One of the best known participatory moments in Western theater would have to be contained in the play Peter Pan. Almost everyone knows of it, even people like me who have never seen the play. Peter’s fairy companion Tinkerbell, drinks poison meant for Pan and quickly begins to sicken and die. Peter exhorts the audience that Tink’ will only get better if people believe in fairies, and that they can show this belief by clapping as loudly as they can. Well I can only imagine what it must be like, to sit in the audience and hear all that clapping, to feel the energy as for a few moments at least disbelief is suspended. In a few moments perhaps cynicism will reassert itself, but for at least a moment people do believe.

Well a similar moment is at hand for the public option.

I know it’s hard to believe that there is even the remotest chance of a public option. It went from being a sure thing, to be so essential to any meaningful reform that Nancy Pelosi swore she would not allow any bill to go forward that did not have it. Then the Senate bill was finalized and the public option was removed to get the vote of Senator Palpatine, er I mean Lieberman. Then Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat and everyone assumed that health care reform was deader than… well old Teddy (What? Too soon?). Some people have talked about passing health care reform including a public option using reconciliation, while others insist that’s not possible. Either way the public option appeared to have swallowed a large amount of poison, with no one around willing to risk their political well being to save it. But recently something amazing has happened.

Over the past couple of days a small handful of Democratic Senators have signed their names to a letter expressing support for not only Health Care Reform, but also for a Public Option. From what I’ve been able to find there are at least eight Senators, possibly as many as fourteen. And here is where my inner cynic wakes up and starts pacing the cage of my better nature. “Well of course they’re supporting it now. They know health care reform is actually dead and so it’s safe to support it because they won’t have to actually buck their corporate masters. Hell probably none of them except maybe Franken even actually gives a rats ass.”  And I don’t blame that part of myself for thinking that. Let’s face it, this has been a long, slow, and dirty fight, and we’ve been betrayed at almost every turn, often by those we thought we could count on. Several times we’ve been betrayed not out of principle but out of naked ambition or greed. To believe that those senators are sincere requires an incredible act of faith. Kind of like believing in fairies.

*clap clap Clap Clap CLap CLap CLAp CLAp CLAP CLAP*

It’s time for every one of us to tell our inner cynic to sit down and be quiet for a while. It’s time for us to put a little faith in those selected to represent us. Come on everyone, clap with me. And once you are done clapping go to the telephone, or your computer, if you don’t know who your Representative or Senator is, then look them up. Then call them, email them, if they are one of the ones supporting the public option, thank them and tell them to keep it up.

Hmm. I see by the faces in the imaginary audience that some of you have questions. Alright, you first, the handsome man in the Green Lantern t-shirt, nice fashion choice by the way, “Well what if the person from my state is a Republican?”

Well in that case you call or email or heck do both, and explain to them that you want the public option, and that if they are truly a servant of the will of the people they will pay attention and listen carefully to what you are saying. And then remind them that Scott Brown’s victory wasn’t because the people of Massachusetts wanted a Republican over a Democrat, but because they were tired of political business as usual. And that obstructionism and politicking are the very acme of business as usual. Tell them that if Ted Kennedy’s seat is not safe, then neither is theirs.

Okay I see someone has their hand up. The curvy young lady with the long red hair, you have a question? “What do I do if my person is a Democrat but they don’t or won’t support the public option? I mean I shouldn’t threaten to vote Republican next election should I?”

Excellent questions. First of let me say that you should under no circumstances at any time threaten to vote Republican. Every time someone votes for a Republican candidate God kills a puppy. A really cute puppy. And I know you don’t want that on your conscience. Fortunately there is a solution that will allow you to offer a convincing threat but will not endanger any furry cuties. Simply explain to them that you want meaningful health care reform and that it must contain a public option, and that you want them to get it done by any means necessary. And if they won’t do that, well there are a lot of other Democrats who would just love a shot at serving the people of your state, and your coalition would be happy to give them that chance.

Alright I need to wrap up but I have time for one more question. You sir in the back? “Um yeah, thanks. Listen I get most of what you’re saying but…. what coalition?”

Well you see, in my observation these days politicians often only pay attention to people who are speaking on behalf of a larger group. So it seems like where they might ignore an individual citizen, they may actually pay attention to the spokes person for a coalition. Now I can hear all the other questions coming. Let me just say that if they are allowed to lie to us, I say it’s only fair if we lie to them. If you are asked what coalition, pick a name that is healthcare related and has the word Peoples or Citizens in it. Or if you prefer look for a coalition and join it, or just drop their name. Or if you are feeling really really ambitious form one.

Bottom line, don’t just sit there clapping like a nut job. Get up, get to the phone and call. Go to your computer and write. NOW! Don’t let George do it, you do it. Now come on what are you waiting for a limber young boy in green leaf shorts to ask you to? Don’t look at me for that one, at thirty six and two hundred fifty pounds I can assure you it ain’t gonna be me.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dianne Feinstein Signs On To Public Option Push (huffingtonpost.com)
• Miles J. Zaremski: The ‘Phoenix’ of Health Care Reform: The Public Option (huffingtonpost.com)
• Colorado Public Option Support: Poll Shows Majority Favor Public Health Insurance Option Is Winner In State (huffingtonpost.com)
• Public Option, Medicare Buy-In Could See Senate Floor Fights (huffingtonpost.com)
• Hoyer: House And Senate Discussing Reconciliation For Health Care (huffingtonpost.com)
• Democrats Look At Bypassing Senate Health Care Vote (huffingtonpost.com)
• John Kyl Calls Bipartisan Health Care Summit ‘Pointless’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tim Kaine Details Lessons Learned From Coakley Loss, Talks Mid-Term Election Strategy (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Michael J.W. Stickings: Public Option Comeback? Four Democrats We Can Believe In (huffingtonpost.com)
• Brown’s Victory Wasn’t A Referendum On National Health Reform Legislation (thinkprogress.org)
• the Excuse, Not the Cause: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• Democrats Won’t Rush to Pass Senate Bill (nytimes.com)
• House to take up one piece of health care reform (cnn.com)
• Remember the Public Option? Dem Senators Make One Last Push (blogs.abcnews.com)

One of the things I take great pride in is the fact that I do not base my opinions on hear say. When I find a piece of opinion journalism, I always go back to the source the piece is based on. Every once in a while I’m tempted to slack off a little. Especially when the opinion I’m reading is one I agree with.

This has been the case recently in regards to President Obama’s recently published interview with Business Week magazine. Like most people I’d heard the highlights. Especially his reply to the question about what CEO’s did he admire. And it would have been very tempting to have just ranted along with my fellow Progressives. But instead I chose to actually read the article for myself. And I came up with something much scarier than anything I’ve heard discussed about the interview so far.

First there is this quote on page four of the interview,

“After what we have gone through, surely nobody in the business community thinks that the status quo, in terms of how we regulate the financial system, is adequate. I can’t believe that there is anybody who is running a business out there who thinks that 60-to-1 leverage and folks making $100 million bonuses based on gambles on derivatives, takes comfort in that kind of system.”

Wow! You have no idea how glad I am that I was not drinking something the first time I read that. I’m pretty sure spitting Shasta Cola all over my Acer Aspire One Netbook, is not good for it’s long term health. Honestly? I had to re-read the paragraph several times before I could even fully accept that I had not misread it somehow. If Obama really believes what he’s said above, for even one attosecond, then he is official the most naive President this country has ever had. Because I can pretty much guarantee that there are plenty of people in the business community who are just fine with the status quo. Why? Because they got bailed out. Because they did not lose their jobs, or their homes, or anything else. In most cases they didn’t even lose their ridiculously huge bonuses. Personally I would tend to think that someone as savvy as Obama would grasp the simple fact that the reason that the too big to fail crowd accuses his administration of being “anti business” every time they talk about even the lightest of regulations, precisely because they are just fine with the status quo. In fact if many of them are against the status quo it’s because they want less regulation not more.

But then I read on shaking my head all the while and I came to a paragraph on the last page, page six that made me start to wonder if Obama really is the naive one in the mix,

“The last point I want to make with respect to just our policies on business, generally, and this goes to your first question about the perception of us being anti-business: This year I will sign legislation that will cut corporate taxes by about $70 billion—their tax obligations will be reduced by about 10% because of bonus depreciation and some other steps that we intend to take. This notion, somehow, that we have been putting this enormous tax burden on business is just not true. It is not supported by the facts.”

So let me see if I’m understanding this, because while reading comprehension is usually one of my strong suits, every once in a while I manage to miss something. The businesses who helped to nearly collapse our economy, the ones that got bailed out and received not one penalty of any kind, the ones who are paying their top executives millions of dollars in bonuses, while many of the rest of us have lost our jobs, or had our hours cut, these businesses need tax cuts? And they are getting these cuts in part because of “Bonus Depreciation”? Yet earlier in the article Obama says that small businesses need tax cuts more than large ones do to encourage them to hire more workers etc.? So what exactly is the point of giving these cuts to large businesses? Some of which are certain to be the same mega banks that helped cause this mess in the first place. The same banks about which in a recent speech in Ohio Obama had said,

“(T)here will be more fights in the days ahead. We’re having one of them right now – because I want to charge Wall Street a modest fee to repay taxpayers in full for saving their skin in a time of need. You can rest assured, we’re going to get that money – your money – back, each and every dime.”

So, you place a “modest” fee on them, say three percent, maybe five, which the banks will turn right around and recoup by passing it on to their customers, while at the same time giving them a ten percent tax reduction? And that’s assuming that the aforementioned modest fee even manages to make it into law. And further assuming that the ten percent doesn’t become fifteen or twenty.

Well for those who are willing to take the time and read the article all the way through, I’d say this definitely answers the question of who’s side Obama is on, the Working and Middle Class, or the Corporatocracy. But it leaves us with a much more troubling question to ponder. Is Obama naive? Or does he believe we all are. Neither answer is particularly reassuring.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This Article Originally Appeared At The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama To Freeze Pay Of Top White House, Administration Officials (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama Maintains Ambitious Rhetoric Despite Falling Short On Agenda (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jeffrey Sachs: Bankers’ Savvy Indeed (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama to divert TARP cash to small firms (msnbc.msn.com)
• Volcker Rule That Limits Banks’ Proprietary Trading Is Unlikely To Move Forward In Senate (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama Tax Targets Wall Street’s Top Earners (npr.org)
• Ben Berkon: President Obama to Address Staggering 68.5% Unemployment Rate Among People Named “John” (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama Wants To Reach Out to the “Corporate Community” (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Obama to Back Raising Small Business Loan Limits to $1 Million (businessweek.com)
• Obama promises more aid to small businesses (dailykos.com)
• Obama ‘Agnostic’ About Middle Class Tax Hikes (seekingalpha.com)
• Bruce Hartford: Refuse to Be Abused by Your Big Bank (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama: Bank Executives Making Millions Is Part of Free-Market System (seekingalpha.com)
• Huff TV: Arianna Says Obama’s Preference For Wall Street, Not Main Street Is Behind Public Anger (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama softens stance on Wall Street bonuses (guardian.co.uk)

I’m the first to admit that I’m more than a bit cynical. But sometimes I really do have to wonder about the things that our government does, or more precisely doesn’t do.

While I think it is great that our government mobilized to help Haitians after the earthquake, I join many Progressives in wondering why the operation seems to badly managed, why there seems to be more concern for “protecting” relief workers against a people who most in the international community agree are not really a threat. Also I think that one cannot blame many Progressives who in light of our troubled history as regards the tiny nation, wonder if the US will use the crisis as an excuse to establish a presence in Haiti and subtly or even not so subtly assume control.

There are other questions as well. Such as during all the back slapping and self praise why is it that practically no one in the main stream media mentions even in passing our long history of attempting through means indirect and direct, overt and covert to destabilize the country. From Jefferson’s refusal to recognize the country for fear it might give American held slaves ideas, to the recent actions by Bush’s Sr. and Jr. to essentially replace a legitimately elected leader with someone a little bit more, Pro US shall we say.

Meanwhile there are awful things going on within our own borders that really don’t seem to make the news. Such as the large number of Native American reservations that have been hit hard by these recent storms. Places that are without power, with clogged roads. Places that perennially have difficulties during the winter even in the mildest of winter seasons. But frankly the only person in a major media outlet that I’ve heard say word one is Keith Olbermann, on his show Countdown. It’s been thanks to his efforts along with Progressive media in spreading the word that donations have reached many of the Tribes well before FEMA managed to make their assessments and finally get the ball rolling. By the way FEMA what fucking assessments? Here’s an assessment. It’s cold and snowing and people need warmth, shelter, and food. Now get your asses in gear and count your beans, crunch your numbers once you’ve gotten a start on helping people.

Of course that is the American way it seems. We’re usually really good at getting aid to people in other countries, not so great at getting aid to our own people.

If I was really cynical I might think it’s because we’ve already subjugated the people within our borders, while in other countries we’re still working on it.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Countdown’ Viewers Raise $185,000 For South Dakota Ice Storm Victims (huffingtonpost.com)
• Rep. Earl Blumenauer: Haiti One Month Later (huffingtonpost.com)
• What’s behind Olbermann’s new focus? (trueslant.com)

Unless you have been hiding in a cave looking for Osama, you are no doubt well aware that last week former President Bill Clinton experienced some discomfort which led to him contacting his doctor, they checked him out, determined that he needed a couple of stents put in to supplement the bypass surgery he had a few years ago. He was in and out, and quickly on the road to recovery. At one point I was listening to a pod cast of the NBC Nightly news and some well meaning doctor is talking about how people should contact their doctor if they feel they are having a problem, even if it’s just a mild discomfort, especially if they’ve had a major procedure in the past. As I was walking to check the mail listening to this, I snorted and rolled my eyes thinking to myself, it must be nice to be a Clinton, and be able to just get seen whenever you perceive a need.

Then a couple of days later something that had been niggling in the back of my brain came to the forefront. I can’t say I’m surprised that people haven’t spotted it. It is a particular challenge to spot the absence of something, and I’m the first to admit that even I don’t always catch these things. But suddenly there it was staring me in the face big as life.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, really don’t care very much at all about Health Care Reform.

You see here’s the thing, both of the Clintons are, I think it is safe to say savvy and experienced politicians. And one of the hallmarks of such people is their ability to tie anything into current politics, When It Suits Their Purpose. To be sure the Right do it. They’ve taken Clinton’s procedure and turned it into an opening to start the ZGOP “Boogety Boogety Boo” about how if there was Health Care Reform, then people would be denied simple potentially life saving procedures etc. But have those usually savvy operators the Clintons said one word? Nope. And wouldn’t this be the perfect time to talk about how lucky they were that they were able to detect and correct this problem early? And about how there are millions of Americans who because they do not have health care insurance, nor qualify for programs designed for low income Americans, would not have access to such simple preventative solutions.

They could have used this situation to have drawn a clear picture of how real Health Care Reform could benefit vast numbers. But they didn’t. Why? Because frankly it’s not in their best interests to. There are all kinds of specific reasons why they’ve kept mum. Maybe Hillary is planning on challenging Obama in the Democratic primary to try and get the 2012 nomination. Or perhaps since neither of them are directly involved in domestic policy making, they don’t think it’s worth bothering because if health care reform does happen, there’s no real glory to be had, and if it fails there is much stigma to be attached to their names for supporting it, and they still bear the mark of failing so spectacularly during the nineties.

So the Clintons are probably doing what most people in Washington do these days. Putting their own political well being ahead of any thought of the well being of the American people. I mean hey why not, it’s not like they’ll ever have to choose between keeping the heat on and going to the doctor. It’s not as if they’ll have to decide between putting food on the table or buying medicine. As I’ve said before, it must be nice to be a Clinton.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Right-wing media use Clinton’s heart procedure to stoke fears about health care reform (mediamatters.org)
• Obama’s Mistakes on Health-Care Reform (newsweek.com)
• Bill Clinton Returns Home After Heart Procedure (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama Willing To Compromise On Health Care Reform (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lee Stranahan: Hillary ‘12! How The Clintons Could Get The Last Laugh On Obama (huffingtonpost.com)
• Calling Dr. Clinton (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)
• Krugman: GOP’s Concern That Health Care Bill Would Cut Medicare The Height Of Hypocrisy (alan.com)
• Clinton-era health aides push to save Obama’s plan (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Fox Politicizes Clinton’s Heart Surgery, Suggests He Wouldn’t Have Received Treatment Under Health Reform (thinkprogress.org)
• Clinton Health Reform Veterans Helping With Obama Overhaul Effort (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Annals of Bipartisanship (talkingpointsmemo.com)

Welcome back to The One About Book Club. As I said yesterday, we will be taking a look at the book The 48 Laws Of Power. Yesterday I gave a brief over view of the book. What it’s about, it’s publishing history, and my own personal history with it. So without further dippity doo let’s delve into the first two laws.

Law One: Never Outshine the Master

“Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please or impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite – inspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.”

This law is very difficult for Progressives to accept gracefully. Don’t deny it, we all wish we lived in a true meritocracy, where ones gifts would be recognized and rewarded without having to resort to politics. But because things don’t work that way, and because no matter how much we may want to, and try to transcend our lesser nature, we are still human, with everything light and dark that entails.

In the example of Transgression Of The Law that Greene uses, he paints a perfect example of the very human kind of trap that anyone could fall into. Nicolas Fouquet, finance minister to Louis XIV, built a lavish palace, and then threw an even more lavish party in celebration of his king. Louis however saw it as a usurpation of the spotlight that rightfully belonged to him and destroyed Fouquet because of it. One of the things that many Progressives lose sight of is that intentions do not matter anywhere nearly as much as results. You might have the best of intentions with an action. But if they disturb the wrong people, in the wrong way, then your intentions don’t matter one whit.

This is especially true when it comes to shaping public opinion. In the olden days, in some ways it was easier, power was concentrated in the hands of a few, and one generally knew whom to work with or against. The King, an influential mistress, one of his chief ministers perhaps. But today in a Democracy, there are not only politicians, and captains of industry to contend with but there are ordinary people as well. If they feel you think yourself better than them, they will almost always set their feet against anything you want. No matter how much it might be in their best interests. We see this time and time again, as Conservatives adopt an “Aw shucks I’m just one of the folks” air, and manage to lead people down a primrose path, while Progressives are so often seen as feeling themselves better than the people we are trying to help. And it keeps killing us.

Progressives are simply going to have to learn how to craft an image and explain our desires in ways that resonate with the masses. If we can’t then we are doomed.

The Reversal Of The Law:

The flip side is that you hope to please everyone, so you must figure out what groups, what people are most important to deal with gingerly and which ones can be dealt with from strength. This goes right back to Obama’s constant attempts to achieve “Bi-Partisanship” with the ZGOP that knows they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being obstructionist. Much of what the Democrats have suffered in this last year is an example of why Progressives MUST be willing to play hard and dirty when the situation calls for it. Not only with our enemies, but even internally, with our own members. Priorities must be established and those who would work at cross purposes to those priorities must at least be marginalized, and if needs be destroyed. Ultimately if we are to have any hope of victory we must get over our squeamishness, and figure out how much we are willing to compromise with our loftier principles. Obviously we don’t want to compromise everything, or else we’ll be no better than our enemies, but at the same time if we refuse to compromise enough than we will be impotent.

Law Two: Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies

“Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove. In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.”

This is a law we have seen the truth of lately in the healthcare wars. Liberals assumed that all Democrats would be on their side, and likewise so did Progressives. But some of Progressivism’s more influential members broke ranks and spoke out against the current healthcare reform bills and stated baldly that they should be killed.

One of the best way to use our larger enemies may already be going on. After all in the minds of most people the Republicans and Conservatives appear to be anti citizen and pro corporation. The best thing we can do might be to simply work quietly on Progressive legislation, ready it for introduction and then pick our moment. If we choose carefully we can look like saviors once people have finally had enough of living in near poverty while Corporations are given more and more power and freedom. We are coming close to our moment. But we must be vigilant and make certain we don’t miss it.

The Reversal Of The Law:

This is a tricky one, especially for Progressives, because while it is easy to make use of external enemies, we must be carefully internally, not to be viewed as rejecting our own, simply for political expediency. Times when we are handed a perfect situation like the kill the bill cadre we can make excellent use of, essentially making an example of those who would act against the best interests of working and middle class people. But we are best served to save such demonization for times when a person or group has of their own volition broken with our agenda. The goal is to be perceived as the more moral and humane of political groups. This is always why allying with our enemies at certain key times can help our image. Right now for example is a great time to embrace those in Conservatism who are not anti homosexual. Then later once we achieve that goal we can get back to using them as the symbols of how out of touch Conservatives are etc. Bottom line we must keep our goals in mind as we craft our rhetoric. While obviously there cannot be total fluidity, at the same time there absolutely must not be total rigidity either.

Well that’s it for this entry. Feel free to leave a comment with your own ideas about how to best make use of Laws 1 and 2 and come back next weekend when I will be looking at Laws 3 and 4, and Laws 5 and 6.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Medicare Cuts Hypocrisy: GOP Protesting Obama’s Spending Cuts While Advocating Much Larger Medicare Cuts (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama’s Sham Bipartisan Show (thedailybeast.com)
• Maegan Carberry: The 2020 Project: Can Millennials Dismantle Political Parties? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Cenk Uygur: Bipartisanship is a Scam (huffingtonpost.com)
• Peter A. Ubel: Megan Fox’s Belly Button: The Key to Understanding Politics? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Texas Republicans Raking In Stimulus After Opposing It (huffingtonpost.com)

Welcome to the inaugural edition of The One About Book Club. The purpose of this feature is to introduce people to books and sometimes works in other media that I feel have something important to say to Progressives. The structure is very simple. The first post will be an introduction to the book. Subsequent postings will cover one or more chapters. I will offer a summary of the chapters, and my thoughts on the idea presented therein. I will try to offer enough information so that buying the book is not absolutely necessary, however it is highly advisable that you do so, as obviously a mere synopsis is not really going to provide you with all the nuance and detail.

Our first book is The 48 Laws Of Power.

The Books History:

Written by Robert Greene, it was originally published in hard cover in 1998 by Viking Press. It was then published by Penguin in a trade paperback format in 2000, and then an abridged version was published 2002. It is also available unabridged on audio CD.

My History With The Book:

I am one of those people who is constantly “surfing” book stores, and libraries. Wandering around, pulling titles off of shelves with interesting titles, and sitting and skimming through, trying to get a sense of whether or not I’d be interested in reading the whole thing. I found The 48 Laws Of Power, in the self help section of Barnes and Noble last year while I was still living in the Morgantown West Virginia area. I was familiar, not with it, but with the well known works the author draws on, and so was immediately intrigued. I picked up a copy and read it from cover to cover in a matter of days. I found it’s format, and it’s content absolutely riveting. Ever since I bought it, it has been an indispensable guide to trying to understand those who tread the corridors of power. While I am not amoral enough to follow all of it’s advices, I am smart enough to know that just because I might not be willing to sell myself and others out for power, does not mean that there are not others who are more than willing. I find this book an excellent tool in understanding them and coming up with strategies to combat them.

What The 48 Laws Of Power Is About:

The book is essentially a fusion and distillation of three primary sources with a great number of supplementary sources drawn on as needed. The primary sources are,


The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
The Art Of Worldly Wisdom by Baltasar Gracián and
The Art Of War by Sun Tzu

However as I said there are numerous supplementary sources, too many to be listed in this article.

What Greene has done is take those works and distilled their essences down to create 48 essential laws for gaining power, keeping power, and wielding power. He then offers examples of those who either followed the law and succeeded, or failed to follow it and failed. Then there is a catchy summary at the end.

But that alone would only make this book mildly interesting. What makes it so incredible and honestly fun to read, is that Greene uses multiple example relevant to the Law at hand from history, fiction, and folk lore. In the margins in red are anecdotes of all kinds that are as informative and illustrative as the main text.

The Chapters Of The 48 Laws Of Power:

In this book each law is a chapter unto itself which is perfect for easy reference, and will work quite nicely for our purposes as well. The chapters (hereafter to be referred to as they are in the books as Laws) are….

* Law 1 Never Outshine the Master
* Law 2 Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies
* Law 3 Conceal your Intentions
* Law 4 Always Say Less than Necessary
* Law 5 So Much Depends on Reputation. Guard it with your Life
* Law 6 Court Attention at all Cost
* Law 7 Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit
* Law 8 Make other People come to you, use Bait if Necessary
* Law 9 Win through your Actions, Never through Argument
* Law 10 Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky
* Law 11 Learn to Keep People Dependent on You
* Law 12 Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim
* Law 13 When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude
* Law 14 Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy
* Law 15 Crush your Enemy Totally
* Law 16 Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor
* Law 17 Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
* Law 18 Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself. Isolation is Dangerous
* Law 19 Know Who You’re Dealing with. Do Not Offend the Wrong Person
* Law 20 Do Not Commit to Anyone
* Law 21 Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker. Seem Dumber than your Mark
* Law 22 Use the Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness into Power
* Law 23 Concentrate Your Forces
* Law 24 Play the Perfect Courtier
* Law 25 Re-Create Yourself
* Law 26 Keep Your Hands Clean
* Law 27 Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following
* Law 28 Enter Action with Boldness
* Law 29 Plan All the Way to the End
* Law 30 Make your Accomplishments Seem Effortless
* Law 31 Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal
* Law 32 Play to People’s Fantasies
* Law 33 Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew
* Law 34 Be Royal in your Own Fashion: Act like a King to be treated like one
* Law 35 Master the Art of Timing
* Law 36 Disdain Things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best Revenge
* Law 37 Create Compelling Spectacles
* Law 38 Think as you like but Behave like others
* Law 39 Stir up Waters to Catch Fish
* Law 40 Despise the Free Lunch
* Law 41 Avoid Stepping into a Great Man’s Shoes
* Law 42 Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will Scatter
* Law 43 Work on the Hearts and Minds of Others
* Law 44 Disarm and Infuriate with the Mirror Effect
* Law 45 Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once
* Law 46 Never appear Perfect
* Law 47 Do not go Past the Mark you Aimed for; In Victory, Learn when to Stop
* Law 48 Assume Formlessness

Alright, that gives you a bit of an over view of the book. Tomorrow I will be discussing the first two laws. I look forward to sharing this book with you and hearing your thoughts on it.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Related articles by Zemanta

• The One About The Start Of A New Feature: The One About Book Club! (the-one-about.blogspot.com)
• Lee Stranahan: “33 Strategies Of War” Author On Obama’s Tactical Hell (huffingtonpost.com)
• Robert Greene: Down By The Laws (current.com)

A reply by Conservative blogger The Bobo to The One About Once We “Take The Power Back” From Government What Do We Do With It?, got me thinking.

“Actually, what the majority of us real conservatives mean is that we want the government limited again back it its constitutional limits and give the power back to the states. The 10th Amendment is very clear that all powers not specifically granted to Congress in the constitution fall to the states or the people of the states. The power belongs locally – not federally. All these large governmental programs (Medicare, SCHIP, unemployment, welfare, education, health insurance, etc etc) are unconstitutional. Under the 10th Amendment – the people of the states decide what programs they want and whether or not to fund them. The way our government currently works – the federal government forces the states to take these programs on. Our constitution has been turned upside down. So – when we conservatives say we need to take back the power – we mean – follow the constitution.”

The above statement is intelligent and concise. It also gives the clearest foundation for why Progressives have in the past, and continue, to reject Conservatism as a philosophy.

Here’s the thing, the idea of an incredibly limited central aka Federal government was a grand idea in the late 17, early 1800’s. But it was in idea that even then was open for debate. How limited, what is necessary for the Federal level to regulate, what was best left to the states, etc. Prior to the twentieth century however, much of the debate was academic. Towns were largely worlds unto themselves. It was perfectly possible for someone to be born, live, and die within the boundaries of the town where they were born without ever having to go any further than the next town over at most. In those days when people existed in such isolation it made sense to give the states most of the power. In addition the idea of people in one area having plenty while people in another area had little was not viewed in the same way as it is viewed by many people today. It’s not that people were hard hearted, it’s just that they really were not as aware of the needs of people in far away places, and even if they were there was not a lot that could be done about it. Also the nature of business and agriculture was very different. A more common sense approach was taken regarding the things that were essential to life. Food was grown locally and if there was surplus it was traded. But the idea of taking everything grown and exporting it would have been considered ludicrous. Ultimately the interpretation of the Constitution back then was sensible in context of the times.

Times however have changed. Interstate commerce, travel, and communication have made this into a truly united states. We are no longer isolated in the way we once were. In light of these fundamental truths I do not see how we can continue to use an eighteenth century interpretation of the Constitution when we are a decade into the twenty first. Cities and states are no longer self sufficient. Specialization in agriculture has become the norm. Because of this, the individual states have become increasingly interdependent. But beyond the practical level, there is a moral level to consider. What justification is there for allowing people in one state to go without food, and shelter, and health care just because of where they happen to live? The idea that some should suffer because of a happenstance of birth, while others enjoy plenty, even more than they need is frankly offensive. Even more offensive are those who wish to invoke some kind of “natural” order. As if we were still the simple creatures from which we’d evolved. Huddled in caves, shivering at the sound of a wild beast in the night. The moment we tamed the first animal, crafted the first tool, first put our hand on a plow, we made a bold statement. We refused to be wholly subject to the dictates of nature. We asserted that we would craft our own destiny. To now hide behind God, fate, nature, or the invisible hand of the market is a supreme act of moral cowardice. When a mother and her children huddle together in an alley to keep warm, it is not nature that is to blame. When people have to choose between medical care, and food, the fault lies not with God. It is we who must shoulder this responsibility. We who must see to the well being of our fellows.

There are those who would proclaim that such thinking is over simplification. That most people do not wish to let their fellow beings suffer deprivation and want. But that charity is the solution. People giving of their own free will. That’s a fine sounding idea. And to be certain there is nothing wrong with voluntary charitable giving. The problem however is that even the most philanthropic of souls in times of plenty may become more miserly than Scrooge when they feel that the style of living to which they have become accustomed is threatened. To leave people to depend upon the largesse of others for their well being is to leave them in a constant state of fear and agitation, that the moment there is a downturn, be it minor or significant, in the fortunes of their benefactors, that they will be left to fend for themselves. This is why it is essential to have an unassailable safety net. A means to make certain that no matter what might come, no one suffers hunger, homelessness, or sickness. The best means, perhaps the only, to accomplish that is through the government. But even if there are other better solutions, they must be solutions born of the times in which we live. To continue to insist on applying 18th century solutions to the challenges of the 21st can lead to nothing but needless suffering for countless numbers.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Congressionally Mandated Health Insurance Constitutional? (groundreport.com)
• Legal experts debunk conservative media’s claim that health reform proposals are unconstitutional (mediamatters.org)
• Ilene Angel: The End of America as We Knew It (huffingtonpost.com)
• William Fisher: The Silence of the Sheep (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lawrence Lessig: Two Questions about the Path to a Constitutional Amendment (huffingtonpost.com)
• ‘Tenther’ movement aims to put power back in states’ hands (cnn.com)
• Tony Blankley: Repeal the 17th Amendment (huffingtonpost.com)

“No Government Run Healthcare!” This is a constant refrain from the Right. And it’s catchy. At the same time most people in the working and middle classes aren’t exactly in love with the Insurance companies, nor with the Hospitalization Corporations that are frankly “non profit” in name only. Yet some seem to be following the Right as if they were the children of Hamlin. The fundamental problem is that many people either do not see, or refuse to acknowledge a very fundamental truth.

What Is That Truth?

There are only three viable options when it comes to healthcare. Period. Seriously just three. Three that can be accomplished without having to turn the clock back a good fifty plus years on the way American society operates. What are the three options? They are,

That’s it. Anyone who says “No government healthcare.” and also rails against the excesses of corporate run healthcare, is lying, either to their self, or to you. Because sadly the olden days, when hospitals and doctors were an organic part of the community they served, and your local hospital and clinic was most likely locally owned, when people dealt with one another on a more direct basis, those days are long gone. The population has gotten too large, the technology has gotten too sophisticated, and the system has gotten too complex, for there to be any realistic hope of going back to that.

So the next time you hear someone proclaim “No Government Run Healthcare!” Force the issue. Make them either admit that they think corporations should run the whole show, or that government is going to have to be involved at some level to some degree. It’s time we started spreading the truth and making our Brothers and Sisters free.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Spotty Track Record Found at Long-Term Care Hospitals (propublica.org)
• Public Health Care Spending To EXCEED Private Insurance Spending In 2011 (huffingtonpost.com)
• We Already Have Health-Care Rationing in U.S. (newsweek.com)
• Jacob M. Appel: Pope vs. Doctors: How New Vatican Orthodoxy Undermines Medical Ethics and Imperils Your Health (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jim Jaffe: Can We Fix Health Plans? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Ellen R. Shaffer: Passing Health Reform Now: Why and How (huffingtonpost.com)
• The One About The Four Main Reasons Why Most People Don’t Embrace Progressivism. (thepoliticus.com)
• Healthcare Businesswomen’s Association (HBA) Gathers Industry Leaders to Discuss the Changing Landscape of Healthcare (eon.businesswire.com)
• WellPoint Rate Hike: Insurer Blames ‘Demographics’ For 39% Premium Increase In California (huffingtonpost.com)
• Former hospital CEOs say simple reform is needed (actionforbetterhealthcare.com)
• Simple Health-Care Fix Fizzles Out (online.wsj.com)
• Mass. Governor Wants to Cap Hospital, Doctor Rate Increases (blogs.wsj.com)

One of the things that I constantly come across looking at Conservative and Libertarian blogs is a call to “Take our power back from the government!” Which sounds so enticing and seems like such a great idea. The problem though is that it’s not an idea. Not really. It’s more like a notion. And it’s a notion that is based on a false premise.

The fundamental problem with the call to take power back from the government is that strictly speaking the government is supposed to be us, and we are supposed to be the government. You know “of the people, by the people, and for the people….”? So strictly speaking what is being called for is to take the power back from ourselves?

Now I’m not naive, I am more than well aware of how twisted in many ways things have become, and I do understand all kidding and semanticism aside what the clearer heads in genuine Libertarianism mean. They mean that Government has largely become of the career politicians, by the career politicians and for the special interests. And they are not entirely wrong. However having said that I still can’t support their call to “Take It Back” simply because as I said before, what they are presenting isn’t an idea, but more of a notion. What they are failing to suggest, is to whom exactly should we give this power if it was taken back. Or in the case of Conservatives they have ideas, but they are frankly horrifying ideas.

Now when a Conservative talks about taking power back from the government, he is usually being more than a touch disingenuous. Usually most Conservatives actually mean that power should be taken from Liberals and Progressives, and given to Conservatives. You know, the people who as group think that making a woman bring a child into poverty against her will is just fine, but giving that woman government money to feed that child and herself is one of the Devil’s core plans to destroy America. Or they mean that power should be taken from the Government and given to the Corporations. You know ones like Wal-Mart, Aetna, IBM, Verizon and Microsoft who made profits yet still think that in time of severe recession it’s just dandy to go ahead and lay people off.

To take power from Liberal Democrats and hand it to Conservative Republicans is a bit like leaving the guy who tends to yell when he’s mad to go back to the guy who likes to beat you because his dinner isn’t on the table when he thinks it should be.

Such thinking is to put it simply ridiculous.

To put it simply? Hell NO! Believe me we’ve got problems and reigning in government is one very necessary step towards trying to solve those problems. But taking power from the puppets on The Left and giving it to the puppets on The Right is no solution. There are however some things that we must do, some we should do, and a few we should at least think about doing. What follows are a few suggestions for ways to actually take the power back from the career politicians and return it truly to the people.

1: End The Possibility Of Politics As A Life Long Career.

When he died everyone got all gooey about Senator Ted Kennedy. Well you know what he may have been a fine human being but he was a perfect example of one of the things that is most wrong with American politics. I’m not sure what the Founders were thinking in setting up such a disparity between the terms of The House Of Representatives and The Senate, but that is the first thing that needs addressed. Personally I would prefer to see the terms equalized so that each member served a four year term. Staggered obviously so that you didn’t have everyone up for election all at once. But once all was said and done, four years. And then term limits put in place so that no one could serve more than three terms in either body. That would give an individual twelve years potentially. Or if that seemed to limiting it could be modified in one of two ways, either make it so that no one could serve more than three consecutive terms, or that no one could serve more than three terms in any one body. Meaning that potentially one could run for The House, serve three terms, and then run for Senate and also serve three terms. That would give a person Twenty Four Years, in which to accomplish something positive. Frankly after 24 years in Federal office, it is more than time to step aside and let someone else have a shot. Don’t believe the careerists looking to protect their jobs who wring their hands every time term limits are mentioned. Make them sensible, and they can and will work.

2: In The Age Of High Speed Communication There Is No Reason Why Citizens Can’t Be Directly Involved In Our Government.

This speaks to a number of things. First of all the Electoral College needs to go. It was outdated fifty years ago, and now it has all the relevance of Morse Code. But why stop there? Imagine if passing laws was changed to include the citizens. We’d still elect Representatives and Senators, but now their jobs would be to take care of the mechanics of crafting legislation and then once the final bill was crafted having gone through both Houses it would be presented to the citizens via the internet, and then people would have a certain amount of time within which to vote. And to further simplify the process things would pass or fail on a simple majority. That way things are not hamstrung by voter apathy. If one hundred registered voters using their voting code vote, by phone, mail, or online and 75 vote yes and 25 vote no, then the bill is approved. Is it perfect? Of course not. But here is a fact of life that we are going to have to accept sooner or later, All Methods Of Governance Are Subject To Manipulation! Obviously one wishes to find methods that are little manipulable as possible. But to reject something that is eminently doable in this day and age simply because there might be some security challenges is to put it simply ridiculous.

3: Corporations Must Be Stripped Of Their False Personhood, And Be Given One Of Two Choices.

Look frankly I don’t trust large corporations. I never have and I never will. However while “Empowering The Workers” and allowing them total control over all corporations, is like many things a fine idea in theory, I question how well it would work writ large. That however does not mean that I for one instant believe that if you just let Corporations go at it in the unrestricted free market that everything will balance out and everyone’s best interests will be served. There are some things that must be done, period end of discussion. Ending Corporate Personhood is one of those things. They are not people period. They are a group of people, not a singular entity. Further more there are some regulations that are needed to establish minimum standards regarding both employee well being and public well being. So things like the minimum wage, or standards regarding how much rat droppings can be in a can of chili? Those are going nowhere. However outside of those, I can appreciate that there are some companies who genuinely believe that they are both competitive and responsible and don’t need heavy government regulation. To which I say, okay fine. So if you think that you should be able to operate without undue regulation fine, you get to operate on the Minimums plan. What that means is that you operate under the least amount of Government interference possible, But you also benefit from the least amount of Government assistance both direct and indirect possible. And this is a decision that has to be made either at the beginning of your existence or when you are given an opportunity at regular intervals of say ten years to revisit your decision and change your mind if you wish. However if you are on the minimum track then you get the minimum in the way of tax breaks and further more if you have a bad turn you do not get emergency Federal monies. In short, no bailout for you.

However you can choose the other track. Tighter regulation, closer scrutiny, but greater access to Federal funds to help stimulate your business growth.

Now I know some people are looking at this and saying, “But what’s to keep a business from taking the Federal track for ten years and then once they feel they have their business on a solid footing switching to the independent track?” To which I say nothing is. But I’m okay with that. Because once they switch from the Federal Assistance Track, to the Independence Track they are more or less on their own until the next ten years passes and they can switch back if they’d like. Again it’s not perfect, but at least it would curtail the current hypocrisy of businesses attempting to work against any kind of legislation that would regulate them, while at the same time seeking huge tax breaks, and in the event of their failure huge bail outs. Bottom line no more straddling the fence, no more trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Now I know that I’ve only offered three suggestions, but honestly I could probably write for pages and pages. Would all of my ideas be brilliant? Of course not. But that’s not the point. The point is let’s start thinking and let’s start talking. If reasonable people can agree that our Government today is not as effective as it could be, and not as responsible to the people as it should be, we need for that agreement to be the starting point for our discussion not the ending point. Solutions are desperately needed but they cannot be the old Left Right Left Right dodge. That hasn’t worked, that isn’t working, that won’t work.

My Challenge To You!

So tell me, what are your ideas? How would you go about transforming government in ways that make it more effective and more responsible?

I look forward to hearing your ideas.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This Article Originally Appeared At The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Elizabeth Warren: Time For Wall Street CEOs To ‘Earn Back’ America’s Trust (huffingtonpost.com)
• Arianna Huffington: The Tea Party 600: Canaries in the Political Coal Mine? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bob Burnett: The Conservative War on Democracy: The Puppet Supreme Court (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tea Party Movement Is Full of Conspiracy Theories (newsweek.com)
• Dave Johnson: Did Bush Leave Us Bankrupt, Corrupt, Ungovernable? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jobs and magical thinking (aworldofprogress.com)
• Creating a ‘free-for-all’ political system (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Taxes: Bill making it easier to raise them heads to House (seattlepi.com)
• Shining a brighter light on the Senate (washingtonmonthly.com)

Well it’s Angry Hour (TM) at The One About…. I recently found this rage inducing piece via Americablog,

“President Obama called the idea a “no-brainer” last fall, predicting it would take billions of dollars from the profits of private lenders and give it directly to students, and many colleges were already moving to get loans directly from the federal government in anticipation of the next move by Congress.

But an aggressive lobbying campaign by the nation’s biggest student lenders has now put one of the White House’s signature plans in peril, with lenders using sit-downs with lawmakers, town-hall-style meetings and petition drives to plead their case and stay in business.”

This is the state that things have devolved to. Let me explain this whole mess very simply.

First of all the Republicants are a bunch of obstructionist assholes. This is the core idea that you must keep in mind, because without it none of the rest makes any sense.

Now second of all I have serious doubt that Obama actually wants to completely do away with the student loan industry. Frankly it’s not his style. Obama is essentially a centrist and corporatist. However he is also a pragmatist. He is not so in love with corporations that he is completely unaware of what a bunch of goat rapists the student loan industry have turned into. Once upon a time they were at least somewhat moral and responsible. Offering people loans for their educations at reasonable rates. But then they figured out that they could hold people’s futures
hostage by hitting them with unbelievable interest rates, and best of all because of Federal backing even if people defaulted they still weren’t carrying all that much risk. So today you have practices such as people with less than a fraction of the original debt left to repay, who have repayed as faithfully as they were able suddenly finding that the interest has been jacked up, and suddenly they still have thousands of dollars in interest to pay off. So Obama knows that if something isn’t done, the situation is only going to get worse, and pretty soon no one who doesn’t
already essentially have enough money for college so as to not need a loan will be able to get one. And while Obama may have a great many failings I do believe he is as sincere as a politician can be about the need to provide broad access to education opportunity.

Now in the good old days, what Obama would have proposed would have been some kind of common sense regulation of the Student Loan Industry. Broader over sight, a lower ceiling on the amount of interest that could be charged, tighter regulations about under what circumstances the interest rate could be raised etc. But Obama knows damn good and well that any such common sense approaches will be screamed down by the Republicants. So instead he proposes ideas that are what I call Radical Red Herrings. They are in the spirit of the scenes of sex and violence that Alfred Hitchcock used to include in his movies. Scenes so lurid and graphic that he knew there was no way in hell they’d get past either the studio or the MPAA. Thereby
allowing the scenes he really wanted in the film, to skate by because they’d look mild by comparison and because he would not put them in until after he’d been “forced” to take out the scenes the censors would not allow. That way it would look like he was compromising.

So the Republicants behaving in perfect Pavlovian fashion are indeed screaming bloody murder at this “Radical” plan to destroy the student loan industry. Now if you were dealing with human beings this ploy might work. But I have my doubts because I think that Obama and most Democrats continue to underestimate and misunderstand the new Zombie GOP. The ZGOP shambles around intoning “NOOOOO!” to everything. There is no negotiating with them. They will decry the radical version of the plan, and then they will decry as a “Socialist Bolshevik” Plot the more reasonable modified version. Meanwhile Obama is harming the plans credibility with the average citizen because all they will see is the Radical version of the plan, and they will be uncomfortable with it. Hell I’m not entirely comfortable with it. I mean it’s a great idea in theory but unless part of that plan is to create the Federal equivalent of loan officers, I suspect that a lot of people would end up not getting help because the paper work would be more than they are able to handle. Look at the 1040 EZ tax form. It took me about two hours to do one properly, and there were rebates that if I hadn’t read it carefully I would have missed out on. (I still stand by my belief that Federal Tax forms are better designed and easier to fill out than state ones, but never the less as Scotty’s First Law Of Engineering tells us, “The more you over think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.”)

So what will happen is that Obama will most likely again drop the ball, he will fail to get the message out there, and the Republicants will run with it. They will make certain that as few people as possible find out about any amended compromise version, and they will use the image of the first more radical plan to demonize it in the minds of most people and as a result any kind of Student Loan reform will be as dead as everything else the ZGOP put their slime covered bony hands to.

The ultimate result? Student Loan companies, especially Fanny Mae which has been pledged UNLIMITED money from the government will be allowed to set any kind of rates they want, Obama’s suggested 20 year cut off period regarding how long the debt is allowed to exist before it is forgiven (10 years if you get a public service job) will go by the wayside, and anyone who contemplates getting a student loan will know up front that they will be looking at a crushing mountain of debt that is due pretty much the instant they leave school. So most people will decide against it. Some of the more determined ones will try to either get federal or state financial aid (PELL grants etc) or scholarships, or they will try to work and go to school. But most will decide it’s not worth it, enter the work force and hope that if they work hard enough they can make a decent life for themselves.

And the Corporatocracy will win again. Their ongoing plan to keep us uneducated, fearful, and in debt will roll on. The Republicants will of course make nice sounding noises about how important education is, all the while doing everything they can to make certain that people like you and me don’t want one, and can’t get one even if we do want one. And most of the Democrats will cluck their tongues and exclaim how awful it all is, all the while not doing one single meaningful fucking thing!

So what can we do? Formally not much. Progressives can try to field candidates, can try to educate our friends and neighbors. But we also have to prepare with an eye toward when the enemies of the Working Classes push their agenda forward. Use the internet while it is still open to us. Self educate. Read everything you can get your hands on about politics, history, science and more. Don’t worry about if it’s “useful” or not. Expand your mind. Don’t piss away your time with worrying about American Idle or any of that other shit. And do what you can to educate those around you. Make it clear to them that if we do not TAKE our education we will not have it, because our Corporate Masters are bound and determined not to let us have it.

Their interests are better served by us being as ignorant as possible, so they can feed us FOX Newsaganda and we’ll believe it’s the truth. We can not beat them with guns so we must beat them with brains. By spreading the truth person to person, by any means possible. It is only when we give up the struggle that they’ve won. So don’t give up. Don’t let them win. Make it clear at every turn that you don’t buy what they are selling. That is the only real hope left to us.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

(This article originally appeared at The One About…)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lobbying Threatens Overhaul Of Student Loans (huffingtonpost.com)
• Anis Shivani: The Corporatist Explanation for Obama’s “Failed” Presidency (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bob Samuels: How America’s Universities Became Hedge Funds (huffingtonpost.com)
• Support Renewed for Student-Loan Overhaul (online.wsj.com)
• Applying for Financial Aid Will Be Easier in 2010 (usnews.com)
• Lobbying Imperils Overhaul of Student Loans (nytimes.com)
• Funding an education failure (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)
• 8 Happy – and 3 Scary – Trends in Financial Aid in 2010 (usnews.com)