The Distraction of Word Games

Posted on December 7, 2015 by Robert Ringer Comments (35)

Font:

It’s bad enough that politicians and media pundits have obsessed over the question of whether or not the word “Muslim” should be used to refer to someone who is a Muslim and has committed mass murder. But in the case of the San Bernardino massacre, the hand-wringing centers more around the source of Syed Farook’s “radicalization.”

It’s absolutely amazing how the media is consistently able to divert people’s attention away from the real issues and create news out of nothing. “Radicalize” means to make someone “radical,” and radical means extreme. So when someone is radicalized, it means he’s arrived at a state of mind that is extreme by civilized standards. I would therefore make a case that all mass murderers are radical.

That’s right, John Wayne Gacy was a radical. Ted Bundy was a radical. Charles Manson was a radical. Jeffrey Dahmer was a radical. And certainly Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho and Columbine High School killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were all radical. All mass murderers have become radicalized, or they wouldn’t think radical thoughts or partake in a radical activity like murdering lots of people.

I doubt that the question of how any of these people got radicalized matters to the families of their victims. In the case of Syed Farook, however, how he was radicalized is very important to both the far left and conservatives alike for political reasons. The far left wants to be able to shout to the rooftops that the San Bernardino murders were not an act of terrorism, while the far right wants to be able to point to yet another case of radical Islamic terrorism in America.

Which brings into play another favorite word of the make-believe media, “terrorism.” The dictionary says terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.” If someone uses violence against other human beings, of course it’s intimidating — regardless of whether or not the perpetrator consciously intended it to be intimidating.

That being the case, the word terrorism is nothing more than a bogeyman. Aren’t the black criminals who kill other blacks day in and day out in Chicago “terrorists?” Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh a “terrorist?” They could just as easily be referred to as thugs, rebels, or hooligans.

I agree that words matter, but the reason why someone uses a specific word also matters. If the word terrorist is used as a justification to drop bombs on people on the other side of the world, I’m against using it. By the same token, if the reason for not using the word terrorist is to stifle law enforcement from investigating those who are planning to commit mass murder, I’m against that as well.

The real problem — and it’s one that absolutely no one ever discusses — is a criminal justice system that coddles even the most violent criminals. In a truly civilized society — a society that is serious about protecting its citizens — perpetrators of premeditated murder would be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

I’m talking about trials (including all appeals) that would be limited to, say, three years. And, if convicted, the death sentence would be mandatory. No more playing out the string and being on the taxpayer dole for fifty years.

Does it matter that Nidal Hassan was “radicalized at least in part by Anwar al-Awlaki? He killed thirteen people and injured thirty, regardless of how he got out on the radical fringe and regardless of his Islamic beliefs. A civilized society would focus on retribution rather than endlessly debating nuances.

Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying here. In the modern sense of the words, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, definitely were both terrorists and Muslims. As I pointed out, those two words are very important to people who are focused on furthering their political agendas.

But the focus of mass murders should be on the crime and the punishment. In the case of Farook and his wife, the crime clearly was premeditated, mass murder and the punishment was swift, so those two things aren’t at issue.

But political animals love to play word games, and their obsession with the terms radicalize and Muslim remind me of the most absurd of all politically inspired phrases: ”hate crime.” Aside from the fact that it’s impossible for anyone to get inside anyone else’s head and determine if he hated his victim(s), the more important question is: So what? Would Adam Lanza be less guilty if it could be proven that he didn’t hate the twenty small children he murdered (twenty people in all) in Newtown? I think not.

Likewise, would Dylann Roof, who clearly hated blacks, be less guilty if he had loved blacks? Hate or no hate, the same nine folks would still be dead.

Bottom line: If you kill another human being, it doesn’t matter if you hated that person or not. Either way, he lost his life. By the same token, if you engage in talk that others consider to be hateful, but do no harm to anyone in the process, how can you be guilty of a crime?

I recognize that the courts have ruled that speech that includes “fighting words” or threats do not have First Amendment protection, but that’s a pretty slippery slope. If judges were perfect, no problem. But they aren’t. In fact, many are just a notch above the criminals they lock up.

But, yes, to the degree it’s possible, in a supposedly civilized society, threats and words intended to draw someone into a fight should be off limits. Generally speaking, however, the phrases hate speech and hate crime are ridiculous and serve no purpose other than to inflame passions.

As to Syed Farook and his charming bride, I don’t give a hoot how they got “radicalized.” And I don’t care if you call them terrorists or mass murderers. What I do care about is having people in high law-enforcement positions taking radical steps to keep the carnage to a minimum.

And by that I mean things like increasing the FBI budget by as much as tenfold and paying for the increase with drastic cuts in welfare programs, the EPA, and other wasteful, anti-freedom government activities.

Oh, and there’s one other thing that would help considerably. Whereas arguing over semantics does absolutely nothing to prevent mass murders, legalizing the open carry of weapons in all fifty states would have a dramatic and immediate impact on reducing the number of people who are victims of such killing rampages.

And when I use the term open, I mean just that. Concealed weapons are okay as well, but if millions of people were walking around with guns on their belts, the number of mass-shooting victims almost certainly would decrease.

Of course, in today’s politically correct climate, my views on this are considered radical. If so, all I can say is that I was radicalized by the Second Amendment and a deep distrust of government, so I have the satisfaction of knowing that the Founding Fathers would definitely be on my side.

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

35 responses to “The Distraction of Word Games”

  1. Robert rdiamondesq says:

    I have to agree with you in part and add a few things. I agree that having our citizens carry weapons would prevent people from being sheep picked off at will by a terrorist or two with AK-47 rifles, handguns or whatever other guns they happen to be carrying. If the people in the nightclub in Paris had guns 100 people wouldn't have been killed and scores more wounded. Of course if all had guns here we would have some idiots experiencing road rage and other temporary conditions shooting others – but in my view that is easier to deal with then having us as an easy target for terrorist. I really don't understand why the liberal mindset seems to be to trust government and allocate solutions to government only rather then having people be self-reliant alongside governmental solutions. It is also fairly ironic since one of the latest liberal agendas is criticizing police when the shoot people who often are acting like idiots fighting with police, running away for no reason when stopped and generally being belligerent. Many (not all) of those folks would not have been shot by police if they acted with respect to the police officer. But the liberal press never discuss that as an issue. Back to the issue at hand – relying on government to protect us when they cannot be everywhere all the time and being afraid to arm the populace It is a weak approach and based upon how our country was founded a weak and un-American way of thinking. But maybe once we have hundreds more killed from future terrorist acts where Police take ten minutes to get there and during that time scores of defenseless people are killed liberals will get the idea that the police cannot be everywhere instantly and people need to be able to defend themselves. Where I have a difference is that terrorism is used today to indicate people who want to cause political change through violent action as a concerted group effort. That is different than one lone nutjob acting out. We have groups abroad with training camps, videos, social media campaigns etc. essentially conducting a war by terrorism on France, England, the USA and other nations. Whether those groups influenced, trained, inspired the latest terrorists in San Bernardino is important because if they did we need to direct resources to set up systems to find those groups and kill the people who make them up as well as cut off their sources of funding, weapons and other materials they use to support their efforts.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Govt. was and is the cause of the problem and it just exacerbates it with its horrid system of "justice". If the U.S. would just stop intruding into other countries – particularly those of the Muslim world – they would not even be a target for terrorists, and the same is true for France and Great Britain. Terrorists are not targeting Uruguay or Costa Rica or Australia, e.g., and there is a reason for that, as those countries are minding their own business and not trying to bully others and impose their agenda on the world. Since State-supported police are rarely going to ever protect citizens, they need to hire their own security, and being prepared should anyone attack them. I am not supporting vigilante justice, but rather the free access to defend oneself, and not have the State be the monopoly on force, as their force is never used to benefit citizens, but just to protect and carry out the agenda of the political class.

      • John Sudlow says:

        Jim, I respect your opinion. However, Bibi Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, just released a video and he made the most important comment. Radical Islam seeks to destroy the Western World. It hates our system of values. Being involved within the Middle East has nothing to do with why they seek to destroy us. I invite you to "Google" Australia and learn about terrorist attacks there. In addition, Australia was involved militarily in the Middle East Gulf Wars. They have always been one of the US most ardent allies. Costa Rica and Uruguay and not on radical Islam's map to date because there is nothing to be gained in those countries at this point. Attacks in Europe, Asia and Africa (and more and more America) gather the press attention they seek to frighten our societies.
        I really don't want to comment on your opinions in the rest of your comments.

      • Robert rdiamondesq says:

        I respect your view but I don't personally believe we can or should withdraw from engagement with the Middle East or leave them alone to govern themselves. We have strategic interests there and I do believe they want to eradicate our way of life and values which I believe the terrorists hate and feel threatened by. I do understand that by being involved we may have built ourselves into this position but we are in the position we are in now and I don't think withdrawing will solve the problem if getting involved did indeed start it. We are now at war with at least the radical adherents of Islam and we need to put them down and put them down hard. That is what they understand and that is what will stop them – being six feet under the ground and anyone attracted to them seeing that we will defend ourselves and if they join the fight against us they will die. Random people will not be nearly as attracted to a losing team – they are attracted now because ISIS has been winning and gaining. Once they get hammered and begin to lose ground and die they will shrink away.

  2. Texas Wolfie says:

    When we passed the open carry law here in Texas, the left was screaming about "Gun fire in the streets, rolling gunfire on the hi-ways, road rage leaving behind crashed cars with dead bodies inside". Actually, nothing of the sort happened, we actually live in a much safer place now that the scum know that we may be armed. Carjacking has almost disappeared, and the hot heads on our inter-state hi-ways have learned to be more cautious. We call that a success, the liberals are silenced.. again.

    • Ellis Baxter says:

      8.2 million people live in Honduras citizens banned from owning guns. Homicide rate #1 in the world. Switzerland 8.2 million people live and law requires head of household to own a gun… Lowest Homicide rate in the world … Those are facts every where citizens have guns crime is lower ….

    • Truth Seeker says:

      The obama/liberal "logic" amazes me. If terrorists and other mass murderers seek "soft targets" where they know the victims will be unarmed, won't disarming the law abiding general public create more "soft targets"? If anyone thinks "gun control" will keep the mass killers from getting firearms, I must feel pity for your stupidity. Would you prefer these mass murderers turned to bombs? The basement of the World Trade Center, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the University of Wisconsin all were victims of simple but devastating bombs made from nitrate fertilizer fuel oil and a detonator. Shall we ban nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel?

    • Jean says:

      There is a community just outside of Atlanta, GA that requires all households to be armed. Unlike Atlanta, which has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the region, this community has the LOWEST violent and property crime rates. Terror only works when it is able to induce fear and the citizens under siege are unable to defend themselves. News broadcasts emphasized over and over how the facility in the San Bernardino attack was a "soft target" – a gun-free zone filled with people who depended on security badges and locked doors for safety.

  3. Avery Horton says:

    Agreed, Robert. Most of the news is simply a distraction. Let the bread and circus continue so we can achieve complete IDIOCRACY. No intelligent debate necessary. Wash, Spin, Rinse, Repeat.

  4. Rick Harmon says:

    Sad as this is, I'm not convince it could had have been prevented; perhaps not anticipated. That it would or will happen, yes. The are certainly angry people who harbor resentments, waiting for some catalyst to release their rage. Do we test for angry people?
    I sent an associate to the San Bern recorder that AM but he was, fortunately late and missed the mayhem and madness, avoiding the peril of others.
    Crazy people are crazy because of what they believe to be true, that's not. If I belonged to a group of radicalized Protestants, how would you identify me? Not by dress, not accept, perhaps no external indication. And you might not discover the radicalization until some crazy act occurred. In short, I don't know that our present criminal justice system is capable of identifying an individual or subgroup of crazies unless they're waiting a flag of some sort.

  5. Old_Curmudgeon says:

    Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim president of USA, always says “ISIL” instead of “ISIS” like everyone else; and for good reason. He envisions and favors Islam's control of a new Caliphate known historically as The Levant―the entire region of the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea from Greece around to Libya. [URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant Same reason he won't say “Radical Islamic Terrorism.” WORD COUNT = 60
    ************************************************************************************************************************

  6. TheLookOut says:

    Robert, another great article, however "Why" does matter, If we can stop the motivation that hate brings
    maybe we can stop the action. The so called media is very much to blame for the current state of
    stinking thinking as political correctness carries the day. Most left thinking individuals don't have a
    clue as to cause, and effect, they rationalize facts/logic with emotional lies, and slogans.

  7. oscarwildeweenr says:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/john-w-whiteh

    “Two psychologists have studied the use of words by politicians in recent years. The most used word now by politicians in America is the word “we.” The use of this word actually gets people to form into a group where essentially they stop thinking. That is connected to the theater concept of controlling people, and I guarantee you that the government hires behaviorists and psychologists, and they study how to manipulate people. What do you think about that?"

    "society," like "we", is also a word game.

    as you point out, in most places, weapons are "not allowed." in those places, only "outlaws", & outlaws (real ones) have weapons…oh, & the "authorities." what's civilized about that? domestication (pacification) & civilization are not synonyms – but the latter is the preferred euphemism for the former.

    increase the feeb's? oy. police state – & reciprocal infantilization of the populace – is already beyond the pale. waco & ruby ridge happen daily – only the scale is not as large screen, doesn't make it to your tv. william norman grigg's got a 100 examples written up if he's got one. but this is the trajectory, the body in motion; so, you will get that part of the wishlist (even if you recant it). &, if you live long enough, you'll come to regret it, Martin Niemöller style (who, in his famous poetic, ALSO engaged in word games…).

    Ellis: “Whatcha got ain't nothin new. This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity.” & word games, too. ~ “no country for old men”

  8. Ray says:

    I'm from New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. Many people misinterpret this slogan. Most think it means that We Live Free, or We Die.
    No. The original meaning of this slogan was a warning to Oppressive Governments, Violent Criminals, Terrorists, or any Group that wanted to take away our Freedom. That meaning was, and is, "You let Us Live Free, or You Die."

    • Jim Hallett says:

      And thankfully there are still pockets of NH where freedom is valued, though the influence of neighboring libtard havens, MA and VT, have turned much of NH into another "progressive" cesspool! The intent of the Second Amendment WAS and still needs to be, to allow citizens to arm themselves to prevent oppressive government. Reducing crime or lessening its impact is just another side benefit. The only thing that keeps Ovomit from being Hitler or Stalin is our 2nd Amendment.

  9. Canuck says:

    Now that we are speaking of words, I am very curious about the word “liberal” which seems to have become a term of vilification in the United States.

    I am a Canadian and do not know much about the US. As Canadians, we belong to a liberal democracy. We are raised on liberal values. At university, we receive a liberal education. We aspire to be liberal in our relations with our families, our communities and the world. For a good part of my life the provincial Liberal Party governed my province of Ontario and did a decent job. Also, for a good part of my life, the federal Liberal Party has been the national governing party and did a balanced, respectable job of running the country. “Liberal” means good things here.

    So, in the United States, a country founded on a revolution to achieve independence and liberty, I would have thought “liberal” would be one of the proudest of all possible words. Yet just the opposite appears to be true. Could some American kindly enlighten me about what has happened south of the border to this grand old word in the English language?

    • Same thing that happened to the 'Liberal' party: corrupted by the left. Now it is virtually synonymous with socialist. Look at the destruction by progressives in Ontario, and coming to Canada as a whole.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      The word liberal, from the Latin "libere" meaning "to free" was corrupted by the Progressive Movement at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, so is now just an agenda of ever expanding govt. – unfortunately, the same problem that you have in Canada with very high taxes and in the case of BC, political correctness nonsense on steroids, a la California. A "classic liberal" as in true libertarian is still a very good thing, but the way it is used in general parlance just means more govt. intrusion, more theft, more interference with free markets, the runaway printing of money, etc. It is most assuredly NOT a good thing. Democracy itself is not even a good thing (IMHO), as it is just mob rule (two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner) and it will always entail a lack of freedom and one group and its agenda being forced on another against their will. There are many good things about Canada, and it is a nice place in many respects, but its govt. is NOT one of the things I admire about it.

      • Canuck says:

        Thanks, Jim. I always wondered. Our countries do have differences. Taxes are always an issue but I, for one, pay them happily because of what I get in return. As one of your distinguished jurists once said, taxes (properly used, of course) are the price of civilization.

    • Jean says:

      That's because the term itself was bastardized by the Stalinists. The term "liberal" used to refer to someone who was by and large libertarian – wanted limited government intervention into people's lives, believed in the sovereignty of the individual and advocated for respect for both life and property. Leftists co-opted and corrupted the term to refer to their ideological perspective, which is that MORE government needs to be established because humans are just too doggone wacky to live freely and make decisions for themselves. They must be taken care of and managed, because if left to their own devices, some would choose to buy bubble gum cards instead of food, or might spend all of their resources on lottery tickets and live in their car. They must conform in terms of thought so must be educated by the government and be held to a centrally-planned and imposed standard. They must be shielded from anything that might cause discomfort or be "offensive" – so outright censorship of things like the news or other media must be imposed (if you doubt me, try finding a copy of Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" in any public school. THAT book – among other classics – has been banned or severely edited.) If you notice, now that the term "liberal" IS vilified, the same leftists now call themselves "progressives."

  10. Reality Seeker says:

    "If judges were perfect, no problem. But they aren’t. In fact, many are just a notch above the criminals they lock up."

    Actually, many judges are a notch below the "criminals" they lock up. And the higher the court, the lower the judge. That goes for the pols, too. Take President Hussian Obama, for example: just watching how many notches below a scumbag Hussian has dropped down makes a person wonder just how low Hussian can go.

    The press has notched down to new lows, too, and so they cannot be trusted. Although I'd have to agree with Jefferson: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

    The "People" have also dropped many notches down. Actually, Jefferson was on to something: it's all about the "People". They form the basis of everything. And so when the People are shit, so is everything else.

    • Phil says:

      As a member of a state bar, I can vouch for the fact that the majority of judges are anything but fair and just. The system has always had its problems, but what we have now is absolutely vile. And as you mention, it occurs even at the "top" – might in fact be worse there. I think especially of "Justice" Roberts in this regard. There is no way that his reasoning in either of the major Obamacare cases makes sense under traditional principles of American constitutional law. So many of these people are just rotten to the core. And the lawyers out there – frankly, Mr. Ringer was kind in his assessment of most. As an aside, one possible change that might help would be to institute a loser pays system. They have it in Australia, for instance, where lawyers in general are held in higher esteem than in the United States. At least they are subject to penalties for their frivolous nonsense and bill padding.

  11. John says:

    The sad fact of the matter is that the reason politicians and the lamestream media pervert the English language is because it works! Let's face it…people throughout history have been lazy and gullible; but in today's America, the lack of healthy skepticism and critical thinking skills have rendered our once proud nation an international farce. Deceiving ignoramuses through the use of carefully using (or avoiding) key words is like taking candy from a baby for our elected "statesmen" and intrepid "get to the bottom of the story" media. They get away with it because half-wits allow them to get away with it. As that great American philosopher, George Carlin, observed, "think of how dumb the average person is…then realize that half of them are dumber than that!"

  12. Reality Seeker says:

    "It’s absolutely amazing how the media is consistently able to divert people’s attention away from the real issues and create news out of nothing."

    That's their job. Or didn't you know that? Actually, I'm sure you do know how the media is actually a propaganda machine. Any of the MSM isn't where you find the fountainhead. Truth must be sought out from other sources, e.g., H. L. Mencken.

    In fact, you'd get more truth from Infowars Nightly News than from Fox News (aka Faux News).

    I'd rather read "The Woodpile Report" every Tuesday than "Time" any day of the week. In fact, ol' Remus, has just as great a mind as Mencken's incredible neuro-powerhouse. I've read ol' Remus for over a decade, and I've yet to be disappointed.

    ol' Remus is retired now, but you can still get a bit of his muse on the Woodpile Report. Hell, I even like listening to and reading Michael Savage's work. At least he has got a passion. Nothing close to the passion of Alex Jones, and not near the interviewer as Jones. I really enjoyed when Jones interviewed Trump a few days ago. Trump is another one with a passion. He's going to make a great Caesar, if elected. Trump is a notch above the rest. Why? Because he honestly admits who he is……….

    Trump 2016! America needs a Caesar the Great.

  13. Albert says:

    Another great read Robert! I can't help to think that if today's mentality ruled back in 1776 that the United States, one of the greatest nations to ever be created on this planet, would never have come into existence. The United States, along with the entire West, is in the midst of massive decay. Decay in morals, decay in values and decay in national will. It's sad indeed…

    P.S. point in fact…I live under the most indebted sub-sovereign state in the world (not Californai) but rather under our beloved liberal government of Ontario, Canada…$298 billion dollars and counting….and next week they'll be introducing toll roads on highways as yet another way to pay for their massive mismanagment…don't you just love it…

  14. Capt. Ahab says:

    One aspect that most people are unwilling to face is that terrorism is in the very DNA of Islam. The leading commandment in the Muslim "holy books" is to wage "holy war" on infidels. Holy war, "jihad" specifically includes terrorism, rape, and other atrocities. The order to wage jihad is so primary that it is second only to the command to worship the Muslim god "Allah." You can argue whether we are at war with Islam but there is no question that Islam is at war with us. And the sooner we grasp that central fact, the sooner we can make good decisions about dealing with Islam.

  15. John E. Gabor says:

    Great article. When they employed their hate speech and hate crime laws, it made me wonder how long it would be before they employed thoughtcrime, crimethink, and crimestop. It has also become clear that some people are more hate crimed than others…

  16. James Parker says:

    "The dictionary says terrorism is 'the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.'"

    By this (legitimate) definition, all governments are terrorist.

  17. Smucko says:

    Yes, Mr. Ringer, we have lost "swift and sure" punishment, and not just for murder. When we do see "swift and sure" punishment, it is the result of a plea-bargain to a lesser offense offered to the defendant by either a lazy prosecutor or a prosecutor who is afraid of how a jury will rule. And then, Obama wants to release them early because they pleaded guilty to a non-violent crime. A double whammy for the public.

    It sickens me that we have given up our freedom because of the War on Terror, but we can't identify the enemy by name or fact. As one of the Founding Fathers said, "Those who will give up their freedom for security deserve neither".

    Can someone define for me "Hate Speech" and "Racism", and tell me when either are criminal?

  18. Jay says:

    Mad people think that they are sane.
    Are you mad or sane?

  19. Stogie says:

    Robert, I disagree with your assertion that emphasizing the connection of terrorism with Islam is politically motivated. The motivation of those who seek to expose this clear connection (and I am one of them) is to ensure the survival of Western Civilization and save American and European lives.

    I have read 18 books (including the Koran) on the history, beliefs and practices of Islam, as well as on the life of Muhammad, and I know what I'm talking about. Radical Muslims who commit mass murder are merely following the commandments and the example of Muhammad. Over the past 1400 years, Muslims have murdeed around 2,700,000 non-believers. Yes, there are some Muslims who choose not to do "jihad." Maybe they are non-practicing Muslims, or merely do not wish to die in martyrdom. However, there is no way of knowing if at some point they will become devout, and hence violent, or whether their children will. The problem is not people, per se, the problem is a very hateful, intolerant and violent ideology. Those who practice it as written are obligated to murder non-believers. The promised reward for those Muslims who die in jihad is to go straight to Heaven, bypassing the day of judgement. They can also intercede for 60 family members, bringing them along to Heaven even if they never participated in jihad.

    Trump is right that Islamic immigration should cease. However, it should be permanent, not temporary.

  20. James says:

    Because of the disgusting media over saturation/obsession with the recent San Bernardino shootings, about a week ago I decided I would go on a media fast and try as hard as I could to avoid reading or getting sucked into the news. If anyone has never done this before, I highly recommend it. I'm going to continue this fast at least until Christmas is over.

    On a side note, for a long time I have had it on my to do list to purchase your self publishing audio seminar with Dan Poynter and finally have (treated myself to an early Christmas present) – and LOVE IT!

    One of my favorite parts is your story with getting the deal with Fawcett Publications…. DONE… DONE… DONE! :)

  21. Kyle says:

    Couponing guidelines: if you’re an individual inside the same store
    anyone discover to the exhibit, there’s a good possibility you will never have the capacity to
    have the bargains profiled.

Leave a Reply