Why Debates are Awesome

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, we are tonight's entertainment!

Just kidding.

So much for entertainment (and the Joker).

But really, that's how it feels whenever I see a TV turned on. The anchors are always really happy, jolly, and they never go over about a minute. And because their coverage is so diverse, they give equal time to what Katy Perry did yesterday and the serial-killer/terrorist who has murdered thousands in a single week.

Really, this is statistical. The ratio of actual facts to commentary has gone substantially down, meaning that actual facts are covered less and less often, with ridiculous and unprovable assertions being the norm.

But that's the problem: it entertains, and that's what I'll cover in another blog post.

But for now, what do we do instead?

To put it simply, we debate.

It's that easy: you find a friend, agree to a resolution, prepare for as long as you feel necessary, and then jump right in. My brother and I do this, and it's super fun. You should try it. Seriously.

It makes you more knowledgeable to the everyday occurrences, and it makes you think.

Try it. Try it just once, and then try it again even if you don't like it. If you still don't like it, then find something you and your friend both care about (preferrably with different opinions) and have a formal debate.

If you can't think of any resolutions, here are some suggestions.

• National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press
• That federal election law should be significantly reformed in the United States
• The United States Armed Forces need substantial change
• The Education system of the US needs significant change
• Restriction of civil liberties for National Security is justified
• The United States needs to stop intervening in foreign wars

That should be enough to get you through.

Seriously, though. Try this. Try this with anyone. Do a formal debate, an informal debate, an argument, anything. Something that will make you think.

That's probably the biggest problem with the general population: they don't like to think. It's hard work. It's time for you (and everyone) to wreck that curve.

Thank you for your time.

Left and Right in the Political Spectrum

Left, Center, Right. What do those things have in common? Well, there are too many similarities, so I'll just tell you about them: they are all words in the title of a game. But you know what else?

It's also part of a political labeling system that everybody uses.

I'll go over it briefly. There's not much complicated about it. (Just kidding, it's one of the most nuanced parts of politics ever.)

Let's start with the left, or liberalism. According to the world's smallest political quiz, "Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded 'safety net' to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business."

For some odd reason, liberals tend to dislike civil liberties. I have no idea why. Either that or they keep mislabeling themselves.

Either way, liberals tend to dislike capitalism, or economic freedom, and prefer personal freedom. Not all liberals are like this, however. If you were to get into an argument with a liberal, ask him his position. It gets confusing.

And then there's the right. I'm skipping the center for now. But the right is conservative. And again, according to the world's smallest political quiz, "They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement."

Okay, I know there are some conservatives who don't fit into this category exactly, but this is pretty much true. Conservatives favor economic freedom, but not so much social freedom.

Let's take a quick review: liberals like personal freedom, and dislike economic freedom. Conservatives like economic freedom, but dislike personal freedom.

Again, not all liberals or conservatives fit into this mold, but that's the standard for each.

Now we take a look at the middle, the most interesting.

Let's start off with centrism. It's a simple concept; centrists are undecided. They like to be open minded, and like "practical" solutions to problems.

Now things get interesting, with the statist. Statists basically say "yes, you're both right" to liberals and conservatives. They like big government. They love it, they thrive on it, because they think it works. Here's what the world's smallest political quiz has to say about them (a lot):

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

That's what statists are. All civil liberties gone. Basically, they're fascist; the government must do what it deems necessary.

We get to libertarianism. They agree with statists, but to an extent. This doesn't make sense until we look at the similarities.

According to the world's smallest political quiz, "Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

That's it. How is that like a statist? It's the polar opposite, true. But look at it this way: statists believe that both liberals and conservatives are correct. Libertarians believe that both liberals and conservatives are correct. They just disagree on what's correct about each.

Now the last bit: a recap, and finally, what does each philosophy mean for you personally?

First, we have liberalism. Economic freedom, no. Personal freedom, yes.

Second, we have conservativism. Economic freedom, yes. Personal freedom, no.

Third, we have centrism. Economic and personal freedom, "open-minded."

Fourth, we have statism. Economic and personal freedom, absolutely not. Government should be huge.

Fifth, we have libertarianism. Economic and personal freedom, absolutely. Government should be small.

What does each one mean? Well, all except for centrism and libertarianism, they are all statist, really. They all think government should be in control over your life. They just disagree on the details.

The left is more dangerous to your wallet, because it advocates high taxes. The right is more dangerous to your privacy, because it advocates governments have to know personal matters if they want to enforce them.

The statist is more dangerous to everything. They are fascist, end of discussion. We can see how well that worked out in WWII.

Finally, we are left with the two most interesting, centrism and libertarianism.

Centrism is an odd category. It almost seems that centrists have no philosophy, nothing which they can base any opinions on. If it seems like it will work, they do it. Which is essentially the same thing as statism, only much, much more dangerous, because it's harder to recognize. And because it can justify any power it wants, it can slowly deteriorate into fascism or anything it wants. A bad choice of politics.

That was really long, but finally we get to libertarianism. What does it mean for you?

There are lots of sub-views, but everyone who is a libertarian agrees that we all need to distrust the government. As Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, government is, at its best form, a necessary evil. We have to give it as little power as possible, while still maintaining enough power so that it can do its job. The libertarian knows that there are laws higher than governments, or no political system has any right to say it is the correct system. The libertarian is the best friend of both your wallet and your civil liberties.

I'll let you decide which is the correct system.

Left, Center, Right.

How to Start a Conversation

Imagine this scenario: you are at a party, and you want to talk to someone. Anyone. But you have no idea how to start a conversation. What would you do?

Well, I just gave you a hint. You would give them a scenario.

What does that mean? Basically, you would walk up to someone, ask for their attention, and give them a hypothetical situation they might find themselves in. And then see what their answer is.

Now, it takes a little more than just that. You'll want to have it at least worked out before hand what the scenario will be. But it has worked for me, time and time again, without me even realizing it, until recently.

To make sure conversation really does ensue, you should have some hidden meaning behind it all. For example, I like to use this one.

Imagine you have a gem worth a billion dollars. You want to put it in a bank to keep it safe and to gain interest, so you look at your options. When you look up banks online, you find a high-profile bank, just waiting for you to click on the link. You do, and there is a virtual tour of a bank, to your surprise. You check it out.

On the outside of the bank, you see a sign that says "This is a no robbery zone. All violators will be prosecuted." Already a warning about robbery? Fantastic!

However, as the tour heads inside, you notice that there are no security cameras, and as you make your way to the vault, you find that there is no lock on the vault door, and each safety deposit box is labeled with what's inside. And there are no cameras in the vault, either.

Feeling sure the bank must have missed something, you read the "About This Bank" page. You learn that the bank only occasionally has security guards about once a year, and there really are no security cameras, and there is no lock on the vault door, no locks on the safety deposit boxes, and all the boxes are labeled with what's inside.

Oh, and by the way, this bank isn't insured, and if your gem was stolen, the bank would not pay you.

Would you put your gem in that bank?

It shouldn't take you any more than two seconds. No, of course not! You would look for other options.

Sadly, however, this is the exact state of our public school system. And what's worse is that human life is irreplaceable, unlike the billion dollar gem you had.

And that usually gets me into a conversation about gun control, even with the strictest introverts.

This strategy works. Find a topic you care about, and turn it into a hypothetical scenario. It's a lot of fun, and it's sure to either get you in a debate (be prepared) or a conversation. 

Or, if they really don't care about the world around them (who cares about being informed, anyways?), they will reject you. But I've never gotten that. I can tell when someone would never care. Just walk up to people who you think would care.

Try it. It works. It's fun. Did I mention it works?

Thank you for your time.

Books and Movies: The Difference, and How it Should Affect Your Writing

When you watch a movie, how often do you have discussions with your family about the overall message of the underlying worldviews presented? Often? Fantastic.

And how often do you deeply reflect on the morality presented in the main character's decisions that outlined how a non-christian can be so evil? Not so often? Hmmm, better work on that.

And how often do you have a fight with your brother about the antagonist's hair color? What? Never? Seriously? Wouldn't that be ridiculously hard to discover? Oh, right. Forgot.

Movies put everything in front of you on a screen so there can be no argument. Your mind knows exactly what the characters are supposed to look like. In a sense, like I said in my post about imagination, it "overwrites" your imagination. But with movies, you don't even have to use imagination. It's just there, without debate.

It's obvious what the difference is, but why should you care?

Because it should change the way you write your book. Or not, if you've already figured it out and write accordingly. But think about it this way: your book should have a lot of subtext. Meaning, you need to leave plenty to the imagination.

For example, I have a lot of characters in my book that I don't describe. I might eventually, but not in depth. Why? Because I don't need to. I'll put it in simple terms, and give an example: "he had blonde hair, that waved in the wind like so much wheat in a field on a windy, sunny day, and his blue eyes cut through the night with a radiance of dignity. His nose extended past the end of his face like a mountain, and his cheekbones were sharply contrasting upon the features that were visible in the shining moonlight."

Do I really need much more than just maybe a quick description of him? Like maybe this: "He was hoisted up to his feet and the Captain grabbed a fistful of his hair. 'Brown. Just like Tim.' One of the lads looked closer at him and noticed the scar running down his thin face." That is much better, because it leaves more to the imagination. But I could still potentially do better.

But you don't need some ridiculously poetic/serious description of every inch of his facial features. To the reader, it seems like you're just looking for filler. And here's the thing: if you describe their background and their personality, the reader will automatically assume a look to them.

People sometimes say "I don't judge a person at first glance." They're wrong. Everyone does, whether they like it or not. It's because what you look like is inexplicably tied to your personality. This is what separates the good actors from the great. The great actors know this. Sometimes unconsciously, but they know this. They know that a personality will always look a certain way, and behave a certain way. Good directors know this. The costumes and makeup the actors will wear will be linked to how they act, and what the character is like.

So when you write about how someone behaves, and what type of things they enjoy and think about, you've already given him a look.

For example, this right here would be a plenty fine description: "He was hearty and jolly, although sometimes mean-tempered. He had come from a poor family, but you would never guess from looking at him. Except that his natural face, the one that shone through on occasion and the one that was not quite so thin, had deep lines of sorrow written on it." That might be a little too poetic, but what kind of person do you envision? Do you really think that he needs more than that? Maybe hair color, hair style and MAYBE (I say this almost laughingly) eye color. Think about it this way.

What color are Iron Man's eyes? Loki's? The Hulk's? Sam Gamgee's?

If you know every single one of those, you are an exceptional "noticer." I can tell you how many of these people's eye colors I know: the same number as the amount of times I have walked up to someone and said "you know what, you look like the type of person I would punch in the face in the middle of a debate round." (That would be zero, just so we're on the same page here.)

Let's pick one. I pick Sam Gamgee. I hope you didn't remember his eye color. But how well do you have his image in your head? Pretty well, I imagine. And what color is his hair? Blonde, duh. Everyone knows that (if they've watched the movies). But that's not his defining aspect. If blonde hair is the only thing you remember him for, then you might as well have remembered Thor.

But what about his build? His body type? What he looks like below his head? How well do you think you could describe that part of his body? I'm not sure what your writing skills are like, but I can say that I can't really describe him very well. So I remember him from my memory and what his personality is. See that? His personality is important. Even more so for books.

To conclude, this doesn't just apply to characters; it applies to weapons, to gadgets, to buildings (unless a long description is absolutely necessary), and to pretty much any item. Leave things to the imagination. It will drastically increase the quality of your writing. I know, because I did it. I used to write horribly.

Use this to your advantage and slaughter the competition. Your characters can shine through, if only you don't care so much what they look like on the micro-scale.

Of course, some characters will need to be described physically. In fact, probably your main character does. And here's a little hint: some don't need to be described at all. They just need to appear, and you can cleverly work in bits and pieces of their personality and their physical appearance. That is, if you're good. And you probably are. I don't know many authors who couldn't do this.

Physical descriptions can add to the personality, and vice versa. Just don't spend too much time on the physical. Enough to identify, but not enough to picture as clearly as a person from a movie. Let their imagination do the work. That's one of the main benefits of books: they let you use your imagination! Don't deprive your reader of that joy. Think carefully about your character descriptions. If they're great, they will have the right amounts of both physical and personality descriptions. If they're not so great, they won't.

Make sure the character development focuses more on the personality. How you continue is equally important as how you start.

If you do your characters wrong, it could make your book just like too many other books: boring and unremarkable. You don't want that.

If you do your characters right, they will seem real. Your potential readers will love you for it.

Thank you for your time.

How to Live Your Life (but only sometimes...)

    Hello again. This post is about how to live your life. But only sometimes. As a matter of fact, only on Sunday. I'm not here to tell you that you can't eat nachos or go to sleep on piles of wool socks. But I am here to tell you that Sunday isn't a typical day, and that's where we'll start.

    Sunday was first originated on the seventh day of creation. God loved his work, and He wanted to sit back and enjoy it. He actually sanctified the seventh day, meaning that it was literally set apart. It isn't a normal day. After Christ's resurrection, the Sabbath changed from the last of the week to the first. So the importance hasn't changed, only the day. The day is still set apart by God for God.

    This means that everything we do on a Sunday should be in meditation on God. This doesn't mean that you can't have nachos because you can't focus on God, but it does mean that you can't do certain things. What things? It differs from person to person, but the principle remains the same: glorify God on Sunday. Period, end of discussion.

    Simply, if you can avoid things that will hinder your ability to meditate on God and praise Him, then don't do those things!

    Let me put it in different terms: when you can have "best," why settle for "okay?"

    I'll put it in a scenario, to make it easier for you to understand. Say you want to watch a movie. Not just any movie, but Ender's Game. And, as a little bonus to yourself, it isn't a sin to watch movie on Sunday, and you can even focus on God! (If only occasionally.)

    What's wrong with this picture? Most people would say "nothing." But they would be wrong. Think about what your motive would be when you watch any movie, on Sunday or not: "this will entertain me." The operative word there isn't entertain; it's me. And that's fine. Scripture never condemns entertaining yourself.

    But on Sunday, a day that God created solely to rest and to worship him, I want to watch a movie why? To entertain me. And focusing on God is an added bonus.

    This is the messed up view of Sunday. It is perfectly fine the rest of the week, but not for a day specifically set apart, as outlined in the Fourth Commandment. As David put it in Psalm 119:36, "incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!" Should we not strive to be like David, in his more godly moments? On Sunday, our focus needs to be like David's focus in this passage. Not on ourselves, but on God.

    A lot of activities are fine. And for some, there is no general rule. Others should just be dismissed out of hand. I'll leave it to you to decide what things go under which category. But keep this in mind.

    Take example of Eric Liddell: he loved running. He said many times that when he ran, he felt the glory of God. He went to the olympics he was so fast. But his race was scheduled for Sunday. He refused to run on Sunday, and actually switched places with another man just so that he wouldn't have to run on Sunday. He loved running, shouldn't he be allowed to do what he loves? No. 

    Adam loved working. But he didn't do it on Sunday, because it was a day of rest, a day entirely set aside for God's glory.

    This Sunday, maybe set aside some more time to meditate on God's word and reflect upon his glory. Cut back on the movies, read your Bible some more. But whatever you do, "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8).

    Thank you for your time.

Nye vs Ham: The Epic Debate of Our Time

    You've probably heard about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. They were debating the following resolution: Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

    There will probably be a lot of people who say that Mr Ham won, and a lot of people saying that Mr Nye won. But really, who did win? If you didn't watch it, I'll break it down for you.

    Mr Ham's first case showed us the difference between observational science and historical science, and that we all have the same facts but our interpretation of the facts was different. He continued to say that with Evolution, we can have no laws of logic, we can have no morality, and we can have no laws of physics. He then outlined the most basic problems with the evidence for Evolution, such as the problems with dating methods and the fact that no organism has ever become more complex. And finally, he said that Creationists can be scientists, thus already winning the debate. "Viable" literally means "capable of working successfully." Since he showed that yes, indeed, without Creationism we wouldn't have the MRI (at least not as early as we did) and showed that Creationism and science don't even come into conflict. Well, he won that one already.

    However, he and Mr Nye were debating on two different terms. Mr Nye basically said (to sum it up in a sentence) that if we have Creationists running around in science, we won't advance. Ham had already established (and this, by the way, was a dropped argument) that Creationists can be scientists, and therefore, his whole point about "we will be overtaken by Japan and China if we allow Creationism to run free" was invalid. And he literally replied "I don't know" to the questions "Where did the molecules for the big bang come from?" and "how did our consciousness evolve?" He basically said the same thing that Darwin did. "Well, we don't even know the most basic things about our own religion, but some day someone will find out!"

    I have a question for Mr Nye: what if they don't? What if no one ever finds any good evidence, like the missing link? There are so many basic, fundamental flaws with your religion that no amount of specifics can help.

    And this is why Mr Ham won. He had a groundwork. In fact, he even pointed out that the Evolutionary worldview can have no groundwork. And Mr Nye dropped this point. Completely. Didn't even acknowledge it.

    Is this the only reason? No. I'll put down the dropped arguments by both sides so you can see the ridiculousness:

    Arguments that Mr Nye won (because Mr Ham dropped them):

1. The layers in which we find fossils are even, and no animals are in a layer that they aren't supposed to, thus proving that they evolved
2. Kangaroos could not have traveled from Asia to Australia without any fossil records.
3. The skulls that are intermediate, indicating a missing link
4. Scientists predicted the background noise as a result of the big bang
5. Billions of stars are many light years away, proves old earth

    And the arguments that Mr Ham won:

1. No logic without God
2. There is a difference between historical and observational science
3. Evolution led to racism, but Creationism showed that we all had the same origins
4. No technology required Evolution to build
5. There can be no morality in the Evolutionary worldview
6. There are no examples of any organism gaining more information in its genetic code
7. Dating methods have problems, and even then, 90% of them contradict a billions of years theory
8. Bible is infallible (to which Mr Nye responded "so we're supposed to believe your interpretation of the Bible?" Yes, Mr Nye, you are. He is an expert, and even then, his interpretation of the Bible is not founded on nothing. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of the Bible)
9. No life has ever come from non-life
10. No organism has ever become more complex by itself

    Okay, reading those lists, who won? Oh, and let me refute each thing he said in order (what Mr Nye said; you can't refute any of the main points Mr Ham made):

1. Cambrian explosion.
2. AIG has an answer for that on their website. Floating log mats (alive, not dead)
3. The AIG website has a lot of articles about skulls. They explain them pretty well. Look 'em up.
4. Science predicted the background noise? And that did what do exactly? Make some thermonuclear awesome bomb? No. It just predicted that there would be a background noise. And even so, there's a problem with this "prediction," and it only created another problem for the Big Bang model.
5. AIG has an excellent video on this. Watch it, even if you are a young-earth Creationist.

    So, we can really see that what Mr Nye said has no ground. To the most basic questions, he had no idea, and Mr Ham had an answer. And Mr Ham was forced to debate like Mr Nye (specifics) instead of how Mr Ham prefers to debate (groundwork), and still successfully defended the resolution. And when Mr Nye went over to Mr Ham's way of debating, he completely lost. He was crushed, because you can't have any groundwork for Evolution. There is none.

    So, in reality, although Mr Nye did make some points that weren't addressed, the points that Mr Ham didn't address were much less significant than the points that Mr Nye didn't address. Because the points that Mr Nye made can be refuted. And sure, maybe I forgot some, but he put the nail in his coffin by saying that he wanted to be patriotic. Sorry, Mr Nye, but Mr Ham showed the importance of Creationism, and that it too can do great things, and that if we don't teach it in schools (although he only mentioned it once) then we will not be exercising the freedom of speech that is guaranteed to us as a result of the constitution (he didn't mention this last part, but it was implied). So, Mr Nye lost in all three areas: fundamentals, facts and the resolution (he came the closest on the facts, but even his facts were refuted).

    Thank you for your time.

About Me

    Hi. I've posted a bit recently, and I wanted to let you know about how I will be operating.

    I am one person. I only have my opinion, and the truth (the Bible). I like ranting. I am just like a bunch of other bloggers, except that I won't usually be posting about trivial things like "how to brush your hair properly" (although that is similar to my first post). I like impacting people, because I believe that if I impact even just one person per year in a good way, I am much more helpful to society than a person who impacts thousands in just a couple days, in a questionable way. I am a firm believer in the Butterfly Effect.

    I am a debater, so I can be (correction: am) long winded. I like it that way. It's easy to be long winded. But I also like to have something meaningful to say. So if I start off on the wrong foot, bear with me. My conclusion often does not match up completely with my introduction.

    But what about this blog itself? I won't give you any long history, but I decided that I wanted to post about things I care about. And I will do this about every Wednesday. I try hard.

    Occasionally, I will post more often, or less often. But bear with me, and check about every Wednesday. My goal is to eventually post twice a week. But I'm not there yet.

    That was the shortest blog post yet, so I need a random question. Here goes: do you believe in the Butterfly Effect? If so, has it changed you at all? If not, why not?

    Thank you for your time.

Why You Care About Politics

    This title might be a little misleading. But really, you do. At least, you should. If you don't, either you have a really, really good reason, or you're lazy.

    Wow, what a way to start, right? Probably not the most politically correct thing I could have said, but it's true. Let's start off on the right foot, instead of the left. I prefer my right foot, because it's more accurate. My right foot tells me that 65% of Voting Age Americans are dissatisfied with our current government. Really? Hmmm, our country is run for the people, correct? If that's the case, then why are so many people dissatisfied? Two reasons: one, people who are old enough don't vote, and two, people who aren't don't care.

    First reason: people don't vote. Seriously? Your vote is one of your most important rights. If you have a system of government where you are guaranteed the right to vote if you are above the age of eighteen, then why don't you use it? It might seem like it doesn't do much damage, but it's like a soldier. If a soldier thinks that his job isn't useful because he only has one gun, then why should he be in the army? It would be ridiculous for him to leave, simply because he doesn't have enough power.

    It might seem like enough people vote, but actually, 42.5% of our voting age population does not vote in the Presidential Elections (this doesn't even include senators, representatives, laws, etc.). The main reason is "I can't fit it into my schedule!" according to the same site. Well, if you can't do that, then maybe you should be happy with our current system of government, because you have decided that other things in your life are more important than letting your voice be heard.

    With the current statistics, a minimum of 7% of our Voting Age population have only themselves to blame.

    Let me repeat that: if you aren't satisfied for our current government, and you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame.

   Seriously, your vote literally cancels out another vote. In theory, anyways, without regard to voting fraud. But in theory, if you vote, your vote counts just as much as someone else's.
 
    I will pull up another instance. Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Look it up, there are many good articles about it. Basically, what it says is that a flap of a butterfly's wings could cause a tornado - or, in theory, prevent one. There were a lot of tests regarding this, and it was shown to work every time. Andy Andrews has written a wonderful book about this, and what it means for people, instead of weather. What he showed is that the smallest actions can lead to drastic changes in the future. Your smallest action (not voting) could lead to thousands of people in the future deciding that they don't have time to vote. This could seem like a slippery slope, but then again, so does the whole theory. But it's not. Do some research. Every person needs to vote so the country can be accurately be represented.

    So your refusal to vote, if you're old enough to, could potentially lead to the destruction of the Second Amendment, or enable some horrible president in the future to be elected. By not voting, you are saying that you are disregarding the effects it could have. And they could be drastic. Your mentality could affect an entire generation. Or, it could do absolutely nothing. Based on the current statistics, it seems like the first is more likely.

    Second reason: non-voting age population doesn't care at all. Why should they care at all? Well, if they care, they will already be ahead of most adults when they get to the age.

    If they care, they will know, not only that the government is flawed, but exactly why, how, and what needs to be fixed. They will understand the tiny things that affected the world, and they will know which president they need to vote for. I'll bring up a real world example to let you know what I mean by this last point.

    It seems like the main reason that people voted for Obama is because he promised to give them jobs. Well, if you look at this logically, the best way to do this would be to actually put less taxes on employers. That way, they can actually make more jobs. Also, the new minimum wage hike pretty much seals the death of job creation. If the employers are being taxed heavily, and they have to pay people a minimum of $10.10, they won't be employing as often. Over 100,000 jobs need to be created each month just to maintain the current rate of unemployment. And if this new minimum wage is employed, those jobs will become harder and harder to come by.

    Obamacare. It's an absolute failure. A small percentage of people did not have enough money for insurance, and an even smaller percent of those actually wanted insurance. Rather than just addressing this small percentage, he decides that the entire population needs to pay for insurance, whether they get it or not. How do I know this? Politics.

    NSA vs Edward Snowden. Terrorist attacks and why they happen. War on drugs. Watergate Scandal. Freedom of the Press vs National Security. Problems with the Military. Feminism.

    All of these are politics. Think about this: if you knew about all of these, if only a little bit, would you not be able to have an opinion on why our country is headed downhill? Answer honestly.

    Why do you care, if you're not old enough to vote? You'll know the problem behind the economy when you get older. And then you'll know the problem behind the crime rate, and the government, and the military, and terrorism, and constitutional violations. That is, if you decide that you care.

    And if you're old enough to vote and don't, I hope you have a really, really good reason. If you do, comment below. If you're serving in the military overseas, then you have an excellent reason. Look up the eLect voting system and contact your representative about it.

    Thank you for your time.

Imagination and Books

   Once, in Chicago, I was with one of my friends from Ireland. I was touring a skyscraper with him. But there was more to it than that. I was helping to re-capture a supercomputer that he had developed. It was pretty awesome, but the man who owned the skyscraper, Jon Spiro, had stolen it, and nearly killed my friend and his bodyguard (he was a pretty rich kid) in the process. I was helping him to get his supercomputer back, and get revenge on Mr. Spiro. It was like an action movie. I felt pretty cool.

   Unfortunately, Mr. Spiro had some pretty advanced security in his skyscraper, and we had almost been caught several times. We both crept closer to the door that would lead to where the supercomputer was being held. There were cameras everywhere, but my friend had provided special glasses that showed how to avoid the cameras. It was like a spy movie.

   I turned the page in eager anticipation. What happened next? You’ll have to read “Artemis Fowl: The Eternity Code” by Eoin Colfer to find out. While I was reading the book, my imagination was engaged.

   I've never been to Chicago, and I have never had an experience like that. Nothing even close; except for eating an entire atomic fireball without any liquid or other relief, if that even counts. I have nothing to share, nothing to talk about! A lot of my friends are like this; they really can’t think of anything cool from their personal experience that they can share. That is why books are so important to us. Without books, our lives would be as boring as, well, watching a talk about the effects of micro-nuclearization. Or watching paint dry. Either one.

   So in this post, I'll show you first, what imagination encompasses, second, why it is important, and third, how good books fuel the imagination.

   So what is imagination, exactly? Imagination is the ability to see without a picture. Imagination will create entire worlds that are almost as real as this one. For example, with imagination, I can reside in Hobbiton, ride a hoverboard and play with giant dragons everyday. And have strawberry fizz for lunch.

   Also, when you think about what it would have been like to live in Bible times, you are using your imagination. Also, any time you empathize with someone, you are using imagination. For example, if I met someone who had just gotten chased by a giant angry unicorn, I...quite honestly, I have no idea what I would do. That’s a bad example. But if you can picture yourself in someone else’s shoes, you are using imagination. When I picture myself in my sister’s shoes, my feet hurt. That’s imagination.

   Benjamin Franklin once said, “Fish and visitors stink after three days.” Wait a minute...wrong inventor. Thomas Edison once said, “To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk.” This is illustrated well with common building material and deadly sharp weapon of foot destruction alike, the LEGO brick. A good pile of LEGO bricks will be very diverse, and can create many, many awesome things. I like playing a game with my friends. I’ll get a large pile of LEGO bricks, and everyone pulls out a handful. We all try to build the coolest things we can, using the images we have in our heads and the bricks we chose. Creativity results from having a good imagination. And when we play this game, both our imagination and our creativity get stronger. Likewise with our feet.

   So why is this important? Well, to start off, did you know that a lot of LEGO designers intended to be architects before they became affiliated with the LEGO company? With that in mind, let’s look at architecture. Good architects have imagination. We’ve all seen the giant skyscrapers that look like a bunch of people just stacked a bunch of stories together, and called it a remarkable structure. Architects need imagination, and lots of it, like LEGO designers, to make those cool and fun-to-look-at structures we see in cities, such as the Sydney Opera House. That is a weird structure.

   Without imagination, science would not be as advanced as it is, and our society would probably be living without phones or computers or electricity. Science limits itself to what it deems possible. But imagination pushes the boundaries of possibility like a fat panda pushes the boundaries of skin-tight clothing. Like Albert Einstein said, “imagination is more important than knowledge.” Knowledge has boundaries, but imagination has none. Imagination is like a car that can’t stop. It doesn’t stop.

   But what about books? How do books supply imagination? First, I would like to share an analogy of writing that my friend’s dad’s acquaintance’s son’s sister’s acquaintance’s student’s cousin’s dad’s brother came up with: words are like energy. Reading sentences and pages is intaking the energy. Imagination is fueled by that energy, and eventually it enables people to go on quests to save the world and heroically jump into burning buildings like Gandalf or Martin the Warrior and save people from explosions and stuff. Or design buildings, or play in the backyard, or play with LEGO’s. Imagination is handy like that.

   When we read about characters in books, our mind quickly builds a profile for that character. What they look like, how they walk, how they talk, how tall they are, etc. These characters that we read about are the energy that builds imagination. A well-developed character will have lots of time and imagination invested in it, and in turn, will give the imagination to the reader.

   Different scenes are energy as well. The scenes give us ideas for later times when we need imagination. Like building with LEGO’s, or imagining what life would have been like in ancient Rome. The more scenes we have, the more snippets we can take, and the more diverse our imaginations will truly be. It’s like a huge bowl of ice cream. No, it’s really not, but I wanted to make you hungry. It’s more like a giant collage. The more things on it, the better it is. Actually, it could be like a giant bowl of ice cream. The more things on it, the...already said that. Moving on.

   Are books really the best fuel for the imagination? Yes, books are the best fuel for the imagination. The reasons for this are that books are very diverse in imagination, and that movies force-feed you everything.

   Let’s take it back to authors. They usually read a lot of books and meet a lot of people and hear a lot of stories. They are well-grounded in imagination, since they have a lot of sources. Books are like a dissertation, except they use imagination as sources instead of scientific sources. Of course, I’m talking about GOOD books. Twilight and history textbooks don’t count. The quality of a book depends on where the author is getting imagination, and how they spread it across the span of the book.

   When you read a good book, you are being fueled imagination from all sorts of sources. Let me say that again for dramatic effect, and add some extra lines for dramatic effect: when you read a book, your imagination energy is from all sorts of sources, compiled into one beam of energy that can be absorbed in one several-hour time-frame.

   But what about the movie directors who have a lot of imagination? They might have a lot of imagination, but they don’t help our imagination as much as books do. Remember, imagination is the ability to see without a picture. A movie destroys what we see with our individual imagination. Imagine if all the architects all had the same image in their head when they designed skyscrapers. And imagine if everyone had the same view of science advancements. It would be so boring, and not much would really change. 

   Let me bring up an example. Picture, in your mind, Gollum, from Lord of the Rings. Do you see him? Well, if you’ve watched the movies, then you all probably have the same image. We have all been brainwashed. Let’s go sue someone.

   Now I’d like to bring up another figure that you’ve read about. David from bible times. What do you picture? We all see something different. Our imaginations have filled in his profile based on what we knew and what we deem as important to us. But movies destroy our own images, and brainwash us, like I already said. Books don’t brainwash us.

   So, to conclude, people today should be exposed to more good books. They should not be playing videogames and watching movies all the time, because those two things hardly fuel any imagination at all. They do, but are only good in very small doses, like grape juice. Books are perfect in unlimited doses, like Krispy Kremes.

   If people get to read books, they get to see the fun in adventure. They will want to envision themselves adventuring, and will want to read books more and more. Imagination changes the world. Never forget that. And books are the very best fuel for the imagination, because your imagination is your own. Never forget that, either.

   So, what books have you read lately? I hope that you will experience unlimited adventure by reading many, many more books, and gain the special energy so you can recapture supercomputers and go on quests with the best of ‘em. Thank you for your time.

Speech and Debate

    Hi. It's been a while. Sorry about that, I was in a Speech and Debate tournament.

    Speech and Debate, you ask? Yes. And even if you don't ask, that's what this post is all about. So, skip it if you don't care.

    I'm a nobody. A nobody in a big world where a lot of somebodies do nothing. A nobody doing something while the somebodies do nothing. It's a paradox.

    Not quite. There are somebodies doing something, and nobodies doing nothing. But I'm a nobody. And I'm in Speech and Debate.

    Specifically, National Christian Forensics and Communications Association. It's a long name, but it's basically just Speech and Debate. But to me, it's a lot more.

    To most, it would seem like this is the most boring thing you could possibly do. A bunch of homeschoolers, yelling at each other and talking politics. A bunch of kids giving speeches that they wrote. Ooh, what an excitement. Sign me up.

    At least, that's what it would seem.

    To the people in it, it's a life experience. To us, it's a place where you not only grow in knowledge, but also, in Christ. To us, it's a big, intelligent social gathering. To us, it's a fantastic competition. To us, it's an opportunity to laugh, to learn, to be inspired, to think. To us, it's our life.

    To me, it's my life. It's my school, it's my education. (At least, most of it.)

    So, how did it change my life? It started with an idea. An idea for Speech and Debate. I had no care for speech, but debate sounded interesting. I started it, and learned so much. Here is this year's resolution, or what I'm always debating: National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press. That's what I've been learning about.

    Not to mention Pride, why you should drink water more often, my identity in Christ, Federal Election law, Shakespeare, Power and the fact that it corrupts, poverty, and many other topics. During those three days I was at the tournament, I learned about just about everything.

    Of course, I wasted a lot of time. I should have watched more speeches. But I didn't. I regret that, but I will have many more opportunities to do so.

    But did I only learn about things in speeches? Nope. I wish. My pride got hurt. A lot. And I learned a little too much about selflessness, patience, grace, happiness and self-sacrifice. In just one qualifying tournament. It will happen many, many times.

    Why should you care? This is why you should care: our current school system is failing. It is producing more and more people who have lost the ability to think. To use their brains. To properly evaluate, to use logic. Our nation is quickly going downhill. It's obvious. The youth of America is our only hope, and if they can't think, then we're sunk. Our public school system works for some, but not all. There needs to be an alternative. Homeschooling is hard. It really is. But NCFCA helps, and it helps a LOT. Speech and Debate is the best way to become more mature, to become intelligent, to become wise. It is our last hope (it's really not, but I wanted to sound dramatic).

     I can't stress the point enough that something needs to change, and in a good way. We need Christ. And NCFCA helps spread the gospel, and intelligence, and wisdom, and character.

    Thank you for your time.

"What good does this do me?"

    Do you have a talent that seems to be useless? For example, writing someone's name backwards in cursive? If so, then this post is for you.

    Of course, your talent might not be as impressive as that. It may simply be the ability to recite things backwards. So what good does that do you? And more importantly, how can it be used to serve God? These questions aren't easily answered. In short, "Do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31)." But how do you do that while eating standing on your head? First, thank God regularly for your talent/ability, however ridiculous it may be. God has commanded us to pray, and we must constantly praise him.

    Well, obviously, God is to praise for talents and abilities. But what do you do beyond that? There are several ideas. They will be organized into two lists, 1) if you know other people with random talents/abilities, and 2) if you are the only one (with weird talents/abilities) you know.

1. If you know others:
1. Create a collaborative video of all the random things you can do
2. Create a chain email listing random things you (and others) can do
3. Vote on the weirdest, most random, coolest etc. and award respectively
4. Talk with friends and see if you can make a talent show using your talents/abilities
5. Create a group to walk around places while doing weird things

1. If you are the only one:
1. Think of fun things you can do with your talent/ability
2. Think of ways to stretch your ability to do new things; e.g, if you can stand on your head, try writing upside down
3. Show your friends what you can do and get feedback
4. Create a YouTube channel showcasing random things
5. Find other people with random talents and read first list

    Hope this helped those of you who apply to the "random gift" category. All right, the random question of the week is: What will you do with your "Christmas Money?"