What would a modern day plague look like?

If there was a plague today, it would be catastrophic or very short and quite small. Because of technological advances and new medication, the world has been good at suppressing a plague and quick with dealing with possible plagues, such as the swine flu. If a plague were to start today, as long as the world reacted quickly (unlike the government in Oran), it should be able to be contained. The other possible outcome of the plague could be almost apocalyptic. Technological advances can also spread the plague. People commute between places easily and therefore more people can come into contact with someone who is contagious. If someone who had the plague got on a plane, that person could infect many there and then infect even more people at the location they're traveling to. Transportation is easy to access, yet easy to spread diseases.
It depends on how the population would react as well. If everyone listened to the government and any regulations they set forth to contain the plague, theoretically the plague should be contained and not turn into a global plague.
In today's day, many areas don't have as many rats as other ages did. The rats often spread diseases. The fleas that diseased them looked for new hosts and then when there were no other viable sources of blood, they moved to humans. Because there are less rats in many affluent areas, the people there are in less of a danger. Unfortunately this is not the case globally. Humans don't have any natural resistance against this. In the case of rats, the ones with natural immunity survive and pass on this immunity through generations. Humans haven't been exposed to recent rats' diseases and therefore haven't acquired immunity. Thankfully, due to modern technology, scientists can create vaccinations to help increase our immunity and they can do so quickly. There are scientists specifically to try to prevent the spread of illnesses. Hopefully we have learned from past mistakes and will be able to prevent a global plague.

For more information about a modern day plague:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/plague5.htm

Does the plague desensitize death?

The plague does desensitize death. At first, the other citizens care about the funerals and how the dead are being buried. The government cares as well and tries to keep the funerals similar to usual, but soon efficiency and speed become higher concerns. The funerals are shortened and scheduled at night. There is no ceremony, no relatives or friends participating. But they keep track of them. This is considered successful, which shows the authority's lowered standards. Eventually there is no space left and no time to make more space so the bodies are carried by train to the crematorium. The government tries to keep the population in the dark about this, but they catch on and some hide by the tracks of the passing train and toss flowers in. This shows humanity is left, and that there are attempts to make the funerals at least the tiniest bit more "tasteful." Optimism changes and people are okay with this funeral process because it grew no worse. Their thinking changes from "How do I want to be buried and how do I want my funeral to go?" to "Good enough" or something along the lines of how these funerals are still at least better than a dog's funeral.
Their thinking of death changes as well. They become numb to it. It is around them all the time and the chances of someone's loved one dying are very high. It's similar to what Viktor Frankl says in "Man's Search for Meaning." In the concentration camps, people eventually stopped reacting to bad situations or death. The same thing happens during the plague. The memories of loved ones fade, their emotions are much less intense. Everyone's adapting to the plague. There is no other way to keep living in that situation, according to the narrator of "The Plague." Everyone lives in the present moment. One can't think of the future much because the uncertainty of the future is clear in a situation like this one. In drastic situations, drastic and abnormal things happen and that is to be expected: that the unexpected will happen.

If you were a government official, would you warn the populace of an inevitable catastrophic event?

If I knew of something horrible that was about to happen, I'd try to let as many people know as possible. Yes, this might lead to panic and chaos, but at least there would be a reaction. If the information is known, people have the right to know they're about to die or something bad is about to happen. This gives them at least some time to finish what was necessary and prepare for whatever is coming. It would be the perfect time for last-minute apologies, last-minute bucket lists, and so on. In "The Plague" by Albert Camus, the town puts off calling the plague a "plague." It is condemning, and the loss of any hope that the disease might just fade away. As a government official, one must first check his or her information and remember that even though false hope is kind, the realization that one's false hope was exactly that- false, can be more devastating. The populace deserves to know the truth about the situation so that each individual can decide how they'd like to react and so that each one can finish what they need to finish before time runs out. A town can't sit around waiting for long amounts of time, so it is important to get the news out quickly.
Personally, I know that I'd like to know if a catastrophic event, such as a nuclear explosion or a meteorite headed towards Earth, was about to happen. This would give me time to make my peace with the possibility of death. And if we all have a chance too, we should be able to have a moment before facing the possibility of death. If I knew that this event was inevitable, I also think that I wouldn't worry about it too much because I have  no control over it. Hopefully the rest of the population understands this too and sees that chaos and panic won't fix the problem.

Open Letter to all Parents

Dear Parents,
The main thing I'd like to tell you all is "Let them." Let them stay out till 4 AM. Let them have a week-long sleepover. Let them fail a class. Let them take the train at two in the morning. Let them get a job. Let them have the house to themselves for an entire weekend. Let them learn.
By a certain age, there's not more teaching that you can do. At that point, it is up to your kids to figure things out on their own. And you should let them, no matter how much of a fail you know it's going to be. Clearly, they don't think it will, so give them a chance to prove you wrong. Give them your opinion, tell them why you think something is a bad idea but in the end don't tell them to not do it. No matter how stupid. If they want to do something, there's a reason behind it, even if that reason may just be "It's fun." Let them have their fun then, no matter what they consider to be fun. Sure, sometimes it really may be the worst idea in the entire world, but they'll learn. Maybe it'll turn out okay, and then both you and them may learn that that something was not in fact stupid.
Don't worry about us. We have a way of getting out of situations and if we know that you're trustworthy and won't get mad because we're not making the best choices, maybe we'll even ask you for help if we need it. And if we don't ask for help, don't worry either: we're working it out and you don't have to know everything. If we see that you're okay with us trying random things, there's a possibility that we'll tell you a bit more about ourselves. And whatever we may tell you, be okay with it. Offer your opinion but don't do anything. Chances are, if we really did do something bad, then we already learned from the situation and now know either A) don't do it again or B) do it differently or C) how to not get caught doing that again.
Yes, you have more life experience than us. But that doesn't affect us in any way. We have to have our own life experience, the whole "learn from your mistakes." And not everything that was a mistake for you, has to be a mistake for us. Somethings will work out for us, even if they didn't for you or anyone else that you know.
But the thing is, let us because even if you don't, we'll still figure out a way to do what we wanted to do. The difference is whether you'll make it easier and help us out (hint: don't stay up waiting for us to come home, we eventually will) or whether we'll have to do it all in secrecy. And once you start letting us do more, still don't expect us to tell you everything. And don't do the "I told you so," because we remember what you said.
So let us.
Sincerely,
a daughter

Civic Duty: All People Should

There are some things that are expected of all people, things like simple manners, saying please and thank you, and so on. But then there are things that the government expects of us, such as voting, serving on a jury, signing a petition, paying taxes, volunteering. I think it is completely natural of the government to expect such things from us. After all, we are citizens of this country and not another. That is why all people should participate in the responsibilities that come with being a citizen of a country. These responsibilities also allow us to take part in the government. We're lucky that we can sign petitions, protest, and vote, so we should take advantage of these opportunities that many other people in other countries don't have. Civic duty is a way of showing that we are grateful for having these responsibilities. Along with these government-related activities, we should also remember to respect the rights of others. Just because we have the freedom of speech and a lot more freedoms than other people, doesn't mean that we can abuse that power, which is why we're also expected to be respectful. We should help others when we see that they need it, starting with simple things such as giving up your seat for elders, pregnant women, or anyone who needs it more than you,  or holding the door for others or saying thank you when someone does something nice for you. Sometimes people forget common courtesy and I think being courteous is included in civic duty.

Of course the government also shouldn't abuse its power. Just like citizens should respect each other, the government should respect its citizens. It can do so by listening to citizens' concerns and reacting to their needs and demands.

We've all heard the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing, and even though it doesn't always work, we can hope that others will notice the example we're setting and remember their responsibilities. And even if they don't, we can do nice things simply because they feel good.

Is poverty a choice?

There isn't one standard for poverty. It differs across the world. And as it differs, so do the opportunities for getting out of poverty. It is easier to get out of poverty in a country like the United States where 15% of the population lives under the poverty line versus in a country such as Haiti where the poverty rate is 77% and about 80% of the country lives on less than $2 per day. In the United States, we have several welfare programs to help those in need. This greatly increases one's chances of getting out of poverty. But that doesn't mean poverty is a choice. I'm certain that no one is choosing to live in poverty. The choice one does have is whether they take advantage of their opportunities. Of course, not every country will have these opportunities and taking advantage of these opportunities doesn't necessarily mean one will get out of poverty anyways. Even after working hard, one may still not get out of poverty. And not working at all doesn't mean one will live in poverty. It's not like one single decision can place someone in poverty. We have no choice on the first "decision," which is the family one is born into. If someone is born into a rich family, they probably won't ever get to poverty.
So poverty isn't exactly a choice. There isn't one clear path to avoid poverty. Sometimes there isn't even a path to get out. But there are steps to take that can help one improve his or her situation and make getting out of poverty a reality.

Integration

We live in a bubble here at school. Our school is really diverse, so it’s strange to look around and see places that are segregated and not diverse. One doesn’t have to look far: Chicago itself is a diverse, yet segregated city. There are often neighborhoods that are just one race. I assume that one of the reasons for this is de facto segregation, which is segregation that happens that isn’t required by law, usually out of habit. Once segregation ended, people were used to where they were living and didn’t want to move, so they just stayed in their segregated neighborhoods. As generations passed, there has been moving around and more integration, but many stayed in those same neighborhoods. Some people may feel more comfortable around their own race and therefore try to stay near them. Of course, this isn’t a general rule. Some people may segregate subconsciously and others may be making a conscious choice, while some people simply don’t care. I’m glad that I go to a school like Whitney Young. I think I’m much more open-minded than I would be if I had gone to a different school. I think integration starts from schools: depending on what a child is exposed to at a young age will affect their views later. Therefore schools should be as diverse as Whitney Young so that children are taught that integration is a good thing from the beginning.