Book Journal #4

Healthcare

The people in this book do not receive the same kind of care we do. A woman will receive care when she has a child, but after that she is sent home. They get care as children, but if something happens like they are injured or found to have something drastically wrong with them, they will basically be sent to die. The Republic makes the decision based on what they contribute to the society. In a way they have universal healthcare, but they receive such limited care that it's like they have none. 

Recently the United States adopted a system of Healthcare that is supposed to provide for everyone. It will not be fully implemented until 2014, but in the meantime the private sector is preparing itself for what's to come. Personally I have already noticed a difference. For the worst. Before 2012 my family had a great healthcare plan for a reasonable price, the amount we pay has gone up by over $1,000 a year, and the care we receive has actually gone down. This is quite worrisome considering it's bound to get worse. Many doctors will be switching to work for the private sector so they don't have to work directly under the government. This means that they will be charging more for their services, the new doctors, and the college students who want to be doctors will certainly be considering their options. 

This book is clearly a very extreme case, something that would most likely not happen in the United States, but it does make you think. Nothing will ever be perfect, someone will always be upset about one thing or another, but that does not mean changing an entire system to better "everyone" because really it is going to help a lot of people, but it is also going to make things much more difficult for others. The leaders of the Republic clearly didn't have to abide by the rules of the healthcare system the citizens did, and it is pretty similar to that of the Healthcare bill that has been passed in the United States. There are high end executives, entire companies, and groups of people (not to mention a few senators and congressmen) who are exempt from this law. I don't know about you, but this is a bit upsetting to me. If it isn't good enough for the men who made it and pushed it through to become a law, why would we think that it is good enough for the entire country.

Book Journal #3

Energy Efficiency

Since the early 2000's the world has been more concerned with keeping the environment clean. Ever sine Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" we have been more cautious about what we do to harm the environment. In this book there is such an extreme set of rules everyone has to follow that there is no room to do anything wrong. Each person is responsible for making energy, and to make matters worse (or better concerning the environment) there is no form of transportation that requires any kind of fuel that has emissions. There is only one time in this book that you hear of any kind of transportation that has a fuel source other than people, and that is a train.

Everything is recycled, even people. When someone dies they are immediately sent to the recycle center, and the readers don't actually know what happens to them but something does. Nothing is wasted. Each citizen is given a specific amount of food and water in the morning and an amount for the evening. Nothing is wasted, and everything is reused. The people come second to the animals and the environment. The squirrels are overpopulated, and overfed. The area outside of where the people live is purely nature. the people are confined to this small space where there are not trees or grass. They can only see the nature from inside the gates of their home.

This kind of society is obviously very different to what we are used to. While we are not surrounded by nature, there are trees and flowers and things that we can see on a daily basis. These people don't really have that chance. Getting to hold a flower would be a treat. and picking them would be illegal. There are regulations on everything, and no one can grow their own food. The farm communities that provide the food are strictly regulated, and the audience does not know much about the plants or types of things they are growing for food. 

Book Journal #2

Education:

One of the things that was a big issue in Agenda 21 was education. The educational system in the Republic is extremely different than what we are used to as high schoolers in the United States. Each child born into the Republic is not allowed to stay with their parents. The mother never gets a chance to hold the child, and the child doesn't even know who the mother is. Basically, the mother carries the child, births it and that's the end of their relationship. The children live from infancy in a place called "the children's village" a single building where the eat, sleep, live, and go to school. As infants they live in the nursery, where they are not brought up like normal babies. They aren't held, loved, talked to or anything close to what we experienced as little kids. There is no nurturing for these kids so they never really learn to be loving. They grow up to be cold people who don't really care about anyone else. Obviously this is not the intention of the Republic, but as one of the characters in the book says: "You can't mandate love."

Apart from the fact that these kids didn't learn to be normal (well what we'd consider to be normal) people, they are also taught a few things: skills they will need for their particular job, and the "history" of the Republic. When we learn history in school, we learn what actually happened (at least I assume we do), but these kids learn only what the Republic wants them to learn. They learn about the history only from when the Republic took over, nothing from before then is talked about. So really they are only learning the history of less than 20 years. They don't get to choose to go on to college like we do. their schooling basically stops when they reach of reproduction (so it varies). After that, they are "paired" and sent off to live with that pair, so they can begin to have children of their own.

The main character: Emmaline did not live in the children's village, she was on e of the last people who was allowed to be raised by her parents, so her learning experience was very different from that of the children who had never met their parents. Her mother home schooled her, and was supposed to teach her what she needed to know, but instead spent most of the time teaching her about the old times, from before the Republic had become the sole governing force. Unfortunately Emmaline was not able to learn everything she needed before she was paired, so she had to learn a lot as time went on. Also since her mother had not taught her about the history of the republic she learned some of it from her one of her co-workers. I don't know that I would say that it was better that she had been taught by her mother. On one hand she wasn't totally brainwashed, and she did have some opinions, but on the other hand her mother had been an odd character and didn't teach her what she needed to know. Both had their flaws, and nothing in this society was really what it should be.

Book Journal #1

For class I'm reading a book called Agenda 21 by Harriet Parke. Set in a futuristic America this book takes on many social issues and what could happen if the government had total control. It portrays a drastic extreme of Socialized Healthcare, Energy Efficiency, Communism, Environmental cautiousness, and Education. Each one with it's own issues, and possible benefits, this society does not let the people chose anything. Their job, where they live, what they eat, Birth Control, and even who their spouse is going to be.

In the first chapters of the book we learn a lot about the main character: Emmaline. At just over fourteen years old she is "paired" with a man (her government chosen spouse). She moves out of her parents' "living space" and into a new one with George. As a former student of Emmaline's mother, he is respectful and loving. He truly cares about her, and they seem to fall in love. At the age of 16 she is pregnant, and not soon after George and her father die. Without much time to grieve she is "paired" with another guy named Jeremy. He's much younger and is quite cold. This is a lot of drama for only a few years of a person's life, let alone a few chapters of a book.

All of this plot is deepened by the amount of political control in this new version of the United States. Much of the book is spent with the characters holding their hand to their forehead with their thumb and pointer finger touching in salute to the "republic." Whatever time they're not listening to someone tell them what to do they are doing their government issued job. In Emmaline's case this is to simply "walk her board" (a device much like a treadmill in her house that allows her to create energy for the Republic). Her first partner George is a "Transporter" and really all this means is that he and 5 other men pull "bus boxes" which are just vehicles for others to travel in. The entire goal of this place is to create energy and to waste as little of it as possible. Each citizen is responsible for creating energy. Their purpose is to reproduce and to make energy. Nothing else.

The next posts I'll be writing on this book will be significanly more focused. Each with one or two topics that I found to be issues within the book.

Controlling guns or restricing rights?

In an earlier post I wrote a little bit about gun control. I was thinking about it at the time because of the presidential election, and the lack of talk about it by the candidates. Now there is a reason to talk about it. There has been yet another event to add on to the past shootings in the United States. This year alone there have been multiple mass shootings. More than ever before -maybe it just feels like it- and looking back for some I'm sure is traumatic. Some will be making the argument that guns are not safe for private citizens to own. Others will be arguing that if there had been a teacher or a security guard in the school, that this could have been prevented. Then there's me. I used to consider myself to be a conservative through and through, but recently I've been thinking more and more about how I would actually change things if given the chance.

Something I should mention is that my family does own guns. My father has several including a shot gun, a nine millimeter Glock, and a hunting rifle, each with its own secure place with the ammunition stored in a different location. I've grown up learning how to clean, assemble, and shoot several kinds of guns. Guns are not a joke, they are not something that should be handled lightly, and even paintball guns should be handled with respect. This is what I've been taught my entire life, and I find it to be valuable. I do believe that we should have the right to own and even carry a weapon if handled properly. There must be safety precautions put in place so people who shouldn't own guns can't get their hands on them easily. This is why I think there should be intensive background checks, and psychological evaluations for anyone who would like to purchase a gun. There should also be some kind of class they have to go to (there are some out there but are not manditory in every state). This would allow americans to own guns, but there would be more thought and safety added to their owning of the gun or guns.

Putting the Pieces Together

Our nation was taken by surprise this past Friday when 20 elementary students and 6 teachers were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown Connecticut. As I'm sure everyone knows there are a few issues that will be formed as a result of the massacre. Many debates about gun control, violence in schools, and security will result. I think there is a time and a place for that kind of thing. We are welcome to voice our own opinions, but I believe that it is simply too soon to be attacking anyone. Before any issues are brought up I'd like to say that the victims, families and the town of Newtown are in my thoughts and prayers. I'd like to show them respect by simply giving some facts about the town and the aftermath of this horrible event.

Schools are back in session today in Newtown, but no child, teenager or parent is fully comfortable with where they are. Obviously security has been bulked up and this event seems to be an isolated one, but tensions are still high. Funerals for first graders James Mattioli and Jessica Rekos were held at a local church already this week. Both children had lives, and looked forward to the kinds of things all little kids look forward to. It makes me sad to think that those goals, ambitions, and wants will never be filled by these babies. It seems to me that the victims of this event are already being overlooked, by the politics. Eveyone is so concerned with everything else when we should really be supporting the families of the victims and the people effected. More time should be given to them to mourn before making this event all about gun control or security. The families deserve more respect than that.

An eye for an eye?

       I'm sure there are kids who start their college essays with "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." This saying, attributed to Gandhi, is supposed to be saying that world peace is something that everyone should be interested in achieving. As a man of peace, and someone who was fully committed to helping others, Gandhi is certainly who makes a good role model for morals. There must be a line drawn in the sand though, there are simply some people in this world who want to watch the world burn. No matter how many people they hurt, no matter how guilty they should feel, they'll never get it. If not put away, or in this case put to death, they would just keep hurting. When that is the case, the saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" simply does not cut it.
       Many people who are against the death penalty in the United States will use that saying as an argument stating that revenge should not be the answer. I would like to be able to say that revenge is bad, or that it is unhealthy to want it, but I simply don't think that's true. When someone is murdered in a brutal way, the family will be upset, and chances are they will want revenge on the person who committed the crime. This is not wrong, and although it "may not be the answer" it may bring some kind of closure for them. There are certainly cases where the family is still not satisfied even after the murderer has been put to death, but after that there is nothing else that can be done.
        I'm not arguing that the death penalty is right and just, and I'm certainly not arguing that there are no flaws in the system -that much is blatantly clear- I am however saying that there is no reason to abolish it completely. I believe that sometimes it is necessary for someone to be sentenced to death. They should not be allowed to live on this Earth anymore. In very specific cases of course. Some may disagree, and I'm not quite sure that I have the plan right in my mind. I would make it so someone would only be eligible for the death penalty if they killed more than one person (possibly even more than two or three, I'm not sure on the number, and I'm not qualified to make that kind of judgement). There are cases where the crime is too terrible. Too gruesome. The death penalty should only be reserved for those that are atrocious and the worst of the worst.