Migraine charts, Catholicism, Gay Marriages, Democrat Elections and Politics in General

And all that in the subject title will be in reverse order. Get ready for a VERY long entry folks. I'm vocal when it comes to politics.

Today is Tuesday, which means the Democrat Primary races are happening in MA. In fact, my parents are out voting as we speak. Unfortunately, I'm still 17 until September or I'd be out there too. On the bright side, I get to vote in the presidential elections in November -- something I've been waiting for, for almost 10 years. No, I'm not kidding, I couldn't wait to vote when I was only 8 years old. I actually believed that they should create a test -- much like the citixenship test that foreigners have to take to become American citizens -- to allow for children suffrage. And yes, I even called it that. I still believe that test would rock. Anyways, so primaries are today. And since Kerry is FROM MA, I'll be very surprised, no shocked even if he doesn't win by a landslide.

I'm not a big Kerry fan. To me he seems entirely too ambiguous and avoids taking a large stand on many serious issues. I was very much for Howard Dean and Wesley Clark however. . . Up until the first primary in Iowa the media was all about Dean. Dean this, Dean that; Dean rocks, Dean's going to win. But in Iowa the media suffered a major shock when Dean only came in 3rd and to recover from that they began publicizing the "front-runner" Kerry, and finding anything wrong with Dean that they could. Actually according to several political analyst's articles, this actually affected a lot of people's votes because Democrats began to believe that while they didn't like Kerry, only he would be able to stand up to George Bush in the final election.

Speaking of Bush, I don't like him either. As much as I dislike Kerry if it came down to a race between Bush and Kerry (as it looks like it will) I'd vote for Kerry. My political mind is something few can grasp, as I usually have very strong opinions on every subject but lean neither left nor right. To conservatives I'm very liberal, and to liberals I'm a complete conservative.

So let's go into why I don't like Bush. I'm an environmentalist; if I lean politically in any direction it's toward environmentalism. And Bush, well his policies REALLY don't agree with mine. Loosening up the rules on environmental regulations in factories, pushing for drilling for oil in the Alaskan reserves, cutting 1/10th of the forests, and the idea of "voluntary" regulations doesn't exactly appeal to an environmentalist like myself. In general his policies for energy production, and regulations on factory made chemicals is more about making money than helping the environment; however much it can be claimed otherwise. To give him credit, in some cases market mechanisms (the idea of voluntarily cutting down pollutants in order to get more trade money -- such as with sulfur dioxide in the Clear Skies plan) can work. However, in many cases now, honey alone isn't catching enough flies, you need a flyswatter or a net as well. This is called a cap and trade plan, you put a cap on the amount of pollutant emissions and then allow corporations to trade rights to get there and make money.

And as for cutting down 1/10th of the trees in forests, the idea is to prevent the explosive forest fires the country has been facing recently. And in theory it should work, but that is like a good deal of Bush's plans. In theory they all should work wonderfully but in practice they don't. Example, how are you going to enforce going through the forests and chopping down one out of every 10 trees? Lumber companies often just take machines and completely clear out areas. You can't do that if you're only cutting down one tree and leaving the other nine and then going on to the next set. You'd have to use Lumberjacks, and even then, it's rather inefficent and almost certainly not cost effective. And here's another thing, if you cut down one out of every 10 trees you're also cutting down 1/10th of the U.S' oxygen supply, animals habitats, and wildlife. 1/10th seems more than a little high to me and how did he arrive at that number in the first place? Every ecologist I've spoken with/read reports about has agreed that it's a ridiculous number and while it would clear out forests from wildfires, it wouldn't a) stop the fires enough and b) it'd be too many trees. In general they believe the best policy is to clear out brush, undergrowth and fallen leaves/pine needles. The fires in CA weren't spread because there were too many trees, they were spread because there were too much brush in the area.

And Bush's organization also detests international environmental regulations. On nearly every treaty involving lowering pollutants or drilling, or electricity expenditures, or any of it, the Bush administration has refused at least part if not all of the requirements. For instance in the September of 2002, there was U.N. proposal to rapidly expand the use of clean renewable energy around the world by 15% by 2010. Renewable sources of energy are things like solar,hydro, and wind power. Technically wood is also a renewable energy source, however it's not considered to be a clean one because it creates even more pollutants than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not renewable energy sources because there is only a limited amount. And some environmentalists disapprove of hydro power as it involves the creation of dams which mess up river wildlife but I haven't seen enough evidence that this is a huge problem and as such, I remain an advocate for hydro power. The technology exists that solar, wind, and hydro power are very usable but they are currently more expensive than burning oil, coal, and other fossil fuels because they are newer technology that hasn't been given the opportunity to be as refined scientifcally. Given the right funding, the I believe that the price would eventually come down, particularly if they were used more often. However, the U.S. teamed up with Saudi Arabia and a few other "rich, industrialized" countries to push for having no limitations or statistics. Basically, making the entire treaty purposeless.

Also, another point I would like to make -- wind power. Right now the government is PAYING farms NOT to grow corn; particularly in the Mid-west because as a nation, America grows "too much." (I do not how you can ever consider there to be too much food grown when there are people somewhere in the world starving to death, but as the food cannot get to those people due to ... many complications, the food is considered too much when it's not marketable.) My Aunt and Uncle actually get paid not to use their farmland for growing corn. Now on those farmlands, such as my Uncle's and thousands, nay millions, in the Mid-west, windmills could be put up. My Uncle lives in the mountains so it's frequently windy, and as it is well known, the Mid-west farmlands are very windy. This windpower would not only make clean renewable energy sources, but income for those said farmers and the government wouldn't have to pay them for not growing corn. Not only that, but the area with tons of windmills while it cannot still be used for crops (unless it was very low, viney crops that can grow AROUND the windmills, such as strawbery and blueberry bushes, and possibly pumpkins -- I'd have to check on the pumpkins though) can still be used for grazing for cattle, horses, and other grass eating animals. However, without the proper government incentive or regulations on energy companies, this would never happen. After all, it takes money to put up the windmills and there does have to be a market for the windmill energy. It wouldn't be too difficult (in relativity to other laws and bills) to enact laws to promote this form of energy, but you ban bet your keister (haha I sound funny when I'm avoiding swears) that the Bush administration would not do this.

And another world treaty the U.N. proposed that the Bush administration turned down almost immediately was one to decrease fishing for certain over-fished species and to try expanding into other species. (ie. fish less trout more tuna. This is not an exact species listing thing because I no longer have that article and it was over a year ago but the principle was the same.) So there's a lot of reasons for an environmentalist to dislike George W. Bush.

So in some ways my environmentalism makes me Democratic, for instance despite Clinton's problems I really approved of him as a president because he made good laws and in general did a good job. But at the same time, my political hero is John McCain. (And has been for the past 5 years.) I agree with him on almost everything and I was IMMENSELY upset last election when he lost in the primaries.

So let's move off of the environmentalist track and switch to my other political beleifs. Let's start with economics. While it may be hypocritical of me to go on about increasing taxes (since I don't yet PAY taxes) I do not think it is in any way RATIONAL to increase spending and decrease sources of money. Which is what's going on now. It's simply bad economics. If as an individual you go off and lose your job, but get a new one at less pay this doesn't mean you go off and spend as much or even more money than when you had your old job. You SHOULD be trying to spend less or else trying to find still another job or way to get more money. By decreasing taxes, and increasing funding for the milatary (which I approve of but more on that in a bit) you are working your way into debt. And eventually the creditors are going to beat you up and take away all your belongings. Except in the case of a country, it means that our descendents will be stuck paying for it. Or my generation. If one is going to decrease taxes, one should at least also decrease the spending, not INCREASE it as well. As John McCain put it so nicely, "Republicans are supposed to be fiscally responsible but since the Bush administration they've been spending money like water."

While I am democratic in that I approve of the government using its money for things like education, unemployment benefits, health-care, disability, social security etc., I would have much less problem with the current economy policies by the President, if he WASN'T spending that much money on said government services. I'd approve even more if he's increase taxes on things, especially gasoline for cars -- hence cutting down SUVs, promoting hybrids and increasing income for the government to do things with. However, if he isn't going to increase taxes, the least he could do is decrease spending.

And as for trickle down economics... In theory it should work. It makes sense to me, when I have more money I spend more. But the problem is that rich people will not spend more money just because they have more money. After a point, you have enough money that you don't need/desire to spend anymore. Take George Bush, he has a lot of money (of his own I mean, I'm not talking about the nation's just now) but that doesn't mean he spends it. He has no need to. Just because he HAS the money to do it doesn't mean he's going to hire someone. Anything he *needs* done, he already has a person to do it. And for him $100, or even $5000 won't make a difference. For someone of my class, $100 could be used almost instantly, and the things I could do with $5000... But if I already had all the things I would spend the money on, then I wouldn't have any need or desire to spend that money, just because I have it. Granted, I'd have to be infinitely rich to reach that point and even then I have quite a few charities (*cough* Greenpeace amongst others) I'd give the money to, but not all rich people are as generous as I attempt/wish to be. And most of the tex cuts benefit the rich more than everyone else. This makes sense, they have to pay more taxes than everyone else. However, by giving money back to these people who aren't going to bother using it, you aren't circulating that money -- which is the entire point of Trickle-Down Economics.

Actually I'm going to stop here for now. I went outside and enjoyed the nice Spring air, blew bubbles for the first time in I don't remember when and since coming back in, I've been hungry, distracted, and my shoulders have been firey-sore. So I'll continue this probably later tonight with Morals and Politics (and how they don't mix well), and Catholicism and my migraines and views on Gay Marriage. Until then I'm going to go find a way to get my shoulders not to hurt.

Act 2: Politics continued (see entry before)

I'm back!

So yeah I'm getting a tension headache. Turns out as invincible as I feel with my headphones on, I'm not. And the more yelling that goes on behind me (I'm sort of in a corner at my computer) the more stressed out I feel. Also, my parents are each reading my book (and correcting it) and as such that makes me incredibly nervous -- especially when my Dad starts criticizing me. *sigh* But more on the headaches later. I want to do that last and continue my politics thing.

Now that I've finished with why I'm anti-Bush, let's go into why I'm not really a full Democrat. For instance, I was for the war in Iraq. (And the protests against it really pissed me off too. For one thing, NO one protested when Saddam Hussein gassed 250,000 Shiite Muslims in his OWN country, and for another about the same time as the war begin, no one protested when a town was completely wiped off the face of the map in Africa.) I don't think we should have gone into Iraq under the pretense of looking for weapons of mass destruction (another thing on that for people who use that as another Bush-bashing excuse, if Saddam did NOT have the weapons, why did he purposely make it look like he did???) but instead to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity and as a supporter of terrorism. However, doing so would have led to much world chaos as there are many other dictators throughout the world (and in the U.N.) who should be pulled in for the same reasons.

I'm also not a complete socialist because while I do believe in healthcare for the poor, I do not believe in making all healthcare government provided -- if only because I understand the complications involved with this. And another thing that makes me non-Democratic is abortions. I'm very much against abortions for moral reasons.

Which reminds me -- time to define moral politics vs. social/economic politics. In general I think the purpose of the government should be to protect/help its citizens socially. For instance, creating laws to protect people from theives, bandits, murderers, rapists etc. Also creating regulations for things like rules on the road, protecting workers' rights (minimum wage, maximum work hours before over-time etc), creating institutions like firemen, schools/education, police departments, sewage treatment, water, food and energy resources (such as filtering water and regulating poisons in foods) and regulations on things like drugs, pollutants from factories, and the setting aside of land and things for museums and national parks. In short, a government's job is to make it's citizens lives better. It is for this reason that I so much approve of Seperation of Church and State. The minute you throw in moral considerations to Politics, things get complicated.... to say the least.

Something I've learned in the past few years of life, you cannot make everyone else conform to your sense of morals. And the only time I believe you should try your hardest to do anyways is when lives are at stake. Such as in the case with Iraq or WW2 or abortions. In the case of abortions, I believe that the fetus deserves as much as rights as any other child or living being and thus aborting it is murder (I also believe that if the pregnant woman doesn't want to raise her child she should give it up for adoption in which case aborting it would also affect the lives of the parents who would like to adopt, however it would not permanently damage said parents's lives, so they don't quite count.) So for instance, I'm still against abortions because I feel that by aborting a child you are killing it and thus I feel that abortions should be illegal. But while I'm morally against divorces, except in the case of abuse and battery, I don't think they should be made illegal. It would be expecting everyone else to conform to my standards when they clearly don't see anything wrong with it. And while divorces do negatively affect the children of those parents, it isn't something that can't be gotten over.

I'd like to take a side-note here and say that it's no wonder my sister has weight problems. She got me a bowl of ice cream that was so huge... I've eaten half of it and the ice cream is now all smoothed out over the bottom of the bowl and not only does it completely cover the good-sized tupperware bowl, but fills it halfway to the top, despite being all the way around. This is more ice cream than I would normally eat in the first place -- and this is what is left over from what I already ate. *shocked and slightly scared expression.*

So that brings me to Gay Marriages. More and more recently I've been deciding that I'm Catholic, and while I still haven't gotten confirmed (I refused to get confirmed into Catholicism until I'd worked out every detail of my religious and moral beliefs and there were/are still a few I'm working on) I'm leaning more and more toward that direction every day. As far as I can tell (and it's been difficult to find any real, clear answers) the Catholic Church is against Gay Marriages for moral reasons, amongst them the belief that this will further decay the moral fabric of society and degrade the true meaning of marriage. For instance, the Pope conjectured that with the creation of the Birth Control Pill, abortions would also one day be legalized, so the fear among many Catholics is that by allowing Gay Marriages, the next step will be polygamous marriages.

As for me, I don't know what to think. I want to side with what's right, but what is right in this case? Is this another divorce-like instance where you just have to accept that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree with you? Or should gay marriages really be banned? By banning gay marriages are you being discriminatory? Or by allowing gay marriages are you just furthering the breakdown of decrepit morals this society already has?

For some people, in fact EVERYONE else I know, these are easy questions and they all have their own opinions on it. Leanne, Stephen, Greg M, Erin, David, my parents... But for me, these are not so easy to answer. From a legal and social standpoint I support gay marriages in that they should have the same legal rights as any heterosexually married couple. But from a moral standpoint I cannot see eye to eye with the idea that gay couples can be married in the same way as heterosexual couples. To me, marriage is a holy sacrament and should be treated thus. But if I've accepted that I cannot even morally illegalize divorces, can I morally agree to banning gay marriages? Since this whole controversy began I've been tossed about in a storm of morals and beliefs. I want to side with my church but I also don't want to be too judgemental or discriminatory. For a long time (and I still am) I was a proponent of Civil Unions. It gives couples all the legal rights under the law and any social or economic benefits of a marriage but it is not considered the same thing as a marriage. Unfortunately neither side is happy with this compromise. Conservativs argue that it is not enough to distinguise the two and liberals argue that it creates two classes of people, homosexuals and heterosexuals.

And to be honest, it also makes me wonder if I would have been one of those people who would have tried to compromise slavery back in the day? I'd like to think I wouldn't, that I'd be firmly against slavery because I know it's wrong, but have I been taught for such a long time that it's wrong and that's why I think this way? In the case of gay marriages, I've been taught to the extreme both ways that acceptance and liberty is the way to be as much as that sex outside of marriage and gay sex is wrong. Allow me to clarify a little on the last part, not that homosexuals are bad people, just that it goes against the order of life (and morality) to participate in homosexual activities. Just as it's immoral to get a divorce, but that doesn't mean divorced people are bad.

That's a common thing in Catholicism that people don't get. Certain things are considered immoral, quite a few of them actually, but that doesn't mean that anyone who does them is going to hell because of it, or that they're a bad person. What it means is that it's bad and a sin, but according to Catholicism you can always be forgiven -- even after death. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy which I think means denying God. Not denying that he exists, but knowing that he exists, that he's good, loving, and forgiving and still choosing to go to Hell. Who would do such a thing given the opportunity? God only knows. And that's why Catholics aren't supposed to believe that people are going to hell as they/we have no idea what happens after that person dies. For more on this whole hell/afterlife thing go read the Great Divorce. Another awesome book by C.S. Lewis and while not Catholic, still true to Catholic values.

I've decided I wish I lived in the world of Zorro. Not only do I want a guy just like Zorro but I like the idea of always knowing what's right and wrong. There my Catholic morals would fit perfectly and while others might have problems due to lawful evil characters (haha I know, D&D alignment terms, I use them all the time, get used to it; it's how I think of people. To me, Zorro is a ranger -- I love rangers. I've got the heart and soul of a ranger and I wish I could be one.) because I'm neutral good, I would be able to fight against them and not feel bad about it. And more than that, I wouldn't have to kill them either. I could be like Zorro's double and it'd all be perfect.

I don't know if I've ever mentioned this before but my greatest wish ever is to be in a world like that. Where I could be perfectly me and always know what's right and wrong. I love fantasy for that reason. And if I had a mirror of Erised it would show me in a fantasy world, as a ranger, fighting monsters and evil and defending innocents. And that is why I write and want to direct movies (all of the fantasy genre of course.)

Mmmmm reminds of Zorro's creed (which I'm stealing to be my own by the way):

My sword is a flame
To right every wrong
So heed well my name
Zorro

Sorry I just had to add that in there. I LOVE that saying. I want a Zorro. I'd also like to get the full Disney series on tape or dvd (I hate my siblings. They killed tape 6 and taped over 13 and 14) Silly Disney. They seriously need to market the Zorro series. You'd be surprised what a huge "underground" fan club he has -- not as big as Inuyasha, but up there (and with much older fans, not so much the pre-teens who oggle over Inuyasha and Sesshemorou.)

Another thing I just have to share before moving on to the last part of my entry (the migraines thing) is a song from the Nightmare Before Christmas, written and sung by Danny Elfman (I'm a big fan of his stuff in dark comedies.)

There are few who deny that at what I do I am the best
For my talents are renowned far and wide
When it comes to surprises in the moonlit night,
I excel without ever even trying
With the slightest little effort of my ghost-like charms
I have seen grown men give out a shreik
With a wave of my hand and well place moan
I have swept the very bravest off their feet
Yet year after year it's the same routine
And I grow so weary of the sound of screams
And I, Jack, the Pumpkin King
Have grown so tired of the same old thing

Oh somewhere deep inside of these bones
An emptiness began to grow
There's something out there, far from my home
A longing that I've never known

I'm the master of fright, and a demon of light
And I'll scare you right out your pants
To a guy in Kentucky, I'm Mr. Unlucky
And I'm known throughout England and France
And since I am dead I can take off my head
To recite Shakespearian quotations
No animal nor man can scream like I can
With the fury of my recitations
But who here would ever understand
That the Pumpkin King with his skeleton grin
Would tire of his crown, if they only understood
He'd give it all up if he only could

Oh there's an empty place in my bones
That calls up forth something unknown
The fame and praise come year after year
Does nothing for these empty tears...

I LOVE that song. Good stuff, Danny Elfman. Let me tell you.

Anyways I've decided to change my mind about talking about migraines, the different types and charts etc. I was planning on doing it last night when my migraine was so bad that I couldn't think about much else but I've changed my mind, I'll save it for another time. So until then, adios