Basil E. Bacorn's Blog

Silver Linings Novelty Jewelry and Decor has begun!

This is just a quick post to say I am so excited to be CREATING things again! My new lil business, Silver Linings Novelty, is officially up and running with me jewelry being sold at the Mad Hatters Cafe and Tea Garden in Athens, PA and Marks Marketplace in Troy, PA! I also attended my first craft fair with my art and while it didn't go as well as I hoped, I met some amazing people!
To say up to date with Silver Linings Novelty, follow my business on Facebook and Instagram! 

Upcoming: Snack & Yaks!

Hello everyone! This isn't so much of a blog post as it is a sort of announcement/short informational article.

I have decided to start a little, fun interview "series" I'm calling "Snack & Yak." Basically, I plan to interview interesting people with interesting stories while snacking on their go-to snacks.

Who am I interviewing you ask? Well, anyone with a compelling reason. Authors of upcoming books, business owners, maybe even government officials or political candidates. I am open to considering pretty much anything.

That said, if you want to be interviewed in this Snack & Yak series, please fill out the Google Form at the link below for consideration!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd4HytDx0E6iiB1pmuD4lw3ZFCD2DhxEG7DtMWEKWfIY-E5Vg/viewform 

I'm Resigning From My Position as Publisher of Basil E. Bacorn Publishing

Over the past few years, Basil E. Bacorn Publishing has continuously put out books and I have always been heavily involved in that process. It was a big passion of mine for awhile, but then things changed. I found myself not operating at my best. I have had multiple hospital visits over the past year or so and if it's not one thing it's another.  
With all that and so many other complications and goings on, my passion for the job has come to an end.
That is why I've decided to resign from my position as publisher and remain primarily on the Board of Officers. I'll help out with publishing as needed, but leave the majority of work to my successor.
I want to give myself more time. Time to make things and write without the guilt of "oh, I should be spending my time with this or that instead." Maybe I'll start drawing again, who knows, but I'll give myself the time to have that as an option. As the current publisher, I typically work in excess of sixty hours a week. I don't have a set schedule and don't have any budgeted hours, which makes it easy for the one job to take up my entire life.
I love books and love writing, but I feel it's time for me to step aside for someone with a stronger drive and passion for the publishing world. And then I can follow my other passions again.
I've had a great time as publisher, and it gave me a lot of valuable experience which I believe will carry over to my future ventures - including my new role with the company as the Director of our new Content Development Department. We are planning to take a more hands-on approach in adaptations, including a possible animated series based on my Dark's Descent Series and an animated Christmas musical film that I have based on an old, unpublished manuscript of mine. We will continue to work to license works to outside parties as well, and are looking forward to our renewed focus in doing so.
In my place, I am leaving the Vice President of my company, Morgan La Batt, as Interim Publisher. I have faith that she'll be able to handle the responsibility and lead the daily business operations with success. She will be officially taking over the position on January 1, 2022.

Hello Again: Some Recent News

It's been a while since I last updated the blog, so I wanted to take a few minutes to put together a sort of update post on what's going on.
First, I have a new novella coming out this month! Grumps is about your classic grumpy old man, only this man is not to be disturbed. When a community center construction project next door catches Kenneth Williams Jr.'s attention, the old man vows to do whatever he has to do to stop the project from being completed. One double-agent, several lawsuits, and numerous confrontations come together in a cat-and-mouse game of dentures and dump trucks between a grumpy old man and a younger construction worker just trying to do his job.

Also new is Fine Print News, the political and business news website from Basil E. Bacorn Publishing! I am currently the main contributor to the site, and I am enjoying writing about current events. In high school, I was very close to going to college for journalism but decided against it at the last second. Now I am able to dip into my journalistic aspirations and report on business, politics, and government. I'm hoping to be able to land a few interviews at some point as well, but I'll cross that bridge when and if I get there.
(It also forces me to write pretty much every day, which is a good thing as well.)

A fun story I will add, though, is how Fine Print News got its name. It was only a night or two before the launch of Fine Print News, and I was getting annoyed because I couldn't think of the right name for the site. I had been thinking and brainstorming for a week at that point, so I was asking some family what they thought. As we talked, the television was on. Shrek Forever After. Well, it was the scene when Shrek signs the contract with Rumplestiltskin. I groaned and said, 'And that's why you always read the fine print!' I stopped, thought about it, and bought the domain right then and there. It sort of stuck once I said it, and after a week of thinking about it, I was ready to just pick something.
Overall, my focus recently has been on Basil E. Bacorn Publishing and Fine Print News, as well as my writing. In addition to Grumps, I have a few other projects in the works, one of which is my new children's book that is slated to come out in March. The book itself is written, but I'm currently waiting for the illustrations to be complete. I'm pretty excited about it.
On a personal note, I do want to take a moment to give my wishes to everyone who can't be with their loved ones during the pandemic. The day after Christmas, my great-grandmother went to the emergency room and was admitted. She spent a few days there before transferring to a long-term care facility. The last time I've seen her in person, in the same room, was on Christmas day. We've talked on the phone nearly every day since, and we've been lucky enough to have several virtual visits scheduled. This coming Tuesday, I will be standing outside a window and looking in at her during our second window visit - which is as close as we are able to get. It is truly an otherworldly experience. She feels like she is miles away even though she is only on the other side of the glass. 
So, again, I send my best wishes to all those currently in similar situations. 
Thanks for reading! :)

The 2020 Supreme Court Hearing: Precedents and Stare Decisis

Image obtained from CNN

Yesterday was day three of the Senate Judiciary Committee Supreme Court confirmation hearing for President Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ginsburg, Amy Coney Barrett, full of technical difficulties, unanswered questions, hyperbole, and forgotten constitutional rights. Over the course of the day, the topic of judicial precedent continued to be brought up, along with the legal principle of stare decisis. 

In the judicial world, when a court rules on a case, that ruling becomes a precedent for future cases dealing with similar situations or similar legal issues. The term stare decisis, which was mentioned many times during the previous days of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings and is Latin for "to stand by a decision", is the doctrine that a court must follow the legal precedents set forth in prior cases asking a similar legal question. This principle works both in what is called "horizontally" and "vertically." Vertical stare decisis refers to the doctrine that says all lower courts must abide by the precedent set forth in a higher court. It is why when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it is considered to be the final ruling, as all lower courts must respect that precedent. Horizontal stare decisis is the practice of higher courts to stand by their own precedents in previous legal rulings. So if a hypothetical case were to state that legally, the color maroon is a shade of red, then a subsequent case may stand by that ruling and say that the color maroon is a shade of red. This could also be extended to a similar legal question of whether or not teal is a shade of blue, or if tangerine is a shade of orange. Each precedent can, in essence, be built upon by being cited in subsequent cases. An example of this, which was referenced in yesterday's confirmation hearing, is the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that a married couple has a right to privacy which cannot be infringed upon by a state law banning the use of contraceptives. The right to privacy cited in the Griswold precedent returns in the ruling of Roe v. Wade, in which the right to privacy was specified to include a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The use of Griswold as a precedent for Roe v. Wade here demonstrates a real-life example of the court building upon their precedents.

The big difference between vertical stare decisis and horizontal stare decisis is when it comes to overturning a precedent. A lower court cannot overturn the precedent set by a higher court (vertical stare decisis) but a court can overturn its own precedent (horizontal stare decisis). One of the most notable examples of a court overturning its own precedent would be in Brown v. Board of Education when the Supreme Court ruled that separate learning facilities are inherently unequal and overturned the precedent upholding the segregation of races and the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine known as "separate but equal".

Overall, precedents and stare decisis are extremely important principles in the judicial arena. They allow the courts to cite previous court decisions in rulings and help to ensure the legal questions being asked and legal issues being dealt with are applied evenly across the nation. 

***

If you have any questions or would like to join the conversation, please feel free to drop a comment below! Like yesterday's post on judicial interpretation, this post is meant as an overview and clarification only. I do still anticipate that my future law-related posts may get more in-depth than this last-minute overview style, but for now, I hope you find this piece useful! Thanks for reading! :)

The 2020 Supreme Court Hearing: Judicial Process and Interpretation

Image obtained from CNBC

Today is the third day of the Senate Judiciary Committee Supreme Court confirmation hearing for President Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ginsburg, Amy Coney Barrett. Yesterday I managed to catch a few hours of the hearings and listen to senators on the Judiciary Committee question Barrett on a number of topics surrounding her personal beliefs, her legal positions, and possible future scenarios that the potential Justice may find herself in if she is confirmed and successfully appointed to the nation's highest court.

Looking back briefly at Barrett's 11-hour-session answering questions from senators yesterday, there was a definite set of performances and essentially campaign-style speeches being put on by both sides of the aisle. Democratic senators argued that the confirmation process itself should not be done so close to the election, pointing out hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans who had blocked the election-year nomination of Garland in 2016 and taking firm stances against the rushed 2020 process. Republican senators pushed back on anticipated attacks on Barrett's religion that never truly came while asserting that it was in fact the Democrats who were being antagonistic. But between the partisan fighting and reelection campaigns, there were certainly some interesting moments that caught my eye. There are many journalists and news organizations covering these historic hearings, with hundreds of thousands of perspectives, but I wanted to take a moment before Barrett returns for a third day of proceedings to brush aside the election and messy political speeches and look at and examine some of the questions, responses, and just general legal jargon and judicial terminology that stuck out to me as I watched it all go down.

Hypotheticals and the Judicial Process

One of the big topics of the day was a hypothetical question posed by Democrats regarding whether or not Amy Coney Barrett, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, would recuse herself from ruling on any cases arising from the 2020 election. Recusal, simply put, means that a judge steps back from making a decision on a case that poses a conflict of interest, or even one that has the appearance that the judge can't be fair. The idea is that since Barrett has been nominated by Trump so close to the election, if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court and subsequently rules on a case involving the president's reelection, that could have the appearance of an unfair ruling and potentially delegitimize the integrity of the judicial system. Barrett's response to a call for her commitment to recusal was plain and simple: she would cross that bridge when or if it got there.

"I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people," she stated, assuring the senators that she "would take that question very seriously." Barrett's response to the request for recusal was echoed in her other responses as well, such as when the judge was asked how she would rule on certain cases. Citing "judicial process", Barrett was unable to answer in specifics many questions from both sides of the aisle. Cases brought up included the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade (the legal precedent for the right to abortion), mention of Obergefell v. Hodges (recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide), and an upcoming case regarding the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). 

Barrett left a lot of questions unanswered, including whether or not voter intimidation is illegal (which it is) and whether or not a president should be able to postpone an election (and according to the Constitution, the power to determine the date of the election rests in the hands of Congress.) While it is understandable to not opine on potential cases that haven't happened yet or those which you don't know all the facts, it is odd that one would opt not to answer when the law is pretty clear as to what that answer should be. It is worth noting here that Barrett subscribes to the judicial philosophy known as originalism and considers herself a textualist.

Judicial Interpretation

Originalism is a type of judicial philosophy that determines how a judge interprets the law, usually regarding the U.S. Constitution specifically. With originalism, a judge looks at the text of the law itself and the intent with which it was written. Textualism is somewhat similar, except the focus is on the text alone, without consideration for the intent of the original authors. Originalism and textualism are often thought of as the opposition to the Living Constitution philosophy, which holds that the U.S. Constitution is meant to evolve with the times, as the framers of the Constitution back in 1787 could have never guessed how their law would need to be applied in 2020. The Living Constitution philosophy is what the Supreme Court Justices often use when trying to determine the constitutionality of modern-day laws dealing with issues the framers of the Constitution never considered, like Internet privacy, data security, and other technology-related legal battles. This is also how cases such as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges have been decided. Critics call it "legislating from the bench" as originalists and textualists prefer that new laws be written to handle new problems, but in the end, the role of the judicial branch is to interpret the law, which leaves a whole lot up to each individual Justice. A fun way to examine judicial philosophies is to look at Supreme Court dissenting opinions and compare them to the majority opinion of that case (especially 5-4 decisions). The differences in judicial interpretations become that much more apparent when you see the explanation from both sides.

***

That being said, the third day of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearing is scheduled to start at 9am today (October 14, 2020). If you see anything in the news that sticks out to you, or if you are watching the hearings tomorrow and notice anything that you think I should write about, let me know in the comments below! This is my first blog post in the realm of political science and law, and I anticipate my future law-related posts may get more in-depth than this last-minute overview, but for now, I hope this post was at least able to be of some use! Thanks for reading! :) 

The First 2020 Presidential Debate: My Thoughts

 

Image obtained from CNN
Last night was the first presidential debate of the 2020 General Election and it was a night of chaos. What should have been a respectful debate between two adults became a messy squabble full of lies, interruptions, and personal attacks. As I stated in my presidential endorsement blog post, I do plan on voting for Joe Biden this November and this debate did not change that. Putting that aside, however, I want to discuss a few points that stuck out to me while watching what news anchors and journalists are calling a dumpster fire of a debate.

Stand Back and Stand ByCurrently, one of the biggest things people are talking about is President Trump's refusal to simply and plainly condemn white supremacy and white supremacists. We have seen this before, for example, during the Charlottesville protests when the president stated there were "very fine people on both sides," so it shouldn't be a surprise that when offered an opportunity to condemn white supremacy on a global stage, he was unable to do so. Instead of simply saying, "I whole-heartedly condemn white supremacy," President Trump instead told them to "stand back and stand by", before shifting the focus to the left-wing. Some defenders of the president say he might have misspoken, but the fact is that condemning white supremacy shouldn't be so easily misspoken to the point that certain white supremacists are embracing the president's remarks and viewing them as him being on their side! For me, it seems as if the president was handed such an easy opportunity and somehow still missed his chance.
Biden's SonsThe second thing with the presidential debate that stuck out to me was the personal attacks that President Trump levied on Biden's sons. Not only did the president continuously interrupt and interject throughout the whole night, but he went low when attacking Biden for his son's history of drug addiction while the former vice president was discussing his late son Beau Biden. Addiction is a horrible thing and attacking someone because their son had fought a battle against addiction is disrespectful and inhumane on its own, let alone doing so while someone is talking about their dead child... it was repulsive.
Biden's response was to defend his son. "My son, like a lot of people, like a lot of people we know at home, had a drug problem. He's overtaken it. He's fixed it. He's worked on it and I'm proud of him. I'm proud of my son."
(The moment I am referencing in this section starts at approx. 3:56)
Biden also could have easily turned back with personal attacks on the president's children but he chose not to. He defended his son and moved on, and I respect that. 
The EnvironmentOne issue that was touched upon was something that is very important to me and should be very important to everyone: the environment. Biden's policies regarding the environment and climate change are one of the non-Trump-related reasons why the former vice president has my vote this year. 
I feel Biden did a much better job of using specifics and being more detailed with a plan for the future, and in all honesty, when President Trump was speaking about forest fires and forest cities - I will admit he lost me. I was trying to follow his thought process but for me, I couldn't. It was all over the place and very vague. I took away "forest management" and that's about it. I believe there was something about (more?) cars at one point - but I digress. We should be listening to environmental and climate scientists on the matter and using that information to create jobs in green industries for a better future.Going ForwardWith those points aside, I want to take a step back and just look at the debate as a whole. Trump interrupted so many times, he made exaggerated claims and lied. Biden mostly held his composure throughout and talked to the American people, trying to make the conversation about them as it should be. I have said many times that I definitely do not agree with Biden on everything, and really I don't know any candidate that you could agree with 100% of the time, but I think he did a decent job overall. He said some things I personally don't agree with, for instance, I believe the Green New Deal could certainly be a very good thing and Joe Biden stated that he does not support it, but policy differences are to be expected, and voting for a president is not marriage. Voting for a president is a vehicle to use in order to take a step in the right direction for the country, and tonight showed me that Biden is certainly a better step than Donald Trump.
Moving forward, if Donald Trump wants to correct his statement on white supremacy, it would be important to do so. The president should clarify that his position is against white supremacy, and he also owes an apology to Biden and the American people for using past drug addiction as an insult. Common decency is a bare necessity.
***
Thanks for reading. I hope you all have an amazing rest of the week! :)

2020 Election - My Thoughts and Presidential Endorsement

There is less than 45 days before the U.S. 2020 Election on November 3rd, the day that millions of voters across the country will be deciding on the next president of the United States. There are four main candidates to consider, with the most focus being on Biden vs. Trump. In addition to the two more well-known candidates to consider, there is also Libertarian Candidate Jo Jorgenson and Green Candidate Howie Hawkins. Jorgenson and Hawkins are running third-party campaigns, which puts them both at a disadvantage due to the U.S.'s strong two-party system. I am a big supporter of third party candidates and believe that gate-keeping ballot access and debates from third parties is wrong. Political affiliation should not hinder a candidate's ability to run for office. That being said, I wanted to be sure to mention them in this post.

I think something we all can agree on, despite political differences, is that this year has been chaotic. Wildfires, hurricanes, protests, politics, COVID-19, and lockdown - it seems as if these days we are always one disaster away from the apocalypse. It is so hard to remain optimistic. During times like these though, it is imperative to stay positive and keep moving forward. As long as hope exists, the world is not doomed. I constantly remember the words of Mr. Rogers, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping." That is what hope is, being able to help in times of darkness. If you are helping, you believe that helping is worth the struggle, and that belief that the world will get better, that the helping is worth it because the world will get better, is what keeps hope, optimism, and positivity alive.

This year, voters of this nation will face many choices at the ballot box, and although I don't know how many of you will read this, I feel obligated to post on the matter. 

Pennsylvania is a swing-state in our electoral college system, which means that every vote here happens to be especially important. Whichever candidate wins this commonwealth is one big step closer to winning the presidential election of 2020. In 2008 and 2012, Pennsylvania went to Barack Obama and in 2016 the state went to Donald Trump. In 46 of 57 elections (about 80% of the time), the winner of Pennsylvania is the next President of the United States. So, for all my fellow Pennsylvanians, and anyone else who may be reading this, here are my thoughts.

Throughout my life so far, I have always strived to be a good person. Kindness and respect for others is tremendously important to me and I believe true strength is found in compassion and empathy. The Office of the Presidency is one that represents our country's morals and dignity, and the person who holds it has a duty to be a kind, compassionate, and strong leader who is professional, authentic, and honest. Our government is meant to be one of the people, by the people, and for the people, and our president should be a force that unites us together. No human is perfect, nothing ever is, but we in the United States of America deserve a president that is accountable to the people and accepts responsibility for their mistakes, as well as a government that will call them out when they don't. For these reasons, and the reasons to follow, I will be voting for Joe Biden this November, and I encourage you all to do so as well.

Donald Trump mocks and demeans anyone who he sees as the enemy, which is anyone who offers the slightest criticism. He makes it his job to divide the nation instead of uniting it, and shows respect to virtually no one but himself. He even continued to insult the late Republican senator and veteran John McCain, after McCain died in 2018. We don't deserve better; we deserve the best. And while the best may not currently be an option, we can still do better than Donald J. Trump.

In addition, Joe Biden is far from being a "radical liberal", for those of you who may be worried about that. For instance, he doesn't support defunding the police. He also doesn't support raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year (which is most of, if not everyone, reading this). All of his policy proposals are detailed on his campaign website here, for anyone interested in reading further information. 

I have also been seeing support for the third party candidates, and I will never voter shame anyone considering voting for a third party. I checked their policies and the biggest reason Jo Jorgenson was an automatic "no" for me was that she wants to abolish the minimum wage and eliminate all wage standards. This was only the main reason I could not support her campaign, but there are other policy differences she holds that also are not compatible with my positions. Regarding my reason for choosing Joe Biden over the Green candidate, frankly, it has to do with the fact that Howie Hawkins has not been able to obtain ballot access in all 50 states which makes it much, much harder for him to even have a chance at winning enough electoral college votes to secure a presidential victory. With that in mind, I have decided to put my support behind the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.

If you are reading this, I assume you must be at least somewhat open-minded regarding the upcoming election and I thank you for hearing me out. Being a writer, I could go on much longer and in much more detail to reiterate my point, but I do feel like I've said enough to cover the basics and get my point across. I definitely don't agree with everything Biden says, and I will certainly call him out if as president he does something he shouldn't, but the bottom line is that our nation deserves someone who leads with kindness and compassion, and not division and hate. Many Trump supporters are happy to fly flags that say, "Make Liberals Cry Again" and endorse other hateful beliefs, and many of these slogans and beliefs are supported and even encouraged by Donald Trump and his campaign. That is not what the leader of the free world should be doing. We are all human beings, we all deserve kindness and respect, and we all should be doing our part to make the world a more positive place, as opposed to one of hate and division. 

I hope you will join me in voting for Joe Biden this November. Thank you for reading. :)

My Trade-Up Trial #2

Happy Saturday! In last week's blog post, I introduced my new trade-up trial, a challenge where I attempt to make my way from a single paperclip to a house via a series of increasingly more valuable trades. This challenge was inspired by someone who had done the exact same thing a few years ago, and I decided to try and repeat it while blogging about my progress. 
Well, I am happy to say that this past week, I already made my first trade of the challenge! 
On August 24, 2020, I received an email from fellow Basil E. Bacorn Publishing author Dennis Lantz containing a list of proposed items to trade for my one white paperclip. The list was five items long, but the two that caught my eye were a handcrafted wooden sign and a hiking stick topped with a wooden moose head.
Now, I have to be honest: I am not the best at making decisions like this. What made this particular decision that much harder, though, was the fact that I wanted to pick both items, but for two very different reasons.
My brain, the logical part of me, was immediately drawn to the handcrafted wooden sign. It looked to be of good quality, probably had a higher trade value, and I feel like it would be easier to find someone to trade the sign with than it would to find someone to trade the hiking stick with, just because it was a more "normal" and "general" piece of decor. The hiking stick was more unique and specialized - I could only expect hikers and those who collect hiking sticks to be interested.
That being said, my heart had other ideas. 
They say to follow your heart, and mine wanted to go with the moose head walking stick. Despite my logical side's thinking, my emotional side wanted the unique treasure. The sign was normal, but the walking stick with a kinda creepy moose head? That was way more special! The moose hiking stick was different, and although my logical side thought it would be harder to trade, it was just too "on-brand" for me to pass up. The moose hiking stick would definitely make this adventure more interesting!
In the end, however, I decided to pick the logical choice. My goal, after all, is to trade my way to a house. This requires logic and reasoning to make the right decisions along the way.

One Welcome Friends Sign


So on August 26, 2020, I went to town and traded my one white paperclip for this handcrafted "Welcome Friends" sign. Quite an increase in value, if I do say so myself.
And I know what you are thinking. "Basil, you should have followed your heart and gone for the moose walking stick!" 
Well, if you know anything about me, you know I couldn't resist making a second trade (different from the trade-up challenge) in order to get my hands on this cursed moose hiking companion!


Mr. GlassEyes here is about five-feet tall, topped with a wood-carved moose head with a very shiny eyeball that makes me feel uncomfortable. 
And now, it's mine. :)
But anyway, back to the challenge! 
I am now looking for someone who would be interested in making a trade for my new handcrafted wooden "Welcome Friends" sign. The sign is approximately 20 inches wide and 13 inches tall, with the words "Welcome Friends" engraved in the wood as pictured. Right now it is hanging on the wall where I do my weekly Facebook Lives, so if you are interested in making a trade, send me an email at basil@basilebacorn.com and let's see what we can do!

***
Thanks for reading! I am so excited to see what comes next!




Previous Trade-Up Trial Post Next Trade-Up Trial Post All Trade-Up Trial Posts

My Trade-Up Trial #1

In 2005, a man named Kyle MacDonald posted a picture of one red paperclip to trade it for something bigger and better. In just 14 trades, MacDonald went from one red paperclip to a whole entire house. I read about this on Wikipedia after seeing a short video about what he did. Well, after weeks and weeks of the thought occasionally popping into my head, I decided to do the inevitable: Try my own "Trade-Up Trial."
I want to see if I can trade my way to a house (or something of similar value to a house.)
One White Paperclip

I have to admit, it was more difficult than I thought it would be to find a single paperclip in my possession, but I found one and am ready to go. One white paperclip, pictured above, is what I will be starting with. My mission is to make trade after trade until I get to a fully-paid-for house. I don't think I will be able to do it in 14 trades like Kyle MacDonald did, but we will see. I think this will be a fun adventure, and hopefully, it ends with a house! :) 
If you want to make a trade, send me an email to basil@basilebacorn.com! Willing to trade for any item of more value than a single paperclip, whatever that may be.
***
Feel free to drop a comment below! Thanks for reading!