Hillary's Fantasy Stories

Over the years I've really enjoyed reading fantasy. J.R.R. Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Lloyd Alexander, and Susan Cooper have kept me entertained for many years. Now I know there are no Hobbits, and that a man named Allannon probably can't live for 300 years, but to relive the victory of light over darkness keeps me going back for more.

Recently, though, I've come to find out that I no longer need to make a trip to the library for a new fantasy fix. All I have to do is turn of the TV and watch any of the national news broadcasts. You see, a daily look at those politicians running for president of the United States is fantasy enough.

Lately, the fantasy author I've been most intrigued with is Hillary Clinton. Did you hear her colorful rendition of a visit she made to Bosnia while the First Lady? Man bullets were flying as she and Chelsea ran for cover. Oh, and don't forget the one where Chelsea was at ground zero during the terror filled morning of 9/11. Luckily she had just darted into a coffee shop, but heard the plane hit the building! What a close call. Hillary almost lost Chelsea twice. And don't forget how Hillary single handedly brokered piece accords in Ireland.

Wowzer! You see what I mean? Who needs a good fantasy book when you can get stories like these. Actually, that's really all these accounts are... just stories... inaccurate accounts of what really happened. Hillary has been found out as a fibber. She tends to stretch the truth. Now I'm just a Basicguy, but I think the word is liar. I don't know how else to describe her recent claims except as bald-faced lies.

When you read fantasy, you expect a world that is made up... make believe. When you listen to a candidate for president, you'd hope that the truth might be somewhere nearby. Not so with Hillary. If she can't tell the truth about a simple story, how could we possibly expect the truth from her in a campaign promise or a State of the Union speech? As for me, this lady has crossed a line. Basically speaking, she could never win my vote. 

The Spectacle of Daily Spectacle

The other night my wife, daughter and I were playing on the internet. We were googling crazy words and things when the idea came to google our names. To my surprise my name listed pages of hits. As we looked through the lists, most referred to books I had help write and a published article. But one entry caught my eye. It was a blog called The Daily Spectacle. As I explored the site I realized it was kept by a liberal living in Salt Lake City.

This guy had somehow noticed a brief letter I had written to the editor of the Deseret Morning News. Unbeknownst to me, he had clipped my message and proceeded to rip me on my opinion. I had no idea it was there or that anyone had responded to my message... I had no opportunity to carry on a conversation. But it was kinda cool that he at least referred to me as "Mr." (see http://desspec.blogspot.com/2006/10/opinion-bruce-l-andreason.html)

As I read his thoughts on the subject, I noticed that he claimed to have read research on global warming and knew that it was for real. Science had determined that global warming was a man-made problem and that "scientists aren't pulling this research out of their [posterior]". Then he told naysayers to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh for scientific insights. I assume that he assumed that Rush was my source.

Well, all of that is very interesting. But I'm glad to report that as of today most scientists doubt anymore that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. In fact a report today indicates that the oceans temperature have actually cooled a bit. And who hasn't seen the BBC special "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on YouTube in 8 parts? (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE)

Well, I know I'm just a Basicguy, but seeing things in hindsight, maybe its better to listen to Rush Limbaugh with half a brain tied behind his back than to Al Gore (who seems to be this guys source for his science) who laughably invented the internet and listened to his mother sing the theme song for the AFL-CIO as a babe in a crib years before it was written. Take your pick... but I know which one I'll listen to. Basically speaking, listen to the one who has no financial agenda... no reason to whip people into a frenzy and to make panicked choices that allow big special interests groups to rake in the bucks.

Thinking Outside YOUR Box

Has anyone ever told you that you need to "think outside the box"? I get it on occasion. Sometimes it comes out at work too. Just what does it mean to "think outside the box"? What is a person really saying to you when inviting to "think outside the box"?

For me, a Basicguy, it makes me wonder. In a corporate setting, when your company pays a group big money to promote fresh ideas and exciting change among employees, thinking outside the box is a common idea. I know, I've been there. But think about it, if you're to think outside the box, aren't you really being encouraged to think outside of your box? And here's the kicker, isn't the person inviting you to "think outside the box" really asking you to think "inside" his or her box? So, when it comes to boxes, who's box is it best to think in?

Now, obviously there must be something to this "thinking outside the box" idea or it wouldn't continue to come up. So when does it make the most sense to think outside the box? I suppose that each of us tend to slip into ruts. We all recognize ruts, they are part of human nature. Thinking outside the box can dislodge a rutted person and set them on a new path.

Another important way to think outside the box is to put yourself in the shoes of another or to try to see things through someone else's eyes. This can help us feel needed compassion for others and become more responsible members of society.

Maybe there are some benefits in business for employees to "think outside the box", but I see more intrinsic value for families, neighborhoods, communities, and nations. Basically speaking, it makes a lot of sense to "think outside YOUR box" as often as you can. In the end the world would be a better place to live in.

Porn: Drug of the New Millennium

Back in high school everyone knew who the druggies were. They didn't try very hard to keep it a secret. You could tell by how they dressed, acted, or who they hung with. Of course, more drank alcohol in those days, but illegal drugs were on the rise in are little town just outside of Vegas. Now, over the years, drug abuse has grown into a plague, especially with the explosion of legal drug abuse. Whenever you find abuse of drugs, you'll see a trail of death and sorrow.

However, there is a new drug out there that doesn't get near the press. You'll never see it over-reported on Access Hollywood (as they did the accidental death of a movie star who abused prescription drugs). Yet, one author tagged this new drug as "The Drug of the new millennium" (http://www.familysafemedia.com/drug_of_the_new_millennium_6_c.html). Sadly, this drug leaves it's own trail of death and sorrow. What is this drug of the new millennium? Pornography.

Researchers have found that pornographic images release certain chemicals in the human brain. These chemicals tend to be every bit as addictive as those taken in with a needle, or a snort, or a glass of water. Still nobody considers pornography a threat... not like cocaine or heroine. In fact many drugs are illegal, but pornography often enjoys legal support from the 1st amendment... you know, free speech. To a Basicguy like me, I have a hard time figuring how pornography fits under free speech.

The US is the biggest provider and user of this drug of the new millennium. 80% of all pornography on the internet is produced and spread throughout the world from our borders. If we wanted to, the US could really do something about this plague. As of now, the US controls the internet. There are thousands of portals available on the internet. An average family uses four or five portals. Why do pornographers need access to all of the thousands of portals to spread their disease? We could divide portals into zones. Begin with family safe zones and then provide other realms for increasingly adult regions of the internet. We rate movies, why not internet portals?

Basically speaking, we can spare families and save kids... if we chose basic reason. We could surf the net without accidentally tripping over an offensive site. We could open our email and find a message from grandma instead of several offers to experience porn. Of course, all of this makes a bit too much sense in a world that defines pornography as free speech. It's all pretty disturbing. It's sad to see the demise of basic decency and innocence.