? Who the fuck does he think he is, Barack Obama???
That quote from Alinsky I pulled on the last page was taken from a 12 page interview with the man from this website:
http://www.progress.org/archive/alinsky.htm The link to the interview is on the bottom of this page.
You will note, apropos of nothing (not putting this into evidence your honor, just commenting) that the subtitle of the article is "Champion of the Nonsocialist Left". But I am sure this can just be written off as obfuscation and deceit on the part of them what put this site up in what is it, '03. As are, I assume, the numerous truly radical radio shows I catch bits of now and then on that progressive radio I work at, before my eyes glaze and I put a Stones CD on, talking about how Obama is, obviously, no socialist, and they're saying it as if it were, you know, a bad thing. They must be saying that to reassure their lighter left listeners that it's OK to like BO because he's, you know, not us, while at the same time nudging and winking to their, how you been saying . . . commrades [sic] (not to imply communism because you wouldn't) . . . in the know?