All in the Family

Have you ever just wanted to be "one of the boys" or part of the crowd? Now, some crowds aren't worth being part of, but most of us have a need to belong, to be part of a group.We just want to fit in and be accepted for who we are. I guess it gives some feeling of worth. Yes, it would be nice if we were self-confident enough to not have such needs, but it seems that our lives have that much more meaning when we can share life with others... giving to... and taking from... others. (I wonder if this is one reason why a family is such a necessary part of society?)

Well, that appears to have been the case last night for one member of our family.

My wife and oldest daughter... well, my only daughter... were watching a Christmas movie last night. Well, it was a movie that had been given as a Christmas gift, that is. Anyway, as is their custom, they were all wrapped up in their blankets, very engaged in the film. Sadie, the family beagle, left her perch on a new Christmas pillow and tried to sneak under one of the blankets with the other women in the family. Apparently there wasn't room for her.

However, not to be dissuaded, Sadie ran into the office. You see, in the office we keep a nice blanket where she sleeps on cold winter nights. Smart dog. Sadie nudged her way under the blanket and then returned to the family room... blanket in tow, hooked on the brow of her head. Yes, Sadie got herself all wrapped up in her blanket, just like all the other ladies of the house. I suppose Sadie just wanted to be part of the family.

Now, I may have not even noticed this event if I hadn't recently seen "Marley and Me," a movie about a couple, a dog, and a growing family. Marley (a very rambunctious yellow lab) became as much a part of the family as anyone else. The Grogan family would not have been the same if it hadn't been for Marley. You could say the same for us.

As a New Year dawns upon us, and the troubles of life grow beyond measure, it will be tough to tread life's path alone. We're all going to need to belong to something or with someone. Maybe that something or someone can be a family. In most cases, it's hard to replace a family. So, like Sadie, get yourself a blanket, get all wrapped up in it, and join the others in the family room!

"Bleeding Heart Tightwad" or Cheerful Giver?

Well, it's finally here... Christmas is tomorrow. It's interesting how the season slowly builds up for weeks and then sadly abruptly ends. I love the season... always have... but it's turning more and more into a deja vu experience each year. Like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day! Fortunately there is a way to keep Christmas all year long. That is to follow the "giving" way of the Savior of the world... the One born in a lowly stable in Bethlehem... the One whose birth we celebrate every December 25th.

In an interesting article by Nicholas D. Kristof, a self-professed liberal, it appears that the most giving political idealists are conservatives (see "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," NY Times). Ole Nick was very surprised and disappointed to find that those who share his political idealism lag far behind in charitable giving. Well, I know I'm just a basicguy, but I don't share Nick's surprise.

Liberals that I know tend to be more secular and less religious. God is less important than the "village" and church is less important than the state. In this environment, you pay your taxes to the government and they then take care of the people in the village, both here and abroad. It's pretty convenient... you never have to actually confront people in need or see them or talk to them... the government just takes care of it.

On the other hand, conservatives tend to be active Christians (think Religious Right) and as such feel the need to learn of, and live like, the icon of Christianity... Jesus Christ. The scriptures record that Jesus "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38) and most often this good was of a very personal sort... one on one... person to person.

Each of us can "keep" this Christmas... make it last a little longer and keep it from abruptly ending... by following the "giving" way of the Christ. Spend some quiet time in the scriptures and learn how to be a more personal giver. It helps while reading to ask the question posed by Saul, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" (NKJV Acts 9:6.) I've found that keeping Christmas in this way, tends to make me a cheerful giver instead of a "bleeding heart tightwad." This year of all years, when so many are in trouble and hurting, let's make it so.

Merry Christmas!

The Only Bail Out I Like

Is anyone else out there getting just a little fed up with the increasing bail out talk? How many bail outs can the US taxpayer cover? I guess the answer to that is how many future generations of Americans you include in your calculation. From Wall Street to Main Street and all those in between (even states are asking for a bail out!), the numbers are staggering. Of course, to a basicguy like me, I was more than staggered at the initial $700 billion.

Like many normal people out there, I opposed all of the bail outs. Practices like financial planning, an organized budget, and living within your means are apparently too old school for the financial wiz kids that supposedly know much more than me. I hoped that congress and the offending financial institutions would come to their senses and begin to show some restraint. But I guess that was a bit too much to ask.

Why? Because we have a president-elect (you know, the one whose going to change the world for the better?) who is planning yet another bail out. You heard me, another bail out. And this one offends me more than them all. Obama's transition team is calling for "dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled 'Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration,' also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country."

So much for change, huh? Not only am I opposed to bail outs in general, but I am also opposed to abortion, particularly those performed for casual reasons. How can we even consider bailing out an industry that encourages the demise of 1.4 million people. That's right, I said people. Most aborted babies would grow up to be living breathing, productive Americans... future generations that could help us grow our population and income potential as a nation. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

It seems to me that maybe I am in favor of bail outs after all. If America was a plane, it might be helpful if some of our worst offending members of society bailed out without a chute! Maybe then, saner minds would prevail and our country could be set back onto a more financial secure path. However, I am only a basicguy.

Black Friday was Actually a Bright Spot

Well we survived it. Black Friday is now a distant memory. It was shockingly colored by two seriously disturbing events, but people still shopped in large numbers. There were enough "numbers" that a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death. There was also a gun battle at a Toys-R-Us. So it's hard to challenge that people weren't passionate this year about the season. Fortunately, most places were just normally busy with frantic, but law abiding shoppers.

However, with all of the good news that shopping was a little better than last year, there was also the bad news. You see, there was one significant change from previous years. Reporters were hard-pressed to explain the phenomenon, but eagerly reported this serious threat to our economy. It turns out that people were indeed shopping at a very brisk pace, but they were only shopping for others... they weren't buying for themselves!

Oh, my gosh. The world is coming to an end. I can't believe that it has come to this. People are setting aside personal needs to think of others during this Christmas season? Well, it was fun while it lasted.

I know, it's over the top tongue-in-cheek stuff there... I couldn't help myself. I don't know about you, but for me, it's sort of natural to think of others at Christmas time. It's the season to be jolly and to live in a way that reminds us of Jesus Christ... whose birth we actually celebrate at this time of year. We should be shedding the "what's in it for me" attitude and doing our best to put someone else first... and for many people, to put someone else first for a change. For example, Blagojevich, the now disenfranchised Governor of Illinois, apparently didn't know what time of year it was as he tried to enrich himself by selling an appointment for senator. Unreal.

Well, enough said. The times are what they are. Money is tight. The economy struggles from day to day. Jobs are more scarce. Companies are closing their doors. It is what it is. Still, I actually find it refreshing that people, even in these tough times, are thinking of others instead of themselves while Christmas shopping. As one born in a lowly manger, Jesus Christ, in His poverty, gave all that He had to others. It somehow seems fitting that American's are shopping... and not for themselves.

Good Luck, Mr. Brit

So, I'm watching the news tonight for a few minutes (I get most of my news on the Internet), and the anchor dangles a carrot. A story is coming about a guy who says he will live for a year without spending a dime. I was interested enough to check back often until the story was reported. It finally came.

It was about a man living in England, a Brit, who had some degree in economics. He was fed up enough with the financial crisis that he was going to show his displeasure with the way things are by checking out of the system for 12 months. You heard me... 12 months.

How would he do it? He would trade his talents and skills for food and other needed items. Instead of a vehicle he'd ride a bike with a small trailer attached to carry possessions. Pretty interesting, though nothing terribly new. This idea has been tried before. Check out of man-made society and into the perfectly created earth. I do wish him well. As a basicguy, a simpler life is very appealing.

However, his last comment was the one that really caught my attention. When asked about capitalism, his profound reply was, "Capitalism is flawed." Wow. Now that is something I'd never considered. Really? Flawed, huh? Well, duh. Of course its flawed! Every man-made financial system is flawed. Name any financial system that has ever existed, and flaws can be revealed. Why is that? It's simple. Financial systems are flawed because people are flawed.

So, Mr. Brit, I do wish you well in your personal rebellion against the way things are in our financial world. With all of its weaknesses, capitalism has the power and energy to resolve massive financial challenges. There has never been anything quite so effective in eradicating poverty and building extensive civilized infrastructures. But sadly it engenders greed and other debilitating characteristics. Yet, even though I'm just a basicguy, Mr. Brit, I can see the day when you get burned by some person who doesn't quite live up to an agreement you made for your services. I hope it doesn't come to that... but all man-made financial systems are flawed... because people are flawed. Good luck, Mr. Brit.

Maintining a Lifestyle or Getting a Life

It's interesting to hear all the reports about how Americans aren't flying or buying or traveling like they used to. Reporters are fretting about it. So are business owners. So is Wall Street. Why all the head-scratching?

The government bailout may allow Wall Street executives, Corporate officers, and Bankers to maintain their unrealistic and expensive lifestyles, but no one else. Most normal Americans no what it means to live within their means. They know when there are financial challenges, it is more important to get a life than to maintain a lifestyle. They may not be able to afford a certain lifestyle, but they can afford a life. And the miracle? No one else has to bail them out so they can maintain some selfish lifestyle.

It's too bad our federal government hasn't chosen to learn from "we the people"... you know, the normal Joes and Plain Janes. I guess it's been way too long since our elected leaders had a real life instead of their false Washington lifestyle. Besides, there is nothing wrong with driving over to Grandma's house instead of the Cayman Islands for a change. I know I'm just a basic guy, but it seems to me that there is far more life in "getting a life" than in maintaining some false "lifestyle."

America's New Day May Be Too New

Well, a lot has happened since I last posted any thoughts. America has chosen an historic direction by voting into office Barrack Obama. He will become the first African-American to so serve. This truly is a new day for America. I just hope that this "new day" isn't too new.

Obama and his cadre of leaders are claiming a mandate from the American people for significant change. Why is it that whenever people win presidential elections they claim some mandate? Now, it is true, some have won by a landslide. In that case, a mandate can be claimed. But most win by a few percentage points. So, can one claim a mandate from just half the people? Not me.

One percentage caught my eye and told me a lot about what happened. In general, the percentage of Republicans and Democrats who vote in a presidential election is pretty even--37 to 38%. However, in this election there was an obvious difference. Democrats maintained their average, while the Republicans dropped by an amazing 7% to 8% points. Now this fact may not have changed result of this years election. But it is telling. It helps reveal that McCain never did garner the needed support of his party.

Change was inevitable for two reasons. First, how do you stand in the way of history? We have witnessed history in the making. In some ways, it's a remarkable time to live for we have come so far as a country. It's a journey we needed to make. Whether now or with this man, is the right time and person, I'm not convinced. Time will tell. Second, Republicans shot themselves in the foot. They betrayed their base support through their own pride and corruption. Who knows how long it will take to repair the damage and rebuild the trust.

In the meantime, with a Republican party as damaged goods, who will be in a position to act as a check and balance to a Democratic Party claiming a mandate? Government size and spending has already ballooned under Republicans, so what will happen as spend-happy Democrats seize even more control? I shudder to think.

Who knows, maybe Obama will come to his senses as he is absorbed in his "new day." I know, dream on, Basicguy.

McCain Shows his Age... Needs Hearing Aides

I don't know about you, but I've been doing a lot of head scratching lately. Being a conservative, and watching the recent financial fiasco, I'm left to wonder: just who is John McCain listening to? Now, I've noticed that older folk get a little hard of hearing. I watched it happen to my Dad and even now, at my relatively young age, I'm noticing the beginnings of it. But is everyone on McCain's staff the same age?

Watching President Bush, his administration, and the mainstream media (MSM) over the past week or so, I've concluded that they were all on the same page. There is only one solution for our failing economy and wall street woes: a bailout at tax payers expense. Oddly enough there was no discussion of a Plan A or B, let alone a Plan C. There's just one possible answer for this predicament: do the $700 billion dollar bailout or life as we know it ends. For some reason McCain heard that option, he supported it.

However, reading a conservative magazine and a couple of conservative blogs, and listening occasionally to conservative talk radio, it became apparent that there were plenty of other options to the proposed bailout. One option was to drop the capital gains tax for two years and flood the market with an enormous amount of cash. The experts did say that the market needed and infusion of cash, so that probably would have worked... without using tax payers money.

Why didn't this idea gain any traction? Well, the MSM didn't report it on TV or print it in newspapers. I'm assuming they didn't report it because of the continual feud between the MSM and conservative thinkers. So, an idea that might have solved our financial crisis without forcing the nation to take a socialistic step, is sadly lost to us.

Now, here's the most disappointing thing to me. John McCain courted conservatives saying he had our back. He hinted at this position by selecting Sarah Palin, which did satisfy a lot of us conservatives who really had no one to rally around until then. All that is fine and dandy, but with recent actions by the McCain camp leaves conservatives wondering: just who is John McCain listening to? Well, it's pretty obvious that he's not listening to conservatives. He simply supported the bailout plan discussed by the MSM. He supported President Bush's administration, even though most American's opposed it.

So what do we learn from all of this? McCain is an avowed moderate. He doesn't, and never has, seriously considered conservative thinking. His solutions are the same as those conjured up by big government intelligensia. It's sad really. He was given a gift... a real opportunity to offer something new and different... to take a stand as a "straight talker"... show a dynamically creative way to solve our financial crisis... and to set him apart from Obama's camp and Washington. But instead he obviously listened to the MSM and ended up exposing his age. McCain is hard of hearing, especially when it comes to listening to solutions offered by conservative thinkers.

Being a Basicguy and all, I'm probably not smart enough to comprehend McCain's greater plan. But I do know this, if McCain continues to be hard of hearing of conservative thought, conservatives will be hard of hearing of his... regardless of how many times he throws Governor Palin out there to satisfy them. It's not working. Unfortunately, McCain's aging hearing problem will guarantee a loss of more than hearing in November and carve a path for a disastrous Obama presidency.

McCain, where are your hearing aides?

An Endangered Species

John McCain has an excellent staff. Despite the odds, they cleverly maneuvered through Democratic Olympics and Obama's coronation with deftness and expertise. I'm impressed. And then to steal the thunder of the Mr. Obama's magical night by introducing Sarah Palin of Alaska as the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States of America. Whether you like it or not, its tough to refute the brilliance of the move. As McCain kindly tendered to Obama on his special night, I say to McCain: well done.

I was feeling pretty good about things. It was that "gotcha" experience you always like to have. You know, the way you felt when you finally realized what was going on in The Sixth Sense? So it was very satisfying when McCain pulled Palin out of his hat. But pouring over the blogs on the heals of the announcement, I came across the naysayers. Many were belligerent and attacked with passion. Even another "mother" (like Palin), insisted that Palin was the wrong choice because she lacked experience and could never lead this country when (not if) McCain became incapacitated. I wonder if Pelosi had other reasons for this attack. Did she feel slighted by Obama? I personally think she likes being the most powerful woman in America and Palin is a threat to that status quo.

But there was one attack that caught my eye. A woman derided the Palin choice as politics as usual... an effort by the McCain camp to court Hillary voters. I'm sure that observation was accurate. But then she followed it with this quote: McCain will never get my vote because Palin is pro life... she does not believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. It was an especially panged comment considering that Palin gave birth to a down syndrome child in April. Palin's selfless and courageous decision dwarfs the hundreds and thousands of women who have selfishly and cowardly ended the life of a human being because a woman has a right to choose.

It is interesting that many of the same women, who cavalierly choose to end the life of a human embryo, march hand in hand for PETA, global warming, and endangered species. I find it shocking that it's safer to be born an owl than a human. I wonder if someone should put forth a bill in congress to add humans to the endangered species list. Maybe then unborn humans might have a better chance to breath earth's air, behold its fruited plains, and walk its amber cities. Now, I'm just a Basicguy, but that makes a lot of sense to me.

Obama: The Convenient Candidate

Now, don't get me wrong, I like things to be convenient just as much as any one else; the alarm clock next to the bed, a tall glass of ice water next to the easy chair, a Chick-fil-A down the street, or a laptop that connects to the internet in any room of the house. However, some conveniences are more one sided and are designed to deceive.

I've been watched the presidential contest for months now. Though I must admit, when my choice flamed out, I haven't been near as passionate, simply an interested observer. I have been amazed at the crowds that Obama commands at every stop and have wondered why. Now that time has passed and many things have been said, I can't help but conclude that Obama is the convenient candidate.

For example, Obama is conveniently black. Why claim to be an African-American when half of your DNA is white? Why not claim to be the other half? Or better yet, why not simply claim to be an American? The convenience here is to catch the historical wave. There is nothing new about saying you are an American running for president. But being the first black man to capture the White House is really saying something.

Obama is conveniently moderate. Now, being a conservative, I've noted the records of those who had thrown their hat into the presidential ring. Interestingly enough, Obama's record was the most liberal of all the candidates. He even bested Hillary Clinton... which is hard to do. But now, Obama claims centrist positions that he hasn't claimed in the past. One example is taking credit for backing a welfare bill in his home state of Illinois that he actually opposed as a state senator.

Obama is conveniently Christian. I know that he denies accusations about his Muslim past, but there are way too many reports about his life to excuse them. This is a Christian nation, for better or for worse. Better in my opinion. And would be more convenient for anyone running for president in a Christian nation to be an avowed Christian.

Now, as more news spreads throughout the blogosphere, be sure to pay attention. You may not hear much about these controversies on network news programs, but there will be plenty being blogged. Determine for yourself if Obama is for real or, like me, conveniently real.

Don't Take it Personal

Well, it's over. An entrenched incumbent lost his seat in a Utah Republican primary. Chris Cannon, a 12 year vet of Washington politics, was trounced by newcomer Jason Chaffetz. If I had a chance to talk to Mr. Cannon, I'd tell him not to take it personal. He had a voting record that makes a good conservative giddy, but was guilty by association. Most conservatives are generally ticked at congress because of the pathetic state of union. On a Republican watch spending got out of control, debt mounted to the size of Everest, earmarks burdened bills, entitlements grew, corruption spread, and immigration was never solved, etc. It was amazing, you couldn't tell the difference between a Democrat or a Republican.

So you see, Mr. Cannon, you became a target by association. And other conservatives like me hope that term limits come to many more who showed no leadership to stem this unwieldy tide. Unfortunately, Bush's "compassionate conservatism" spilled over the banks and washed a slug of congressmen down river. Mr. Cannon, you were one of them. And then you had the audacity to say that there is a lack of GOP unity in Utah and the US (see Deseret News, Thursday, June 26, 2008, A1, A6). Well, how are we supposed to be unified behind the kind of leadership our esteemed politicians have given us? And you wondered why the delegates at the Utah State Convention seemed "uncivil". I'd say they were appropriately mad.

Now, if I had a chance to talk to Jason Chaffetz, I'd say: don't take it personal. I know, it's the same council I'd give Mr. Cannon. I have my reasons. You see, Mr. Chaffetz, if you let this new position go to your head (like so many others), you'll just end up like Mr. Cannon. We didn't vote you in so you can be all that. You were in essence hired by the people to do a job. You are a public servant. We have no stomach for a political aristocracy. We need a statesman. (Something you said you wouldn't go to Washington to be... remember? Dumb comment, Mr. Chaffetz.) We also need someone with vision who can influence the party to bring sanity back into the halls of congress. Oh, by the way, since "we the people" employ you to do a job, we retain the right to "take things personal" if you choose some other insane course of action.

Finally, to all those who are elected officials, or want to be, and the party elite, don't take this personal. The Republican Party keeps sending requests for money. Why would a conservative want to continue to finance a party that has allowed itself to stray so far off course? This one wouldn't... and won't. Now, I'm just a basicguy, but I'd be willing to bet that other conservatives share this stance: I'm an American first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. Understand?

The Reds of Life

I just have one question: Why can't the Dodgers play the Reds every day? The Dodgers have their number. In the two series with the Reds this year, the Dodgers have only lost one game. As a Dodger fan that's nirvana. However, I'd feel really bad for the Reds fans... for about 3 minutes.

But isn't that a lot like life? We really don't get to choose who we play. We all face an endless parade of challenges and often the order in which they come seems to be unfair or overwhelming. I suppose that's why we feel relief when we come to challenges or trials that are familiar--those that we've faced before and have successfully stood up to. Oh, that we could always face the Reds in our life's experiences.

Party or Principle?

I recently had a conversation with a colleague that really got me thinking. He shared an insight I had never considered before. Now, I'm not a young guy by any means, but most of my real political experience has happened since just before the Reagan Revolution. That fact has shaped my beliefs and assumptions about the Republican Party.

My parents were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. My dad was a WWII vet and a dyed in the wool Democrat. My mom on the other hand opted for the Republicans. There was one year when we had political signs in our yard of opposing candidates. One thing you can say is that they each had passion.

So, when it was my turn to enter the voting world and choose a party, who did I follow? My dad. Well, it does make some sense, I was a guy. Most guys were Democrats... right? Not long after I cast a vote for McGovern. However, when he lost badly, I felt like a loser. And whenever I lost in my youth, it wasn't unusual for me to quit. So, I quit politics... for a while. Then one day, I was introduced to Ronald Reagan. No, not personally. He was on TV sharing his reasons for opposing abortion. Something rang true about this man. Was it his warmth? His sincerity? He just made sense.

From that time on, I watched Reagan rise to the top of the Republican world. He brought a conservative message to the US political landscape that made sense. It drew me into the Republican Party, engaged my interest and political energy, and fired my hopes and political passion. And I wasn't alone. From Reagan on, I've assumed that republicanism was synonymous with conservatism.

So, now, back to my colleague. Tom Valletta (http://vallettapapers.blogtownhall.com/) has a similar political genealogy as mine... only he was very involved in the political process. He actually worked on McGovern's campaign. One day I expressed my frustration with the state of the Republican Party. Our ship was adrift and has left its political moorings. It was filled with politicians who have forgotten conservative principles and have done little to offset the growth of big government, entitlements, and debt.

Can you imagine how surprised I was when Tom pointed out that the party was simply returning to what it once was... the Grand Ole Party. I asked him to explain. He said, "Conservatism is a political movement or philosophy. With the rise of Reagan, conservatism hijacked the Republican Party, and has had a good run of influencing the direction of political affairs. Conservatism has simply lost its hold on the party."

We talked for a few minutes longer. It all made sense. My own history with the party was mostly a conservative history. I had never known the party to be any thing different. So, what am I? Am I a Republican or a conservative? A conservative Republican, I suppose. If the Republican Party turns its back on conservative principles (which in some ways, Bush has been guilty of this very thing), then what am I? I'm still a conservative. Basically speaking, I'm an American first, a conservative second, and party member third. Nothing else makes sense to me. And I owe it all to my colleague.

Statesman or Politician?

As you could probably tell from my last blog I was a delegate for my state's convention. The convention was yesterday... an all day affair. The main objective for my part of the convention was to vote for a congressman. There were 5 candidates; 4 challengers and an incumbent. Each candidate was given 7 minutes to speak to the delegates. I had come to the convention leaning in a particular direction, however, I thought that the speeches might still sway one way or another. I was right.

The first speaker was in his own world. His speech made little sense, but we kindly clapped out of respect. The second, Joe Fergusson, made a great deal of sense, but tended to be over-zealous about a single issue (the North American Union). Though the issue deserves a great deal of attention there are many more things that needed addressing. He was articulate but didn't give himself much of a chance for serious consideration. The third speaker caught my attention. David Leavitt spoke about the need for a true statesman in Washington, not a politician. He had enough fire in his bones that I got stirred. This one deserved some serious consideration. Next, a very energetic Jason Chaffetz took the stand. He had some strong points, the strongest being that he was a fiscal conservative. He proved it by indicating he had a budget for his campaign and stayed within it. Both of his major contenders outspent him by 8 to 1 and also over-spent their budgets. He got a rousing response as he promised to run his office in Washington the same way. The final speaker was the incumbent, Chris Cannon. His point was simple, he has always fought for our state and was in a position to have influence in Washington. My experience has been that all incumbents make this argument. He does have a good voting record but this argument always wears thin.

Well, I voted for the "statesman". After the count, my candidate was in a tenuous third place. The bottom two were eliminated and we voted again. I punched my card for the "statesman", checked for any hanging chads, and stuffed it into the ballot box. When the results were announced I was disappointed once again. My guy was a distant third. Then the unthinkable happened. Campaign volunteers for the "statesman" funneled into the convention hall carrying Chris Cannon signs; a clear signal that Leavitt was not only admitting defeat, but pointing his voters towards his choice for congress.

Understandably Chaffetz supporters booed the effort until the convention officials cleared the illegal campaigners from the hall. I was stunned. My "statesman" had ripped off his mask and all I could see was a politician. I was disappointed in my choice for congress, and the incumbent, who clearly welcomed this effort to sway Leavitt voters his way. Anything to win I guess. I quickly took out my final ballot and punched the number for Chaffetz.

Now, I'm just a basicguy, and some might say I'm not smart enough to understand how politics works. Maybe so. But I can say that something didn't feel quite right. Basically speaking, you can't claim to be a statesman and then act like a politician. Well, I suppose you can, but it just isn't right. I expect more from anyone who seeks to enter public life. I've had enough of the political elite, America's voted royalty, who assume that position affords privilege and wealth. I thought they were to defend the Constitution and serve the public. I guess things have changed. Maybe Jason Chaffetz will surprise me. I can only hope he's heard of the term "statesman".

Buying or Winning Votes?

Well, I've finally arrived. I feel as close to being a politician as I'm likely to ever get. I was nominated as a state delegate and selected by our precinct voters as part of a Republican caucus meeting. Over the ensuing weeks its been pretty much like the other times I've served as a delegate. But there was something different this time. The difference was probably in me... but it was different all the same. Let me explain.

A couple of weeks ago I was reading the local paper. The front page article of the local section stood out: "Lobbyists gave $125k to legislators" (Deseret News, Saturday, April 19, 2008, B6). That caught my eye. The article broke down some of the gifts that lobbyists were giving to our state legislators: $20,000 for entertainment; $10,00 for t-shirst, umbrellas, caps, etc.; $68,000 for lunches or dinners; and more. I don't know about you, but that sort of appears like bribes... buying favors. Do you know what the clincher was in the article? 89% of the reported gifts were to recipients whose names were undisclosed. Hmmm, added to all the favors, we now have all the secrets. I must admit, the article just didn't sit well with me.

As the weeks passed, my mail began to multiply. You got it, candidates opened the flood gates with arguments and invitations to meet them. All that was just fine. It is my duty to find out all that I can about each candidate so I can make an informed vote at the State Convention. But then I saw it. Candidate after candidate was inviting me to meet them at bbq's, restaurants, pizza parties, breakfast engagements, etc. I even got a 6-pack of bottled root beer. Then it happened. I started to feel like a politician. I thought: "So this is what it feels like!" These people want me to vote a certain way--their way--and they are willing to bribe me or buy my vote.

Well, I want you to know that I have not taken advantage of a single offer... my vote will be pure. It does make one wonder about the candidates. If they play this game on this little stage, what games will they play on the much bigger stage? Now, I'm just a Basicguy, and I may not know all about the bigger world out there, but it seems to me that some rules ought to apply in any game. They wouldn't change the rules from the regular season when they play the Super Bowl would they? Basically speaking, these guys are simply tipping their hand... showing their face.

Now there is one guy who hasn't offered any food or gifts of any sort, just opportunities to discuss the issues. He explained that he intended to run his campaign the way he would run the office if elected--on an appropriate budget. I guess buying me a slice of pizza wasn't in his budget. Hmmm, gotta like that... he's sort of set himself apart from the pack. I guess there's two ways to get votes... buy'em or win'em. This guy just may have won mine.

Legislating from the Throne

I've often heard some political activists talk about candidates for the Supreme Court or even an occasional member of the current court. They'd say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the bench!" At first I wondered what they were talking about. "Why would a supreme court justice be legislating" and "what is a bench?" Though I'm just a Basicguy, it still didn't take me long to figure out what they were trying to say. The bench is that stand that the justices sit on when they hear and respond to cases brought before them. And the legislating thing? Well, that's how laws are made, usually by the legislature, and should not be by a supreme court with a political agenda.

Well, all this got me thinking the other day. I was reading some of the transcript from the most recent debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each candidate was warned that they would be pressed by constitutional matters, but it didn't take long to leave the Constitution and see the bickering back and forth over the candidates favorite issues. As I read, I began to wonder how many of the things they were promising to do for America actually related to the duties of a president as dictated by the Constitution. Well, not much.

It seems that most of the things presidential candidates talk about (and that goes for both parties) fall within the duties of the legislative branch, not the executive. Well, if that's the case, would it be fair to say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the throne?" Now, I voted for President Bush, but looking at his politics from this perspective, I wondered how many of the initiatives he instigated really didn't belong to the executive office of government? Here are some to think about: The Iraq war; Prescription drug benefits; NAFTA; CAFTA; No child Left Behind; etc., etc., etc.

Well, I imagine this line of discussion could spark some debate. So be it. There's nothing wrong with a healthy constitutional conversation. All I'd ask first is that you pull out your old pamphlet of the Constitution and review articles I and II of the Constitution. Article I deals with the Legislative Branch and Article II deals with the Executive. Put the current president and the candidates on trial.

Basically speaking, whenever you hear any politician put forth some fascinating plan for the country, ask yourself if the Constitution really allows them to do that. If it does, then maybe that person is a good choice. However, if it doesn't, it ought to worry us that such important people do not know the very Constitution they promise to protect and uphold on a stack of bibles. If we're not more vigilant on these constitutional issues, we may find that "legislating from the throne" is far worse than legislating from the bench. Keep your constitutional eyes open America.

Change the Climate on Climate Change

Was I just seeing things? I'm sure my eyes were playing tricks with me, but I thought that was Newt Gingrich sitting with Nancy Pelosi on TV. As I sat recently watching a program on TV, Newt and Nancy appeared on a commercial together. Nancy admitted that the to of them hadn't agreed on much over the years (to which Newt nodded his head in approval), she said there was one thing they both did agree on. Newt then announced that they both agreed on doing something about Global Climate Change. I about died.

You already know how I feel about climate change or global warming (see my blog entry titled: "The Spectacle of Daily Spectacle" on March 20, 2008). It's a scam. Current "real" science does not support such a claim. But the green movement in America, who blame man for all the ills on earth, would have us stall our economy and further indebt our nation to escape the coming climate crisis. Don't buy it. And there he was, Newt Gingrich alongside Nancy, having bought the green line hook, line, and sinker. He had swallowed the whole line and the rod and the reel. Newt, hurry to YouTube and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle before its too late!

If that wasn't enough, the Deseret News reported this morning that Gordon Brown called on the US and Europe "to lead a new era of global 'interdependence' aimed at solving international problems such as terrorism, poverty and climate change" (see Deseret News, Saturday, April 19, 2008, A12). There it was again... climate change. And you can bet that climate change is on his mind because he's bought into the assumption that man is the major contributor of climate change. We are in real trouble when the heads of state start pushing agendas based on fear instead of fact.

Now I know I'm just a Basicguy. I don't have a science degree. But as I listen to other sources besides the mainline media (that do not have an obvious liberal agenda), I'm convinced that the scientific community is not in agreement on this issue. Many do believe that there is evidence of climate change, but there is no evidence that pins it on man. Other natural forces are at work such as, the earth's ecosystem, changes in activity on the sun, and the CO2 created by domestic animals. Even a Basicguy can read. Gore is, and always has been, wrong. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. Basically speaking, we need to change the climate on the climate change discussion.

What We Do in the Name of Religion

I'm often surprised by what people will do to each other in the name of religion. Just this past presidential season displayed the widespread bias of evangelicals against Mormons. Though he tried to hide his disdain, Mr. Huckabee probably smiled when Mitt Romney opted to drop out of the race. Those Mormons are a cult you know and the nation has been spared being seized upon by this stray evil. Well, I suppose I shouldn't be a sore loser... but its tough for us Basicguy's to accept defeat or disappointment with the needed grace.

As interesting as I find this particular issue, there is a far bigger picture that I'd like to address in relation to religious abuse. I came across an interesting article today written by Ken Timmerman. He writes a column often dealing with the Middle East and the challenges this country faces there. He often has insights from well-placed connections. In this article he covered the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Notice this:

“The Kurdish regional government in Northern Iraq is providing a safe haven to several thousand Iraqi Christians who have fled persecution in other parts of the country, government officials and local pastors told Newsmax.

“Unlike refugee camps set up for some 100,000 Shia Muslims fleeing attacks from Sunnis, which are closely monitored by Kurdish security forces, Christians have been encouraged to live anywhere.

“‘Christians in Iraq need special attention, because they’ve been suffering because they are Christians,’ Deputy Prime Minister Omar Fattah told Newsmax in an exclusive interview in Erbil. ‘Maybe we give some instructions to others where they can go, but to Christians, never, because we are not afraid they will be terrorists.’”

Did you catch that? The Kurd’s welcome Iraqi Christians and allow them to live anywhere “because we are not afraid they will be terrorists.” They can’t do the same with sunni or shia Muslim’s because there is no telling what you’ll get. And yet the Christians flee Bagdad and other cities in their homeland because of the abuse they suffer… even unto death.

Now I know that there have been years of darkness even among Christianity. But that was ages ago. Christians have matured and come of age. Christianity led the world into an age of progress and civility. Then radical Islam showed up on stage and has violently imposed its archaic beliefs upon the world.

It’s sad isn’t it? A people who once offered the world so much in all the educational disciplines has fallen pray to a religion and a movement that seeks to plunge the world back into the dark ages or Old Testament times. All the progress and good that God has wrought through His children over the years is threatened by this growing threat.

So basically speaking, it is surprising what people are willing to do to each other in the name of religion. I’m glad to be part of a people that others “are not afraid they will be terrorists.” Now, if only Mr. Huckabee would let me be a Christian.

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.

Take Not "From a Thread to a Shoelatchet"

It was years ago now, but it's something I've never forgotten. In the "heat" of the Cold War, a group representing college students in Great Britain, sent an open letter to the people of the United States of America. They wanted the US to tone down the rhetoric and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their argument was simple, it's better to be a communist than dead. I remember my thinking at the time: "So, give up the hope of a free world for one dominated and dictated by a regime of power-hungry men? A world where the promise of a better life is in the hands the advantaged few? Are you kidding me?" I had no interest in surrendering "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", simply because a group of students feared the mighty power of the Soviet Union. Of course, since then we have found out that the Soviet power was a ruse and that communism really doesn't work. Marx was wrong.

Now, to a BasicGuy, all that seems pretty plain. But here we are, all these years later, and some troubling signs appear in our own land. There is a growing number of individuals who tend to believe in government subsidies or hand-outs. The government should provide health care for everyone, social security for retirement, and prescription drug benefits. The government should keep banks from repossessing the homes of those defaulting on mortgages and other loans. The government should do this and that. It seems to me if we keep going down such a precarious path, we may as well have bowed to the pressure to surrender to the Russians so many years ago, because we're going there anyway.

And what's really interesting is that some of this new "attitude" about government sponsored programs is coming from college age young people in our own country. The attitude being, the government owes me something because I pay taxes. The problem is, if any people become accustomed to paying the government to provide services, in time that government is empowered to take ownership in their life. There was a scene in the movie "Cinderella Man, that moved me. (It was surprising that a liberal leaning Hollywood would allow such an honorable act to remain in the film.) The lead actor, Russell Crowe, was a boxer, but times were hard. He was close to losing his family because he couldn't support them. In a desperate act, he borrowed from the government. In fact, he took welfare. However, he was a decent basic guy, and felt a specific responsibility for his own life and that of his family. Not only did he feel some shame for needing the government hand-out, as soon as he was able, he paid the money back. The government official tried to explain that it wasn't necessary to return to money, but he insisted. That's the attitude I've been raised with. Pay your own way as best you can.

This idea is as old as the Bible. In the days of Abraham, there were several kings in confederate wreaking havoc upon the peoples near where Abraham lived. Sodom and Gomorrah fell pray to this army and Abraham's nephew, Lot, and many others were taken captive along with their possessions. When Abraham heard of it, he amassed his own confederacy and defeated the offending army. He returned Lot, and the people, and their goods to their freedom. When the King of Sodom greeted Abraham, the successful warrior, he said: "Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself" (Genesis 14:21). All this, I suppose, to show gratitude for the deed. But Abraham's response is one to remember. He said, "I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich" (Genesis 14:23).

Now, I'm just a BasicGuy, but that inspires me. It just makes plain sense. I don't want any government to own me. In my way of thinking, Governments job is simply to provide an atmosphere where people are free to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we grant the government too much power to provide for the basics in our lives, we simply deed away the right to determine who we are and who we can become. That's far too much to give up.

So here we are in the 21st century. A unique and historic presidential election is taking place. On the one hand, we have candidates who claim that the government needs to do more, or provide more, or be more of the answer for the people in the United States of America. Are we going to choose or vote our way into the very circumstance that British college students pleaded for us to embrace so many years ago? I hope not.

Basically speaking, we have a simple choice. If a candidate runs on a record or rhetoric that offers government sponsored solutions to life's problems, then find someone else to vote for. If "change" is simply more government entitlements and hand-outs, remember Abraham or the Cinderella Man, and choose the basic life instead. Take not "from a thread even to a shoelatchet"; don't allow any government to claim it made you rich. We'll all regret it.

"Huck"ing Romney

It was amazing to read about the meteoric rise to the top that Mike Huckabee did in the Iowa presidential caucus. He surprised everyone, especially Romney's camp, who had expected to do very well. Romney's obvious plan was to spend a lot of money in the two early primaries and jump start his little known campaign. But Huckabee stole the show. Of course, Huckabee's explanation was that his message just rang true among Republican faithful. Others were suspicious that he had simply rallied the Evangilical forces.

I'm just a basic guy so I took everyone's word for it... they're all smarter than me anyway. But it kept eating at me. I read an article that suggested that Huckabee's rise to the top was really very simple... Huckabee is just a likeable guy. Well, that was obviously true. I had seen the man in the debates and on TV... he did seem likeable. In fact, I could probably vote for the guy under the right circumstances. He and I saw eye to eye on a few issues. But when he didn't score so well in Hew Hampshire, it got me thinking again. Was his rise to the top simply because he was likeable? I began to doubt it.

The thought that really stuck out to me was the heavey Evangilical vote. Could it be that his rise was less likeability and more a movement against Romney? In fact I started wondering if it was really a vote against a Mormon. Huckabee's second place win in South Carolina was largely Evangelical again. His candidacy looks more like an effort to ensure that a Mormon doesn't win. I know, I sound like a conspiracy freak. I don't mean to. I'm just suspisious of the whole thing.

Being a basic guy, I'd normally worry a bit about being labeled a conspiracy freak. But this time other things came to my attention that kept me sane. One was a University of Vanderbilt poll (survey by political scientists John Geer, Brett Benson, and Jennifer Merolla). The authors of the survey found that 57% of the Evangelicals admitted to having a bias against Mormon's. Now in my mind, that would be votes against Romney. I didn't want to believe it at first, but then it started to make sense.

Would I vote against Huckabee because he was an Evangelical? Not at all. In fact, I don't remember asking what a candidates particular religion was in the past. Then I wondered if I would vote for Romney just because he and I share the same religion. Then I remembered Harry Reed, the Nevada Senator. There is no way he'd get my vote. When I settle all of this in my mind, I wasn't very happy with what appeared to be an Evangelical effort to keep a Mormon off the Republican ticket.

If that was all I'd probably give up on the issue and write it off and a lame-brained idea. I came across another article that moved my suspisions to fact. Jonathan Martin, writing for Politico, revealed Huckabee's real agenda. He gathered his thoughts from Huckabee's own speech after the prmary in South Carolina and described the Evangelical presidential hopeful as a "Mitt Killer" (see http://www.politico.com:80/neews/stories/0108/8003.html). Huckabee's plan is to steal conservative Evangelical votes from Romney so McCain can win the nomination.

Not only does that show a certain level of unchristian activity, but it also shows that Huckabee is not a true conservative. A true conservative would not help a liberal to moderate McCain win the Whitehouse. That seals the deal for me. I've lost the respect I once had for the "likeable" Huckabee. He's helped me narrow my own field of possible contenders for the Republican nominee. Thanks Huck for "Huck"ing Romney. Basically speaking, you've made my job much easier, especially now that Thompson has called it quits.

"Best Year So Far!"

I was watching a little tv recently and a Super Bowl advertisement caught my attention. It was glitzy. It was quick. It had flashes of great plays and some comments by athletes on teams who still have a chance at the big event. One player was holding the Super Bowl trophy in out-stretched hands and then he lowered it long enough to kiss it. Then another player comes on the screen talking about how this is what its all about. All of the work, the sweat, the pain leads to this defining moment... which will be the most important moment in his life. Wow... the most important moment of his life. That's saying something.

Now, don't get me wrong, I've been a sports fan over the years and have cheered for my favorite teams. Gee, maybe that's the problem... I'm just sore because the Ram's didn't show up to play this year. Be that as it may, there is still something telling when a person indicates that their defining moment is an athletic event... a big one for sure... but its just a game! Can you imagine how many people are just simply out of luck because they didn't have the opportunity to win the Super Bowl? I guess they don't get to have a "defining moment" in their lives. It's too bad... all is lost.

Now again, I'm just a Basicguy, but I hope there are other things in life that can be considered "defining". Recently I was with my son and his young family. I saw him tenderly hold their newborn son, raise him in the air for others to see, and then lower the babe so he could kiss his son on the forehead. I know it may not have the glitz of the Super Bowl trophy, but to the normal Joe's like me, it certainly was "defining".

Basically speaking we all have defining moments. They are made of events or experiences that we place value on. Frankly, there are some things that deserve to be way more valued than they are. If we would just open our eyes and hearts to the world around us, we'd find plenty of things to love and to value. Often it is in the basic things in life that real defining moments are found. Basicguys tend to find them while the not so basic walk right past them on their way to the glitz or the money or the fame.

Well, its a new year. Is it possible for us to land some real defining moments this year? It is for the Basicguy. Years ago, another Basicguy had a profound influence on me. As we came together from opposite directions one regular day, I gave the traditional greeting: "how are you doing?" His answer wasn't traditional like, "good (fine or great), how are you?" He surprised me with: "Best day so far!" The look in his face convinced me that this was no joke or some platitude. He meant it.

So, I wonder, is it possible that such a positive approach to daily life might garner many more of those elusive "defining moments" for Basicguys? I'm willing to bet on it. Maybe we could try an experiment. What if Basicguys like you and me approached this new year with a new attitude and practiced greeting others with, "best year so far". I know, I know, its one thing to say it, but quite another to believe. By all means believe it. What do we have to lose? That's right... nothing.

So, how is this Basicguy doing? Best year so far!