Towards A Healthy Economy + Marketing World

A solid, quality rocking chair can often be hard to come by. Especially rocking chairs that can be purchased without the additional guilt of knowing that many trees were chopped down in order for you to be able to sit, relax, and rock in your chair. Luckily, their’s a website where you can get quality rocking chairs at great prices, and for each order you place on this site, they will plant 10 brand new trees!

Not only will they plant trees with every order, but the wood that the rocking chairs are made from are composed of eco-friendly sustainable harvest lumber, meaning that for each tree they cut down there are many planted to replace it. Talk about a great resources for high quality wooden outdoor furniture for the “green” conscious consumer.

Each chair is made from Brazilian Cherry hardwood, and is fashioned by hand, many times finished in linseed oil. They also provide extremely nice wooden outdoor furniture such as porch gliders, tables, chairs, and more. The items are made by Dabol, the company that previously produced the Tyndall Creek line of high quality wooden outdoor furniture. If quality rocking chairs are what you are seeking, turn to Rocking Chair Jack today!

From 1995 through 2008, William Henry Gates III Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates to most anyone had been the world’s richest being. Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim Helu have now dethroned him. Apparently, the world’s most famous geek virtually flushed away his fortune to benefit those in the bowels of the planet.

Granted, his fall was largely caused by Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo! early this year but in hindsight, the visionary aims of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation required much of his wealth. Still, Bill Gates is rich today as much as he is charitable, his foundation still flooring the world’s charities with $37.6 billion in assets. Bill could try building space crafts to sate some boyhood fantasies but he financed large-scale initiatives in health and education instead.

Under his stead, Microsoft alone has donated more than $3 billion for technologically handicapped people. Every quarter of the year, Gates has sold 20 million of his shares in the firm, only to trickle down to the foundation.

A stingier person would probably turn his back to all these and recoup all the fruits of a company that irretrievably realigned the face of civilization. But hell no, Bill Gates is pushing his altruistic luck this year he will depart from Microsoft and become a full-time philanthropist. For one, he vows to eradicate all the world’s leading diseases during his lifetime.

In a world of superlatives, Bill Gates might just be a cautionary tale for greedy types, that is. If altruism were counted in figures, Bill Gates looks like he isn’t ready to pass the baton just yet.

by Kurt St. Angelo
Libertarian Writers’ Bureau
http://www.writersbureau.org

My favorite childhood story was about a herd of hippos that played hide n’
seek. The baby hippo’s best hiding place was on a ledge just above - though
in plain view of - the herd’s elders, who never found the baby because they
never looked up. Obvious often means overlooked.

And so it is with jail overcrowding in the Circle City. County jails lack
space for everyone who’s been arrested. Last year there were almost 2,000
emergency releases to free space.

Led by a group of mostly Republicans, including Marion County Prosecutor
Carl Brizzi and Superior Court judges Cale Bradford and William Young, there
’s a move to greatly expand the county’s criminal justice budget, build
another jail facility, expand or build a new juvenile center, elect more
judges, and - if they get their way - build a brand new criminal-justice
center with even more capacity to turn suspects into government prospects.

The more prospects they can harness and herd, the more money taxpayers will
give them.

Anyone who has watched Brizzi, Bradford or Young recently on Indianapolis
television knows how callous they are toward the accused. Young, who
presides over the county’s drug court, says the defendants are from ‘a
sludge pool.” By his own count, he has personally released at least six
people who have then murdered others.

Presiding Superior Court Judge Bradford chairs the Marion County Criminal
Justice Planning Council, which also includes Brizzi and Mayor Bart
Peterson. The Council is preparing an expensive criminal justice wish list
to present to the City-County Council. At its January meeting, Bradford
noted that the county’s newest jail facility, built in 1997 to handle the
main jail’s overcrowding, was itself overcrowded.

This latest situation shows the obvious, which again won’t be discussed at
the next planning council meeting - that a new jail is not the solution to
the latest bout of jail overcrowding. As experience shows us, a new jail
will only be a standing invitation for politicians and judges to fill it.

Money is not the solution, either. Since 2001, the county’s criminal justice
budget has almost single-handedly been responsible for the county’s whopping
40 percent budget increase, from $126 million to $176 million.

The folks in charge are overlooking the obvious answer to jail overcrowding
and the legal backlog: Quit arresting so many people!

Go back to doing government’s fundamental job of protecting us from real
criminals - people who steal our cars, break into our homes, defraud us, or
are violent - not just our immoral neighbors who offend us with their petty
needs and vices.

And quit herding people who aren’t real criminals through our criminal
justice system - which is for real criminals. Then, these people who have
not harmed others can keep their jobs, support their families, contribute to
the economy and pay taxes instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for their
unneeded food, lodging and supervision in jail.

This will leave space to segregate violent and dishonest people who can’t
live socially with the rest of us. Isn’t that the point of our criminal
justice system?

If Indianapolis is true to national statistics, we spend nearly half of our
criminal-justice resources fighting vice instead of crime. The distinction
between vice and crimes is fundamental. As legal scholar Sir William
Blackstone wrote, ‘In all cases, the crime includes an injury.”

The Indiana Constitution grants jurisdiction to Indiana courts based on such
harm or injury. ‘All courts shall be open, and every person, for injury done
to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due
course of law.” (Article 1, Section 12)

This does not grant courts authority to punish those who merely offend us.
Article 1, Section 37 of the Constitution prohibits government from
depriving people of liberty “otherwise than for the punishment of crimes.”
(See also Article 1, Section 13 and 19.) If Brizzi, Bradford and Young
enforced this simple covenant, jail overcrowding would likely vanish
overnight.

Every time we waste our resources policing, prosecuting and imprisoning
potheads and prostitutes, then car thieves, burglars or murderers go free.
Plus, we lie about being true to the constitution.

Why is this so hard to understand or discuss? Why are the elders of our herd
overlooking this practical, moral and constitutional consideration that is
so utterly obvious?

###

About the Author

Attorney, screen writer and former chair of the Libertarian Party of Marion County.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over
and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of
catapult the propaganda.” George Bush, “President Participates
in Social Security Conversation in New York,” May 24, 2005

We’re all well acquainted with the ideas of propaganda,
repetition and the Big Lie as outlined by Josef Geobells, the
Nazi Minister of Propaganda: basically any lie, repeated often
enough, will be believed. A corollary is that you may has well
make it a big lie.

Yesterday I read Tom Engelhardt’s article The President, Cindy
Sheehan, and How Words Die on AntiWar (originally on Tom
Dispatch as A Worldview Repeated Once Too Often?): “Sometimes,
just that extra bit of repetition under less than perfect
circumstances, and words that once struck fear or offered hope,
that once explained well enough for most the nature of the world
they faced, suddenly sound hollow. They begin to sound… well,
repetitious, and so, false. Your message, which worked like a
dream for so long, goes off-message, and then what do you do?

This is, I suspect, exactly what growing numbers of Americans
are experiencing in relation to our President. It’s a mysterious
process really - like leaving a dream world or perhaps
deprogramming from a cult. Once you step outside the bubble,
statements that only yesterday seemed heartfelt or powerful or
fearful or resolute truths suddenly look like themselves,
threadbare and impoverished. In due course, because the
repetitious worldview in the president’s speeches is clearly a
believed one (for him, if not all of his advisers) and because
it increasingly reads like a bad movie script for a fictional
planet, he himself is likely to look no less threadbare and
impoverished, no less - to use a word not often associated with
him - pathetic and out of touch with reality to some of those
who not so long ago supported him or his policies.”

This took me back to my literary criticism studies and reminded
me of some of the other rhetorical uses of repetition.

In essence: any act of repetition changes the context of a
statement, and renders it susceptible to defamiliarisation - the
statement will appear different due to the change of context.
This is a common artistic tool - from Marcel Duchamp’s elevated
readymade ‘Fountain’ (a urinal signed R. Mutt 1917) through
irony to the basest kind of sarcasm or satire.

In the early twentieth century the Russian formalists were
particularly fond of this device; in the late twentieth century
structuralism and deconstruction (and their many imitators and
followers) appropriated it.

I think what Tom Engelhardt’s article points to is that the Bush
rhetoric, based as it is on the propaganda of the repeated lie,
has fallen victim to these other possibilities of repetition.

As the latest nonsense occurs on the immigration front-our US Customs officials tipping off the location of the Minutemen to Mexican officials-it appears more and more the US “democracy” is a sham. Be it on the immigration front, political front or financial front, democracy is taking a beating.

Poll after poll shows a strong desire for a crackdown on illegal aliens pouring into this nation. What does our government do about it? Basically nothing. Something as simple as building a sturdy fence or wall along the border suddenly becomes “impossible” or “too expensive” to do. A war in Iraq? Keep the billions flowing. Ridiculous.

Insanity like “sanctuary cities” where various cities simply ignore the presence of an illegal alien becomes the norm. But if you ignore the traffic laws or paying your taxes, suddenly the “law” is invoked. To hell with what the people think. To hell with the laws. The government on a federal and local level only use the laws to their liking.

The Minutemen are actually building or propping-up fences along the border. They are using their own money. In other words, men and women making an average salary or using their pensions and social security, are the fence-builders. That is utterly pathetic. And it shows again the total disrespect our government has for the population.

But what is the shock? We still only have 2 political parties. We pretend we have independent parties somewhere out there. But when it comes to “crunch time,” those independents better have massive amounts of money or else the two other parties will use non-democratic laws to keep them off of ballots. When Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader ran for president, they were knocked off of ballots and not allowed on televised debates. Some democracy.

Like or dislike President Bush, does anyone seriously think he would have had any shot at being president if his name were not Bush? The name Bush translates into power and money in American politics. It translates into owning the political party. Names like Buchanan and Nader simply have no shot in a process like this despite their credentials or wisdom.
The deporting of jobs is also another attack on our democracy. Who voted for this nonsense? Were the masses of people voting for their jobs to go to Mexico, China or Guatemala? We must have missed that one.

Gas prices? Who the heck knows what companies are up to. It is a closed society that contributes big money to politicians, those people representing our democracy. Yeah, right.

Why is it all of the important things are done in private? Iraq, job-deporting, illegal aliens, oil prices, etc.? Maybe because our democracy is on a little shaky ground. The people yell and scream and the big-shots do what they want after the yelling and screaming. What a scam.

Robert Carberry is a freelance writer from New York

The George W. Bush Regime is on its way to spread American Imperialism across the globe.

In his task, he has slaughtered over 100 000 Iraqi citizens including men, women and children.

In his eyes, only christians go to heaven. Much like Hitler believed Jews don’t go to heaven so are worth killing

Ego maniacs are more dangerous than the men who flew the planes into the twin towers.

George Bush has a goal, destroy the foundation of the muslim world and convert Muslims into Christians, Those who refuse, are ordered to die or be tortured

Like Hitler, George Bush is hell bent on taking over the world. He will imprison the Iraq resistance and torture and kill them, much like Hitler.
The oil is their true salvation and the Iraqi who dies trying to stop them from stealing the oil are heros

What great American out there, will stop this fascist agenda. Who will stop George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

There must be an American who sees the similarities to Hitler and George W. Bush. Hitler may have died, but George Bush learned a lot from him. My guess is he is taking up where Hitler left off

What patriotic American will stop this maddness, this Hitler revived through George W. Bush

The World needs American Citizens to rise up and revolt agaist this fascist dangerous dream that is killing men, women and children

Please America, together as one united force, you can bring down Bush and his SS.
It is up to you. A civil war if needed. The citizens of the world will support you. Take action. Take back your freedom and democracy, The world is counting on you and praying for you

Do it for yourselves, your children and God.

Oh yeah, I mean something peaceful like a war crimes trial, NOT violence. There is too much violence in the world

About the Author

freelancewriter
post this on any site

Americans have always seen themselves as independent and self-sufficient. The spirit of this nation has fostered the view that any American, willing to work hard and take some risk, could strive to achieve any future he wanted, including the Presidency of the United States. It’s a tantalizing picture but if it did ever exist, it is rapidly fading. We have gone from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation. We have gone from superpower to supplicant. We are deteriorating from a nation of rugged individuals to a nation of dependents.

The big government statists have convinced most of the American people that our country’s greatness stems not from the qualities of its people but from the largess of its government. As the communist world falls apart and searches for ways to embrace capitalism and the free market, America is in the process of making its people as dependent on government as the worst of the socialist nations.

The old-time American idea that every individual is responsible for protecting himself, his family and his property has been replaced with government provided police forces and self-styled advocates who can only act after a crime has been committed and whose role seems to be preventing individual action rather than supporting it. We have the ridiculous situation in which the victim of a crime may be punished more severely than the perpetrator because he has violated some rule or regulation designed to protect the “rights” of the criminal.

The government is buying up huge tracts of land to “protect” it from the predation of its own citizens. It wants to develop a cradle to grave health scheme to foster medical dependence. It intrudes deeper into the education system each day in order to brainwash American children into believing that they cannot exist without the “nanny” government. Anyone who has trouble walking or talking or seeing or hearing or quitting booze or drugs or any of a vast panoply of ailments is made dependent for his survival on the government.

Communism was the great purveyor of the concept of dependency because it was necessary for the government to control the population from top to bottom and the easiest way to make someone obedient is to make them dependent. If the people have to look to the government for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, retirement benefits, education and personal protection the government effectively controls their lives. All the rulers need do is withhold those things to convince all but the most individualistic to toe the mark. Of course it is also necessary for the government to prevent anyone else from providing those services or their monopoly falls apart and the people will look elsewhere. The U. S. Postal service is a prime example.

It is clear that Social Security is also that kind of monopoly. Despite the dismal return on investment and the example of successful retirement systems outside of Social Security the government insists that 100% participation is necessary to insure success. It also insures dependency on government of a large segment of the population.

In the early 1980’s it was possible for certain non-federal government agencies to opt out of Social Security and develop their own retirement plan. The county government of Galveston, Texas was among the agencies that took advantage of this Foggy Bottom mental lapse and has developed a system that is so superior to Social Security that many participants will end their careers with a retirement payment that exceeds their former salary. They will also have a significant death benefit that goes to their estate as opposed to the two hundred fifty-five dollars that a few people will receive from the S/S system. In fact, the program is so good that the Feds are trying to force its closure and make its participants go back to Social Security. Sadly it was only a few years before the Federal government realized its error and closed the loophole and once again, the Social Security system became the only game in town.

We continue to have most of our public utilities controlled by government supported monopolies despite the fact that the economic and cultural conditions that spawned those monopolies have long since vanished. Even when the monopolies are broken up the government keeps its finger on the button so that free market forces are never allowed to prevail.

There may have been some perceived reason for monopoly protection of utilities in the early days of electric grids, natural gas distribution, telephone service and the like. The investments involved were huge and the uncertainty of the outcome made them a very risky enterprise. But that doesn’t explain why, after decades of use and becoming a part of every day life, the government continues to keep control.

When the Federal Communications Commission emerged, radio transmitters were huge, power sucking monsters and the frequency discrimination was so poor that it was believed that there would only be one or two stations in every market. With this in mind the doctrine of broadcasting “in the public interest” was formed to try to insure that the airwaves would never be controlled by monolithic vested interests. Can that relate to today’s world where powerful, inexpensive transmitters are comparatively tiny, directional antennas are available and advertising revenues support most stations? Why does the FCC continue to regulate broadcasting when technology exists to separate stations and prevent interference? It can only be because the government refuses to give up the power to influence mass communications.

In case you think that government no longer seeks to impose and control monopolies, witness the cable television industry. There was never a good reason for government to get involved in restricting cable providers but they just couldn’t resist. Anyone who complains about the size of their cable bill and the lousy service they get can thank the government agencies that prevented competition in the industry.

In 2001 California’s Democrat dominated government tried to sneak some modification of the utility monopoly status quo, thinly disguised as “deregulation,” into electricity production. In fact it only deregulated the purchase price of power from suppliers and not the price paid by consumers. When the predictable disaster occurred they then crowed happily about how it proved that the “free market” approach doesn’t work. Unfortunately, the Republicans were too impotent to even argue the point and so the statists were able to present the failure as an indictment of all deregulation.

Despite attempts at “deregulation” the U.S. transportation system remains very monopolistic. Governments build the roads, airports, port facilities and even the railroad tracks. There is no entrepreneurial spirit, no competition to force change to new technology, no incentive to improve because bureaucracy has no interest in the future except as it applies to government funding.

The ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) has created a whole cottage industry of attempting to make every disabled person, regardless of handicap, able to do everything that can be done by every other person. Those with disability are no longer encouraged to make exceptional efforts to overcome their situation, instead the “Great Nanny” government steps in and tries to equalize everything, usually by dragging down those without disability rather than attempting the much more difficult task of raising those with handicaps.

“Political Correctness” is a socialist attempt to destroy the First Amendment by invoking the protection of some helpless minority as a reason to restrain free speech. A subset is the new affection for inveighing against the so-called “hate crimes.” What is really sought is an ability for the government to demonize unpopular opinion. The whole movement is an attempt to allow an offended person to use the power of government to silence the offender.

The once solid fortress of free speech, the college campus, has become a cesspool of groups whose only reason for existence is to insure that no speech reflecting unpopular (by student or faculty standards) opinion ever sees the light of day. Socialist/statist professors are allowed to make the most outrageous statements with impunity while those in opposition are effectively muzzled.

This kind of collectivist thinking could never have produced a nation like the United States but it may well destroy it. We will soon reach the point where the bottom fifty-plus percent of workers will pay NO income taxes (they pay less than four percent today). Once that is achieved the statists will have permanent control of this nation because they will be able to apply Marxist wealth distribution with impunity. They will be taking tax money from the successful minority and giving it to the unsuccessful majority. The class war will then be over, the dependent class will have won.

© 2005 Charles Stone, Jr.

Born: Buffalo, NY 8/7/42

Graduated: Williamsville Central HS 1960
Military Service USAF 1/27/61 - 1/4/65 Missile mechanic, 3 years in Germany.

Computer School, Buffalo, NY 1967.
Worked as a computer programmer, programmer/analyst, systems analyst, DP manager and consultant from 1968 - 1990
Became disabled in 1991

Currently living in Kissimmee, FL
Interests: politics, motor sports, history (mainly military), Web surfing, talk radio junkie.
Member of the NRA.

Favorite TV shows: CSI, Whose Line Is It, Anyway?, Nova.

Favorite radio program: Neal Boortz
Political leaning: libertarian, Constitutionalist, individualist.

Supported and campaigned for Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. Not sure I’d do it again.

Published in: Bureaucrash, Sierra Times, The Libertarian Enterprise, Free Market Net, We Hold These Truths, The Informed Volusian

You’re Fired!
by Sheldon Reiffenstein

The scene opens in a boardroom with three men, two seated on one side of a large rosewood table, the third seated on the opposite side facing them. The third man is speaking:
“George, Dick, you’ve had four years to run this business - four years! I’m looking at the balance sheet, and, frankly, I’m disappointed. Just looking at the numbers here freaks me out. When you took over, the business had a surplus of $200 billion and today we have a deficit of over $400 billion. Plus you’ve had to layoff about two million people. If I ran a business like this, I’d be bankrupt.”
“But, Mr. Trump, we did run into some bad times. September 11 cut a large hole in our revenues…”
“Yes, George, I know that September 11 was devastating, but it only accounts for about 30% of this deficit. And, in three years you should have been able to pull the business out of the red. Didn’t you promise that when you put in place those major tax cuts of yours? Weren’t they supposed to have revived the business?”
“Well, it’s starting to, Mr. Trump. We’ve added almost 700,000 new jobs this year, and the unemployment rate is only 5.4%. I think that’s good progress. We’re moving forward and we’re not turning back.”
“George, don’t try tossing those ridiculous feel-good lines at me. Do I look like an idiot?”
“No, Mr. Trump.”
“Right. So now that we’re clear on that. You made a big hit with the employees that day you stood at ‘Ground Zero’ and hollered through that megaphone. Then you bombed Afghanistan. Those were good things. But, George, you’ve lost your focus since then. This Iraq venture, what is it with that?”
“He was a threat to the free world, Saddam was.”
“How? He had no WMD, no nuclear program, which you claimed in front of the whole world. His army was in disarray, his economy could never have supported any kind of war or invasion of another country. Worst of all he had absolutely no ties to the real criminal…you do remember his name don’t you, George?…That Osama guy, the guy you threaten to capture dead or alive? Just what happened to him?”
“We have men searching for him right now.”
“How many? A few hundred searching hundreds of thousands of square miles of mountains in Afghanistan. You really think you’re going to find that needle in a haystack with that force? While you’ve got 140,000 troops tied up in this Iraq mess, and for how long? It’s going to be five years or more according to your own reports.”
“But America is safer, Mr. Trump, with Saddam gone.”
“How are we safer? You have no proof that Saddam posed any threat to the United States. All we have to rely on are your words. A lot of people are looking at the mess in Iraq and they don’t seem to trust your word, your simplistic little phrases, so much. How can we believe we’re safer? Osama is still on the loose; we know that the Al Qaeda ranks are growing; militants are causing terrible havoc in Iraq cities; over 1,000 American soldiers are dead, almost 900 of those since you declared ‘Mission Accomplished’. What was it with that anyway?”
“Mr. Trump, that wasn’t my idea. Dick thought that one up.”
“Dick, are you going to take that, let him lay that one on you? Where did that sign come from?”
“The ship made it.”
“Now, come on Dick, I know it came from the White House. And another thing, what’s with the language in the Capitol, telling a senator to go f*** himself? You guys promised to bring character back to the White House, and you use language like that. I could fire someone on the spot for talking like that in any of my companies. And you did it in full public view. Don’t you think that was a lapse in judgment?”
“I felt good afterwards and I don’t apologize for it.”
“No, I guess you don’t. You two don’t think you should apologize for anything do you?”
“Well, Mr. Trump, we are on the side of the righteous on this and no we don’t need to apologize for keeping America safe.”
“George, that’s the problem. I get back to my earlier question, how is America safer with Saddam gone, Osama still on the loose, Al Qaeda recruiting faster than our army can, our ports, airport security, borders all under-funded. Potentially any terrorist could walk up Fifth Avenue with a suitcase bomb in his hand and set it off. And you have us up to our necks in Iraq over some revenge thing against Saddam Hussein. You could have let the inspectors go back in, forced Hussein to comply, by getting the whole international community to pressure him. But, no you had to go it alone.”
“Mr. Trump, if I had to I’d do it the same all over again.”
“Even knowing what you know today?”
“Yes, I would. The Iraqi people are free, a terrible murdering dictator is in jail”…
“At what cost? How many Iraqis are dead since your invasion? About 20,000. How many more will die before this whole thing is over and our troops are out of there? Yes, Saddam killed half a million of his own people and that is terrible. But look at Sudan, what are we prepared to do there? How many North Korean civilians have been murdered by their government? How many Tibetans by the Chinese? I could go on. The point is there are lots of dictators who should be put in jail and their people freed, but we can’t do it all. 20,000 Iraqis dead since our invasion, and what do we have to show for it…1,000 American soldiers dead, Saddam is in jail and we have no idea how to fix the situation, or how we’re going to get out.”
“But we can’t leave now.”
“Yes, you’ve made sure of that with your adventure. But, what I can do is find someone else to take over and get us on the right course, get our respect back and actually make us safer”…he presses the intercom button… “Please send the two Johns in here.” He looks at the two men sitting in front of him.
“I have to say it…George, Dick, you’re fired.”

About the Author

Sheldon is a freelance writer with a Political Science degree. His recent book “Liberal is NOT a Four Letter Word” is available online at www.liberalisnotafourletterword.com

Labels are by the far one of the most useful tools for the true
believer to cast upon free thinkers. The prevalence of
categorizing those who oppose one’s point of view is a way to
dismiss and encourage others to thereby dismiss even considering
the opposition’s viewpoint, facts and ideas. It’s a technique
that works for organizing the ignorant and stupid who choose not
to think for themselves, but are swayed by the emotionalism of
those they feel know more than they do.

Free thought, regardless of one’s current opinion on any
matter, rejects being categorized…and rejects categorizing
others with names, derogatory terms, or other labels. The facts
are what matter, but anyone who resorts to labels is simply
exhibiting their fear of another’s ideas and often the truth of
a matter. Such weak individuals are so fearful of taking on
another’s opinion based on facts that they resort to immature
name-calling which most weak-minded people engage in as a
defense to their ego. Don’t confuse them with the facts, their
minds are already made up..

My experience has been that there are very few individuals
capable of intelligent discussion and dialogue. Regardless of
their position (and whether I may agree or not with them) I am
repulsed at the prevalence of emotionalism. Even those I do
agree with on principle often, I feel, do a disservice to the
cause (whatever it may be) by their tirades of emotionalism.
Talk-radio is a prime example of this phenomena. Tune to what is
labeled “conservative” shows and more than not you’ll hear hosts
spewing out every label they can think of to describe those they
oppose. Likewise, tuning to what is often called “liberal” shows
and you find the identical thing going on. Yes, it appeals to
the masses. But it does not forward in any way expression and
exploration of ideas. Nothing will ever be solved in such
mindless attack..

Personally, I am oft amused by those who have or try to
categorize me. So many assume that because I oppose Bush’s war
on Iraq, that I can be dismissed as a “pacifist.” Now that makes
me laugh, for I am most certainly a fighter–believing in
self-defense no matter what action it requires. Self defense, on
the personal and national level, is necessary. But I do not
confuse self-defense with offense taken to fulfill government
and corporate greed. I believe in fighting for what is right,
and currently, I think the greatest fight we’re engaged in as
Americans is the fight to defend the US Constitution from Bush
and his gang. Far from being a pacifist, I am a fighter. I can
speak of the hope of peace, but I know it doesn’t come from
pacifism. I can speak of the humanity of friend and foe, but
have no qualms about the use of force to defend one’s life
personally or use of military force to defend the life of a
nation..

My political positions run across party lines. Too often others
in conversation with me make false assumptions simply because
they know how I feel on one matter they mistakenly assume I must
feel a certain way on another entirely different issue. To
define is to limit. Those who assume to categorize me fail to
ever begin to comprehend. Only those who can engage in true
dialogue, exchange of ideas and facts, learn my thoughts and I
learn theirs..

Use of terms “liberal,” “left,” “progressive,” are, too, laden
with judgmental overtones which may or may not be correct when
applied to an individual. Same goes for the terms heaped upon
those whose political leanings are toward the other side of the
spectrum..

Only when we, as a people, can forego use of labels to dismiss
those we disagree with might we be able to engage in effective
dialogue. If the common goal is the strength and protection of
American way of life, then we cannot be a nation divided
operating at a juvenile level of name-calling..

On the personal level, many I meet and hear speak, accept the
label of “victims”. In fact, they seem to take a pride in being
victimized. It affords them sympathy, perhaps your help, and use
it as an excuse to behave any way they wish because you must
always allow them their weaknesses, afterall they are victims.
This phenomena is exhibited by so many in our society. On the
personal level, I’ve met men who whine of how they had such a
weak father and domineering mother, thus they are unable to be
anything but a “Dagwood” sort of man relative to the opposite
sex. They actually verbalize the words, complaining of their
childhood as an excuse for their disgusting weakness of mind and
spirit, and expect a woman to console them…mother them. Still
others cling to being “victims” of abusive childhoods as an
excuse for their abuse of others. It is true that those who have
been truly hurt in childhood are harmed and deserve the
counseling and other help to learn from their past and become
strong… the mature adult seeks to conquer the wounds and
become stronger (which many do becoming strong advocates for
others and achieving much in their own lives), but some cling to
being a “victim” to avoid consequences for their abuse of others
in the here and now. One can’t have it both ways. Once you
recognize the harm you have suffered, you then examine and learn
the toll it has taken on your psyche, and you become
stronger–rejecting repetition of same pattern. Again, I
empathize with those who are true victims in this society, but
have only disgust for those who claim “victimization” as a means
to escape the consequences of their bad choices now. Such
pseudo-victims detract from the seriousness of those who truly
have been victims of horrible situations, and whose inner
strength prevails them to want to heal and become strong again..

As we’ve all seen, labels are used to dismiss other’s and
labels are used to defend one’s behavior. Labels serve no
purpose other than to obscure the truth. Labels are used by
those unwilling to rationally examine reality. Labels are
accepted by those who are unwilling to look at what is and
confront it. It is a tool for those unable to stand on truth,
but who must resort to emotionalism to defend themselves, their
actions, or to try and discredit others..

Gore Vidal stated it perfectly, “To be categorized is, simply,
to be enslaved. Watch out. I have never thought of myself as a
victim. I fear that the built-in defeatedness of those who
meekly, stupidly allow themselves to be categorized may further
narrow their chances to be human and useful rather than be
flattened out into passive ciphers for that either/or slot so
loved by our rulers…” (The Advocate, 1995, interview)..

I reject labels. Others may cast them in their vain efforts to
defend their ego positions, but I am uniquely me. An individual
whose opinions I endeavor to base upon fact. An individual whose
beliefs (which have seen much change over the years) are just
that: beliefs…which I never assume to be etched in stone. An
individual who has had a number of personal life experiences of
choosing to fight rather than let the corrupt escape with no
consequences. I think for myself. I ponder. I wonder. I change.
No label will ever fit such individuals as I.

Political campaigns can be tense and stressful. There is so much to do and often not enough time to do it. If you are a candidate or campaign manager, you should not be without a button maker machine. These machines will help you with some of the most critical areas of your campaign - getting the word out, addressing issues, and rallying support. Not only will buttons help acknowledge the issues and rally support, they will do it inexpensively and that is a word that any campaign manager likes to hear.

Mass mailings and phone campaigns take time and money. Postal rates continue to go up as well as the cost of paper, printing, and labels. You need paid staff or volunteers to organize the mailing list and put the mailers together for shipping. A great percentage of these mailers will never be read or even opened. The recipient who has other more important things on his or her mind will classify these mailers as “junk mail” and toss it in the trash. However, if you and your staff are wearing buttons, you are inviting the viewer to ask you questions. This gives you one on one face time with the public to answer directly and discuss the issues important to you candidate and party.

Your volunteers are some of the most important people you will deal with in a political campaign. They give their time and efforts in order to see their candidate win the election. Buttons for your volunteers are great for inexpensive nametags. Making buttons for your volunteers with the candidate’s name, party affiliation and the date of the election will help them be identified in public. This is especially helpful if your volunteers are doing door to door campaigning or are out at a public event. Buttons are a great conversation starter and will give your volunteers an opportunity to tell people about your candidate and the issues he or she cares about.

Rallies are another great opportunity to pass out buttons. Political rallies are high excitement and these buttons with your candidate’s name and what he or she is running for can be sold at rallies and fundraising events. Speeches and debates are other events that these buttons can be worn or sold at. These buttons will help accelerate the campaign and give your candidate name recognition.

Educating the voters on the issues is a major part of any election or race. Making buttons that read “Vote No on Amendment Two” will let people know just where you stand. Getting the word out about how your candidate or party wishes to vote is important. Buttons with the date of the election and an encouragement to get out and vote is equally important. A button that reads “Vote on November 2nd” will remind everyone who sees it to vote and this will enhance the odds of your candidate’s success.

Fundraising events are a part of every campaign. Contributors to your campaign can receive buttons that say “I support John Doe”. The campaign slogan should be made into a button and either sold to raise money or given away at party meetings and fundraisers. These also make a great keepsake for the candidate and the voters.

If there are particular activist groups that support your candidate, then make buttons with their organization name stating that the organization supports your candidate. This goes along way in showing that your candidate cares about that group and its agenda. For example, a button that says “John Doe Supports Local Commerce” given out to the local businesses will encourage others with that same feeling to vote for your candidate. You can never thank your supporters enough, and having custom buttons with their group name and the election year on it will be a keepsake at the close of the election.

Urging people to vote is critical in this day and age. Elections have become closer and every vote counts. Making “I Voted” buttons to give away after voting has taken place can encourage other people to step up and be heard as well. Make sure that you have some buttons made up with the date the voting takes place and encourage your staff and volunteers to wear them. If no one votes then no one gets elected and no issues are resolved. Buttons are a great way to remind people to perform this great civic duty.

You have probably already seen buttons in the political arena. Some of the major reasons those political parties and campaigners use buttons is that they are handy to pass out, inexpensive to make, and people will wear them. Buttons get your message out, identify your support staff, and encourage the public. Be it for the presidency or the local town mayor, every candidate and political movement should have a button-making machine.

Greg Allison is the marketing director for Button Biz. Button Biz is an online distributor of button maker machines and button supplies. Each button making system includes a button maker, button parts, and circle cutter. Make round or rectangle buttons and choose from eleven different badge sizes.