Tonight, I watched the debate. During the debate, my family and I became a bit frustrated/amused by Donald Trump and his answers. You see, he has a problem. Any time he’s asked a question, he likes to change the subject and talk about something related or completely different. So, here is my thought:
Every time Donald Trump doesn’t answer a question with the actual answer, take a drink. If he actually directly answers the question, don’t drink anything. See how quickly you become drunk.
It’s too bad there isn’t another debate so this can be done. However, if anyone has recorded the debate, they can try this drinking game. If you haven’t seen the debate, but plan to, why not keep a score? You don’t have to drink, but see how many times you’d have to drink.
Anyone have another drinking game idea for the debates?
I’m often asked if I’m writing to make money or become famous. I’m pretty certain that will never happen. I mean the famous part. I may make some money, but I doubt it’ll be enough to make it a full-time career. So, is it for my own personal enjoyment?
I love making stories. I love to create a world I can call my own, make my own rules, and have people live the way I wish I could live. And I want to share it. I want my world to inspire people, make them want to live there, and give readers a temporary place for their minds to live in. I think that’s what a lot of people enjoy doing while they read, experiencing another way of life. And I’m enjoying doing it (if I can find the time).
But part of me wants to become successful at it. I want to be able to make enough money to do this full time. But fame? As an introvert who doesn’t particularly enjoy being the focus of attention, I’d like to skip that. But the money, sure! I mean, what author wouldn’t want to be able to make money doing what they love?
What am I really doing this for? I think the main thing is for myself. I want to enjoy telling stories. If I make money at it, that just makes it easier for me to devote more time to make more stories for people to enjoy.
What about you? If you’re an author, how would you explain the balance between money, fame, and personal enjoyment? Let me know in the comments below.
I read a fairly short article on Huffington Post Alberta, which I agreed with. But that’s not the interesting thing. On Facebook, there was a rather heated argument. And I got myself involved in it briefly.
There’s a woman who was supporting the Lord’s Prayer being recited in public schools in Saskatchewan, and a lot of people argued against her, saying that the prayer infringes on non-Christians’ right to be exempt from it. In Canada, you cannot impose your religion on another person. The woman argued that since the others were asking that the prayer not be said in class, they were infringing on her children’s right to say the prayer. But that’s not what they were saying at all. They were saying that her children could pray however they like, but the other children should not be forced to do it. She went absolutely nuts. I chimed in with my own little comment:
Your kids can pray whatever they want whenever they want. That is their right. However, that prayer should not be forced on other kids who may not be Christian. It’s a public school. Atheism is not being taught. School subjects are being taught. Religion doesn’t come into it. Religion is a personal thing and should remain private. Your kids can pray if they want, but don’t make mine pray to something they don’t believe in.
You see, she claimed that her children were being taught atheism. They weren’t, of course. I presume that she believes that the teaching of evolution, the big bang, and science in general is the teaching of atheism. It’s not. She later said that scientists believed that the Earth was flat. Actually, that didn’t happen. I added this:
Late to this conversation. Judy, it’s been know that the earth is round since the times of Ancient Greece. No one suggested it was flat after that. Anyone who captained a ship knew the world was round, because they has to take that into account when calculating their location and direction.
The belief that Columbus thought the world was flat is completely wrong. He knew the Earth was round. He was trying to find a shortcut to India across the ocean. He just ended up running into a few islands in the Caribbean. But that’s another story.
Back to the original topic. The teaching of religion in public schools should never be something forced on students. If you include one religion, you must include the others. If you have prayers in class, they should be silent, and should never be forced on students. Nor should they be shamed into it. Like I said on Facebook, religion is a personal, private thing. It should never be imposed on others. And public schools are for learning the skills needed to become a functional adult in society. Leave the teaching of religion to churches.
One other thing, she wouldn’t respond to this. Someone asked her that if she follows the Bible religiously, does she obey Matthew 6:5-6? Prayer is not to be done publicly, but in the privacy of your own home. Anyway, I’m staying out of that. I’m not going to argue scripture, because I find it a pointless activity.
What do you think? Should kids in public schools have to pray? Or should religion be kept out of public schools completely? The comments section is open for a little debate. But keep it civil, please.
People are always talking about rising carbon dioxide levels, talking about how to reduce emissions, and slow the rise in temperatures and sea levels. But what about increasing the rate of carbon dioxide being taken out of the atmosphere? That’s where trees and phytoplankton come in.
There’s a problem, though. It seems that with the rate of deforestation, especially in tropical regions, we’re eroding the Earth’s ability to reduce the greenhouse gas. Trees are also good at taking pollutants out of the air. It’s beneficial to have plants in your home, because they make the air cleaner and fresher. I look around where I live, and I see industrial areas surrounded by trees. But in the residential areas, people live on tiny properties with little to no plant life growing on their properties. It’s all concrete. In areas where people are living, they make them so unappealing to me. I like yards with grass and trees. It’s better for the air, too.
Trees are wonderful, but what about the plant that takes half of the job of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? That job goes to phytoplankton, which lives in the oceans. Over the past half century, the number of phytoplankton has actually increased by ten times. Sounds wonderful, and it seems that they’re able to handle an increase in ocean temperatures by about two degrees pretty well. However, with the increase of carbon dioxide, ocean water is acidifying, and that’s bad news for the phytoplankton, as they have chalk-like shells. Those break down in more acidic water. But increase global water temperatures by six degrees, and that’s the breaking point for phytoplankton. They will cease producing oxygen. And this will result in a very quick suffocation of the world’s animal life, including humans.
Oh, that sounds lovely, doesn’t it? This is something that hasn’t really been paid attention to before. While a six degree increase is a lot, and extremely unlikely to happen within our lifetimes, it could happen if left unchecked in our descendants’ lifetimes.
I, for one, do not want our generation’s mistakes to cause suffering to our children’s children’s children. But do people care? I find that there are a lot of people I know who post things on Facebook that are anti-science and claim to refute climate change, yet they have no clue that the things they are posting are written by people who have an agenda. They post articles that are from websites that are completely biased and leave no room for any debate. They pick and choose pieces of evidence, yet they don’t look at the whole picture. It’s a dangerous way of thinking, and I will argue against what they are saying. I dislike misinformation. They do it for the sake of local jobs and the economy. I’m far more concerned about my daughter’s future in a world that has more and more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and rising temperatures.
I wish it were an easy fix, such as planting more trees. More trees would help, but not enough. At least it would help slow the increase, even if it is a small amount.
What are your thoughts about this whole debate? I’d like to hear your opinions in the comments below.
For the non-Canadians who read this, Canada has a federal parliamentary system with three major political parties and a couple others that may get a vote or five. Of the major parties, we have the currently ruling Conservative party run by Stephen Harper, the New Democratic Party run by Thomas Mulcair, and the Liberal party run by Justin Trudeau. They are all pretty even at this time, as there’s a major revolt going on against the Conservative party and Harper’s often rule-breaking run as Prime Minister.
I’ve seen something a lot on Facebook. I have friends who are big Conservative supporters, friends who are big NDP supporters, and friends who are big Liberal supporters. Each and everyone one of them who talks about politics tends to be religiously attached to their party of choice and believes that the country will be destroyed if any of the other parties is in power. While the NDP and Liberal supporters don’t necessarily like each other much, they’re united in their desire for everyone to not vote for the Conservatives. And then the Conservatives are always attacking the NDP and Liberals.
But you know, this always happens during elections. It happens in any country that has a democratic vote. Sometimes it’s entertaining, sometimes it’s truly horrific to see what people actually think.
Honestly, if he hadn’t died of cancer, I would have loved to have seen Jack Layton as Prime Minister.
Any thoughts, Canadian readers? Just don’t start insulting others, please.
I feel as if we have a nice little community here now, and we often see many of the same people in the comments. I’d like to begin a regular Ask the Readers feature where I pose a question, answer it, then hand it over to all of you to answer in the comments. Maybe we can have some lively discussions. Some will be fun, some serious, some silly, some controversial.
The topics could be anything from writing, blogging, world events, food, science, books, parenting, politics, religion (yes, I’m going there), history, and more. Really, the sky’s the limit. But I’m not going to be the one asking the questions. You are.
So, in the comments below, please ask your questions. But please don’t answer the questions below, only ask them. Once I start getting questions in, I’m going to post them once a week. So, let’s have fun!
In both the US and Canada, there were a couple of political debates that could help decide the fate of a few politicians.
In Canada, we had the first political debate consisting of four of the five main political leaders (Bloc Quebecois seemed to be absent, not that they’re popular anymore). I didn’t watch it, but I had the impression that Trudeau liked to tell Harper that he was always wrong. The Conservative Party’s falling behind the NDP. Bye bye, Stephen. It seems that Mulcair has become the focus of several memes, using his humourous expressions caught on camera. And May was the apparent winner from what many people have said. Not that the Green Party will win any election. At the end, all of the leaders declared themselves the winner. Huh?
In the US, we had the Republican debate to help determine the Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. Now this was definitely a reality TV show. Again, I didn’t watch it. But it sounds like Donald Trump was being The Donald, as usual. In other words, insulting, misogynistic, and just an all around idiot. He’s out of touch with reality. He’s out of touch with everything. If he becomes the Republican Presidential candidate and wins the election and beats whoever beats Hillary Clinton (if she loses), then the United States has become a circus. No, it should become another reality show. Why not just slice the US up into little pieces, because there’d probably be civil war? It’s not just Trump, it seems the entire group of Republic candidates is full of religious fundamentalists who have no better things to do than try to tell people how they’re supposed to live, tell scientists they’re incorrect about evolution and climate change, and basically want the US to regress back to the time of the ice age. The Republicans are a train wreck. Next year’s election will be interesting, that’s for sure.
Canada’s election later this year is important. It actually seems sane, and is quite likely to completely change the face of politics in the federal government. The American election just seems like the audition part of the X-Factor, America’s Got Talent, or American Idol filled with rejects.
When J. J. Abrams took the helm of the reboot Star Trek movies with a new cast for the original characters, there was a lot of interest and apprehension. I won’t say which side I was on yet. I’ll leave that for another post.
But which do you prefer? The original cast of course is classic. The new cast is fresh. The storytelling is very different. While the original is more thoughtful and philosophical, the reboot is flashier and filled with effects.
Though the first two reboot movies were done by J. J. Abrams, the third is being written by Simon Pegg, aka Scotty. He’s a huge Star Trek fan, which has me very interested.
What do you think? I’ll post later with my answer, and it will be long.