Considerations

Duh, duh, dun da da duh! The Hunger Games movie is released in less than a month!

I liked the entire trilogy, parly because of the story line, partly because - though not great literature - the writing was good, and, mostly, because it made me think.

I shall try to avoid any spoilers, but I make not promises. Readers have been duly warned.

I spent a good bit of time considering of what I am capable. I think that is a pretty natural reaction to books or movies such as these. I do not mean I spent an hour, or even a day, thinking about me, about where I stand and how strong the biological imperitive is to survive. No, I've considered such topics since I read the first book back in November and haven't stopped yet.

I generally don't get involved in political debates or conspiricy threories. I find, by my own reconning, that most people are either willing to believe anything anyone with any semblance of authority says or find conspiricy at every turn, even in the middle of the road. I am a combination. I like to consider myself an analytical individual. If something doesn't add up to me, it doesn't matter who said it; it has to make sense.

The idea of being part of a rebellion/revolt/riot/coup is utterly foriegn to me at this point. Yes, I believe many parts of the government need to be changed. I believe people need to change, both how - or if - they speak and how they act. Maybe it is how I was raised, maybe it is just my personality, maybe it is both, but I don't understand the idea of attacking people when the issue is seperate. "You can't kill an idea," I don't remember from where that is, but I agree. An idea does not belong to one person; it is a shared concept of reality and how to incite change.

Overthroughing a government, at this stage, in the first world countries, I find extremely premature. Yes, the govenmental systems aren't particularly efficient, at least in the U.S.A.; I can't comment on other countries. War is unnecessary; there are other solutions. If everyone would think, truely think for his or herself, one may find that the issues are not so difficult.

For instance, same-sex marrige has been, is, and will continue to be a sensitive issue for many people. I don't think it needs to be. The arguements against seem to be 1) the system will be abused and 2) "it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord." The arguement for, is, of course, that if two people "love" eachother, they should be able to recieve the benifits of a long-term, legally recognized union, no matter the orientration, gender, race, etc., provided both parties are legally able to make the choice: of legal age, not under duress or bribery, of sound mind, etc.

Here is how the situation is resolved. It would not take much at all. Marrige becomes a religious union. Civil unions are filled with the state. Those currently "married" are automatically filled for a civil union after the passing of this hypothetical law. Then, persons desiring a legal union file for a civil union. Those with a civil union can be married by the religious habits/beliefs if allowed by the religious group. For those not yet married/civil-unioned, a civil union must be in place to reciece the benefits of a legal union; if those so choose, they could also be married. After all, church and state are supposed to be seperate; why does religion apply at all to who should be legal tied to whom? It wouldn't take much to change it, and the sancity of religions could be maintained. I would suggest, though, that the number of people in each civil union be limited to two.

As for the "abuse of the system" idea, anyone can abuse the system; it is extremely incorrect to imply that any couple is more likely to abuse to system than any other couple based upon those involved with the union. In other words, a male-female couple is just as likely to abuse the system as a couple composed of (pick any two, each choice may be picked twice): male, female, trans-sexual, post-op, pre-op, and whatever other ones need to be included so as to not leave out any varity of human. 

If people in general stopped nit-picking at opinions and started looking at a resolution instead of a fight, how many "social issues" could be resolved?

Anyway, the point is, one of my favorite things about the trilogy is how it made me think about where I would be in a rebellion, what I would do.

The other consideration I have been paying mind to since reading the books, is of what I am capable. If I were placed in a situation where my choice was kill or be killed, what would I do? Would I even try to survive? Would I be able to actively try to end someone else's life? I am pro-capitol punishment; some might say that is on par with murdering someone. I honestly do not know. I do know that I would hunt if that is what  it took to survive. I prefer not to eat meat, but I have that choice right now and it doesn't affect how much food is available to me. I'd rather eat meat than die.

I suppose I just wanted to make the point that any book, even a fully fictional, non-propaganda book can make one think if he or she chooses.

Adieu,

-Genni