Few VS many

    I have finally gotten my thoughts together on the "Knight Life".  So instead of ranting about Meg Cabot's book today, I shall rant about the Knight Life.  I understand that there have been many books written about the tale of King Arthur, but this one takes the cake as the most ridiculous. 
     Though it is ridiculous, I did enjoy reading it.  Thinking that a long dead king tries to run for the mayor of New York City is rather enjoyable.  Thinking about it intuitively he can't be much worse than the mayor we have already. 
     Even though he does bring a whole new perspective into the political realm, I do not and would not vote for him as a possible mayor.  As the few of us in class stood against the many, I believe we were looking at it in a logistical stand point.  Regardless of his views on controversial topics, he was not mentally ready to face the political realm.  Even if he won mayor and had a voice to represent the masses, he would be eaten alive with the back stabbing and corruption that goes on in today politics.  I understand Arthur has had to deal with tricky people in his past, but I personally believe that a typical person in politics today does not live up to the standards that were held in politics back then.
     On a more personal note, I do not agree with his views on certain things.  On the basis it takes two to make a baby, the price should be split evenly.  Except in the case of rape, and therefore there would be other repercussion.  Except rape, no one forced the female into the sexual acts, she made that choice on her own.  Therefore she needs to be held responsible in equal share with the male.  The fact that the women alone go through the pain should make her more hesitant to the chances of being pregnant and therefore take steps to prevent such a thing.  Making the male pay for the operation to abort the baby is not equality. 
     Also his stance on gun control is un-American.  Using a sward against a possible intruder will not stop you from being killed.  In fact if I was robbing someone and had intent to kill and someone pulled a sward on me, I would laugh.  No matter if there was a law to prevent guns, someone would have the resources and the intellect to create it, and when that happens, who will be there to protect the people.  The militia?  I can assure you that if someone had intent to kill, it would be done and the person would be long gone before the militia would arrive.  Regardless of the laws, the government would still give guns to developing countries, who then would turn on our great nation... Afghanistan... Mexico.
     Over all, I think the book was rather good.  Not in the sense it represented Arthur well, but in the sense that it made people think of Arthur in a new light.  Even today, as I was writing I was getting riled up reading about his political views and the thought that people would vote blindly on someone based upon his physical features.  Well... people do that in real life.  He mirrored the political life perfectly in his book.