Y: The Last Man

Y: The Last Man was very interesting yet quite funny at the same time. The humorous component of it provided a nice twist for a serious topic. I found the storyline really compelling and the general pictures/graphics very cool as well. It was also a good read because it presented the idea of what could possibly happen if there was a world without men. The perspective that this comic provided regarding gender roles and government organization made Y: The Last Man one of the most intriguing comics I have ever read.

The Last Man

I've always loved comics as a child, but this comic completely blew me away. I was always at the edge of my seat because so many things were happening at once. I never could even fathom of the extinction of one gender, but this comic allowed for me to experience that. It was interesting to see how women responded to this catastrophe. Some sought to preserve the old traditions while others took on a more radical approach and wanted to destroy everything associated with masculinity. The Amazonian group were really interesting to me because I could never imagine that such a radical group would rise up in an apocalyptic scenario without men. It was also interesting how each member would burn off one of their breasts to show their solidarity and resolution to the group. I also look forward to continuing reading this series and see how the dynamic between Hero and Yorick will play out. I  hope that we get to read more comics from Vertigo in the future.

Y-The Last Man

Oh my God, I loved it! I also was on the edge of my seat the entire time hoping to see what would happen. I think why most of us loved it is because it relates to some of the realistic reactions we would actually have. Like, sometimes, in some situations we do curse or use humor to take some pressure off a situation. It also revealed how drastic situations reveal the worst in us. A world without men and chaos still ensues. I loved how the characters were developed and how dynamic they were. I’m so glad that I got to read this comic book.

Y: The Last Man

Y: The Last Man was a refreshing twist on the material we have studied so far. I am very much familiar with Vertigo comics, so I was very excited before even beginning the reading. The first volume brings up some interesting points about a world without men: With gender roles effectively shattered, different ideals must fight to take hold. Some want the ways of the previous world to remain (in the sense of government), and some are in favor of scrapping the past and creating something new. Other groups try to establish the dominance of women, making themselves just as bad as extreme patriarchs. I found this reading very entertaining, and I would love to continue the series.

Ian Crowley 9/29/2014

I was pleasantly surprised by Y: The Last Man. Usually I don't enjoy reading comic books because they seem to have little depth to them. That was not the case with this graphic novel however. I was never bored while reading this comic book; I was always on the edge of my seat wondering what was going to happen next. As I was reading Y: The Last Man I was also able to make connections between it and other reading that we have discussed in class. The story plot of some sort of disease wiping out all of the men reminds me of William S. Burroughs piece The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. Burroughs discusses our potential to create viruses and use them as weapons to wipe out specific races or genders. To me the plot line of Y: The Last Man seemed very similar to what Burroughs was talking about. Although this is just a graphic novel, the idea of an epidemic like this still worries me because creating a virus that could do something like this is within our scientific capabilities.

Y: The Last Man

After reading Y: The Last Man, it left me feeling unsatisfied. Although I was unsatisfied with the way it ended it definitely captured my attention and was hands down my favorite reading thus far. Unlike many of the other readings I wanted to read more when the selection was finished. I am really curious as to what happens to the world as a whole with Yorick being the only known man left on the planet. I was really into the reading to say the least. However, I still do not see where some of the characters fit into the whole story. It is as if they were introduced near the beginning and then forgot about. I really enjoy movies and fictional topics that deal with the White House or some sort of rebel group. In this case both were main topics in the plot. I am really curious to see how Hero and Yorick react when they see each other, because I KNOW it is going to happen. I will probably search for the rest of the series online.

Children of Men

This movie is fantastic. If you didn't watch it, please do, because it's suspenseful, intelligent, and heart wrenching, and it leaves you questioning what it even means to be fertile. In the movie, they don't exactly know why every has been infertile for 18 years, but it's pretty clear it's a helpless case and that no one will be having a baby anytime soon. It's bizarre that for some reason they aren't letting any immigrants into the country, and it makes me wonder if that would actually happen if we suddenly all became infertile. And if this actually happened, would the whole world break out in chaos and anarchy like in the movie?? It is entirely mind blowing how people could act so irrationally in response to this problem!

Y: The Last Man

Perhaps I went in with a certain amount of bias, being that our assignment was to read a graphic novel as opposed to some of the more sophisticated selections we have previously analyzed, but I found "Y: The Last Man" to be a very unsatisfying read. I say this because personally, I experienced very few moments throughout which were able to stimulate my thoughts. On the most basic level, I found the novel to be a cautious story aimed at individuals who would not generally read literature on this subject with a few blatant political/societal criticisms thrown in. The more I think about it, I believe I truly disliked this reading because it reminded me of how someone incredibly closed-minded can influence a great deal of people- certainly a majority compared to readers of serious literature- by throwing exciting pictures and peculiar progressions at those persons' faces. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but I highly doubt that this comic was distributed in literary circles.

Y The Last Man

I've never been a huge cartoon guy, besides reading Captain Underpants, of course, but this one really interested me. I'm not completely sure what grabbed my attention, but after reading so much about catastrophes, this article took me for a thrill ride. I found it so gripping to find out what was going to happen next. Aside from it's weak attempts at humor, the cartoon had suspense and plot twists and seemed to be a great possibility for a movie. But of all the things that interested me, what grabbed my attention the most was the disaster that happened in this cartoon. After reading about ecological problems and theories, I couldn't even imagine this disaster. A WHOLE POPULATION ERASED. I've been studying biology recently and this just blew my mind. It's a brilliant concept and I couldn't even imagine having to live in a world like that, filled with power struggles and an impending end to the world with no men. It was a radical idea that grabbed my attention and I'm truly happy I had the opportunity to read such a different piece of work.

The Last Man

     I greatly enjoy graphic novels because I think they can be extremely provocative and entertaining. This was an interesting insight into a post-apocalyptic society where there is only one man left on earth. I thought there were good representations of the different ways that people would react to such a society and what the main concerns would be.

I like that this world was the United States as we know it changed because you could see what happened to different parts, like how people centered around a monument to mourn the dead men. It also allowed for certain social commentaries, such as when everyone in the US government died except for the women and there really weren't that many people left to run the government.

 There was also the gang of women that believed that men are the source of all evil and were meant to die. Those people were crazy radicals and honestly reminded me of some of the claims that people have today. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for women's rights and am somewhat of a feminist myself, but people that make claims like that give the people that actually have claims that deserve to be heard.

Y: The Last Man

After reading Y: The Last Man by Brian K. Vaughn, Pia Guerra, and Jose Marzan Jr., I wanted to continue reading it and see what happened to Yorick and the rest of the characters.  Along with its spot on language and humor, I really liked the whole idea behind the story where all the men (except Yorick) are killed off by an unknown source and how the women react to this apocalyptic catastrophe.  It was interesting to see the different groups of women that were introduced and how they approached the aftermath of the catastrophic event, such as the Amazons, the Republicans, and the politicians.  Their reactions reminded me of an ideology mentioned in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine when people take advantage of a catastrophic event by erasing and reshaping the old into the new.  It shows that no matter man or woman, humans will react a certain way in order to pursue their goals.

The Last Man

I found the graphic novel "Y-The Last Man" to have a quite unusual take on an apocalyptic event. The sudden death of any mammal with a y chromosome is a refreshing take on the apocalypse, not often explored in our common scenarios of nuclear dooms-days and chemical or biological warfare. In this scenario, inability to reproduce as a species brings about the apocalypse. The plot explores the possibilities of an all female society and creates an answer to the common question of "would the world be a better place without men?" "The Last Man" answers that no, society and human nature remains just the same. There are still murderous outlaws and gangs like the Amazons, the central government of the United States is still dysfunctional, there are still power-hungry military leaders that become dictators and go against the will of their people, etc. The basic human nature has not changed with the elimination of males, just the gender of the people creating the problems.The senator's wives, or the "Republicans", provide the scenario that women, just as men, will jump to dangerous decisions and act in haste and emotion, showing that *humans* have fatal flaws. This, however,  is just one view on this possibility for a female-populated apocalypse. I would be interested to see how others view this scenario and see how similar it is to "The Last Man".

9/30/14 Kaia Hayes

Y: The Last Man was a very engaging and thought-provoking read. The art was very well done, and succeeded in conveying so much more than a traditional text could have in that amount of space. I found the protagonists very interesting; there was good character development and for the most part, reactions were pretty realistic. The scene at the Washington monument made the detached, stoic behavior, especially that of Yorick's, stand out however; seeing the mass of mourners made me realize how little the emotional reaction to this massive loss had been highlighted in the main characters. This felt a unnatural to me, but it may also be due to the fact that it is hard to keep track of the irregular time frame in which the scenes are occurring.

I  appreciated the way the series serves as a blatant reminder that the gender gap has left women radically unprepared to deal with such a large scale catastrophe, spanning all levels of social and political structure. The sheer minority of women in congress, combat, etc. meant that those most eligible for, say, president of the United States, were only slightly more qualified than the average citizen. It is crucial that more women are able to rise to positions of authority and influence, and become equipped with the necessary skills for decision-making and social change-- not only in the event of such a disaster, but because they can better contribute to a world in which they represent half of the total population.

I thought it was also interesting that in the aftermath of the plague, many of the original issues were still very clear and present challenges to those attempting to rebuild society. The men might be gone, but racism, social and political hierarchy, and gang activity were highlighted throughout the series regardless. This shows that it is not so much an issue of male nature, but human nature. Gender inequality, while highly influential and interconnected with many other issues, is but one category we as humans use to define and differentiate between ourselves. It is instinctual, and to think that the removal of the male gender would improve the situation is simplistic-- the women in the graphic novel simply stepped up to fill the position of oppressor, perpetuating the system under a different brand of discrimination.

Children of Men Reaction

I found a strong similarity between the comic book excerpts and the film Children of Men. Both works explored what it is like to be the “other” in a post-apocalyptic world. When something happens to dramatically alter the current way of life in a society, for example, the elimination of every man on the planet, people regress into a state of panic. This state makes them turn to violence and forgo rational problem solving. Instead of working to talk with Yorick, the women in the Amazon tribe and all women in general wanted to use him and eliminate him from their new wasted society. This caused a huge problem for his safe transportation. This same dilemma was seen in Children of Men. Kee and her baby had to be hidden from the public because of possible violent reactions from other people, when the people of society should have protected Kee for their own interest. The affect of shock makes people behave irrationally towards people who are different.

9/30/14 Cristal Kim

I read the graphic novel, Y: The Last Man, with a cynical attitude; it was an interesting enough plot line that left me anticipating for each next scene as it unfolded but left a lasting impression on the views on humanity. The world is taken over by a plague that wipes out the Y-chromosome except for the protagonist, Yorick, and his pet; the novel chronicles his journey to safety and the different roles the women in his life seem to hold. However, it is the depiction of this post-apocalyptic, male-less world that seems to shed new light on humanity. Although, men and women seem different, and in many ways are, the female society seems to have fallen. They engage in violence, kidnapping, and corruption; there is no "better" world with or without men. The graphic novel illustrates that no matter what the circumstances, humanity is still prey to it's own greed. Just because only females are left in this world, does not insure that they will all band together based on this one common feature. All other post-apocalyptic depictions have shown similar dire circumstances but they were ravaged by both men and women; in this illustration, there is only women, save for the main character, and yet the world is still terrorized. This graphic novel proves that all people are susceptible to greed and are not bound to unite; there will always be factions and war.

Y: The Last Man

Although I said this about the last reading we did, this was absolutely my favorite reading of the year so far. It was not only an entertaining and fast-paced read, but also a very poignant and unique storyline.
From page one I was totally hooked. The dialogue was quick, the art was beautiful, and the way it kept jumping between minutes was very intriguing. In fact, the whole chronology of the story was very interesting to me. I have never read something that, in between pages, jumps anywhere from a second, to a minute, to a day, to a month. That was something that took some getting used to.
As for the characters, each one was so unique and interesting. Yorick's quirkiness and incessant optimism (or mockery of the situation) made him incredibly likable. Dr. Mann and Agent 355 were both incredibly mysterious in their own ways.
The authors do a great job of keeping the reader guessing all the way until the end. When Hero revealed she was an Amazonian I verbally said "oh shit!" while reading. When it ended I was almost upset and I googled Y: the Last Man to see if the other volumes were available online...they were not.
I also loved all of the references thrown in all over the place. First of all, I am huge shakespeare fan and the addition of Yorick and Hero made me laugh. My favorite reference was when Yorick says to 355 "if you'll be my bodyguard, you can call me Al" referring to the Paul Simon song.
The part that really got me was at the Washington Monument (phallically the memorial for men) and Yorick bonds with the woman over all of the dead musicians. That hit me deep and it all felt very real at that point. It was something I would never have thought of in a million years. It was such a simple thing, but it was so sad at the same time.
In general this was an incredibly fast paced read and it kept me guessing until the very end. I have never in my life considered myself a comic book person, but I just might go out and find the rest of the volumes to this amazing story.

Response to "Y: The Last Man" - Alex Kendig - 9/30/14

At one point while I was reading, Y: The Last Man, I looked up from the computer screen and realized that I was sitting on the edge of my seat in anticipation of what would happen next; I have never enjoyed a graphic novel more in my life. Not only was the dialogue entertaining, it was downright clever. I really enjoyed reading about the strange plague that reduced all male mammals in the world to corpses. Firstly, I think this is a very good plot-line for a graphic novel because it is very easy to illustrate what is happening around the world in a matter of a few pictures with the labels of the cities on them. An author writing a fiction novel probably has a harder time trying to illustrate a scene like that, quickly. 

The supposed last man on earth, Yorick, is an extremely likable character who can be very annoying at times, but still manages to garner the sympathies of the audience through his ability to pick locks and escape dangerous situations. I think Yorick is a bit too positive and jocular for a man who's lost all of his male friends and his father, but it didn't distract me from the overall plot of the story. Yorick's lack of grieving makes the story somewhat less believable, but it still achieves its foremost goal of entertaining the audience. I thought the addition of the "Amazonians" was a great idea for this graphic novel because it provided a realistic interpretation of what the irrational people do after catastrophes like the on in this graphic novel. Not everyone is looking for peace and tranquility so the Amazonians look for payback against the gender that oppressed them at times in their earlier lives. The writers do an effective job of switching between scenes to increase the suspense of each situation. The subtle humor works great in this post-apocalyptic context but it sometimes does detract from the realism of the situation. 

I think the writers of the graphic novel want American society to realize how important women are so women can earn the same salaries and job titles as men can. When the wives of the Republican congressmen open fire upon the White House this is an example of women taking control over a situation that was previously male-dominated before the disaster. Since everything breaks down after the men die, this is a metaphor for the fact that not enough women are trained to keep the basic undertakings of our civilization going in this country. I really enjoyed reading this and I certainly hope to read more of it, and graphic novels like it, in the future.  

My Imaginary Bunker Response

"The little bud of hopelessness that I have worked most of my adult life to stamp down blossomed inside of me and became full-fledged environmental anxiety. I used to think about climate change once a month; now I think about it multiple times a day."

This quotation was very depressing to come across.  Actually, the entire article was very negative to read.  Yes, I will acknowledge that there are plenty of problems with climate change and it is difficult to hold an optimistic view.  There is a certain extent of paranoia that the author has that is unhealthy.  The climate is something to be heavily concerned about given the severity of this situation and the detrimental, lasting effects that it will have on society and our environment.  However, there is a difference between keeping one's carbon footprint in the back of their mind versus letting this fear consume them.  Despite our scary, potential future if this climate issue is not tackled, I would never want this fear to be a constant, ever-present fear affecting my everyday life.  Environmental anxiety is beneficial in order to tackle issues, but can be detrimental if it is all one thinks about.  

My Imaginary Bunker

In the piece "My Imaginary Bunker," author Megan Bergman writes about how we as a society do very little to help combat climate change and that if we don't combat it, we or our children will have to face the consequences. Even though Bergman downplays her efforts in protecting our environment I think that she does a lot. She is a vegetarian, drives a hybrid car, farms her own vegetables, drinks out of jars, and recycles. I can only cross off one of the above from my environment friendly actions, but if more people were to act in more conscientious ways like Bergman than that can truly make a difference. I think that we should all supplement our "armchair activism," with some life changes or actual activism, because that can help us preserve our environment and keep the earth cool.

9/25/14 - Response to My Imaginary Bunker

Reading Megan Bergman's My Imaginary Bunker was almost depressing to say the least. The sheer negativity and obsession with statistics and numbers hit the "world is going to end" idea home. Her discussion regarding how she feels about her three year old saying "when I'm a mommy" and how it makes her sad to think that she might not even have grandkids, seemed rather exaggerated and almost self-deprecating, as if she will be the only one experiencing family problems if the world spontaneously blows up or global warming has its say. Then, Bergman rattles down a list of things that make her less culpable for global warming as she does a lot to be eco-friendly, but right after that goes through all the bad things she does. Her tone made her seem like she was trying to victimize herself and wasn't exactly pleasurable to read. Overall, I thought the read was interesting as it provided a unique and interesting perspective on someone who clearly thinks about these issues a lot, however, certain parts of her tone, word choice, and general attitude towards global warming and apocalyptic theories threw me off.

9/25/14 Kaia Hayes

Reading Megan Mayhew Bergman's "My Imaginary Bunker" stressed me out. While I appreciated the engaging, sometimes humorously self-deprecating tone that she used to illustrate her perspective, her intense fixation on numbers and minute details seemed almost self-destructive in the way it consumed her life, leaving her sleepless and wracked with guilt and worry. It is important to be conscious of your own carbon footprint, and commendable to make change in your lifestyle in an effort to reduce impact and live more sustainably as you get more information. But you must also keep in perspective your role as an individual person-- to contribute to the collective of people who also feel this way, contribute to the power of the whole. You cannot expect that your singular actions will solve such a broad issue; the responsibility is not yours alone to shoulder. Acknowledge that now that you have done everything possible in your own life to live more considerately, your next step is to call others to action, by educating and engaging them. 'Armchair activism' is not concrete change, and this is perhaps why people feel that their attempts to prompt change are ineffective.

My Imaginary Bunker

I really do enjoy this reading by Megan Meyhew Bergman, as she uses a really unique tone to emphasize her points about sustainability and human effects on the environment. Bergman uses a dark twist of sarcasm and comedy to talk about such grim topics as our own demise. These snippets of dark humor, such as the seed of anxiety that she recently had "blossom" inside of her deeply contrast and emphasize her serious points, such as her discussion of her daughters' futures and whether or not their offspring will have a future. Bergman also ridicules herself and her family's practices; despite her self-righteous ways of recycling and reusing, she creates just about as much carbon emission as anyone in the country. I was not expecting someone to consider their own lives and the impacts that they have had, negative or positive, on the environment because I would expect many people to call out others and raise themselves up on a pedestal. Bergman does not, and I find this really interesting and quite special.

"My Imaginary Bunker"

I really enjoyed Bergman's tone: It was somewhat sarcastic and certainly humorous, but it really brought to light important details about a crucial issue. I particularly enjoyed her bit about armchair activism, as well as her observation that, try as she might, in this world it is still very difficult to do your part for the good of the environment (even when you drive a prius, eat vegetarian, and drink out of salsa jars). I think the world would benefit from having more people like Bergman (without the anxiety), but I think the average person does far less than even the neurotic author of this article. In some ways the article is an admittance of her own failures, but even more, it points out the failures of the human race as a whole, failures which we will soon have to deal with.

9/25/14 Cristal Kim

The film, Contagion, illustrates a surreal apocalypse as a virus seems to take over the world; however, it is not the disease that is most frightening thing about this film but the actions taken by the characters as they cope with this new revelation. It is truly terrifying that these can be real courses of action taken if a situation like this arises. The film depicted characters forgoing their morals for the sake of their safety and their loved ones. They risk the lives of others and prioritize themselves first because they strongly reinforce the hierarchy especially in dire times. But there is hope, that even in spite of all other selfish deeds, humans can come together and help those truly in need; like Marion Cotillard's character, who despite being forced against her will to stay in a village, stills warn them of their danger, or Laurence Fishburne's character who redeems himself after his selfish actions by sacrificing his own vaccination. Although, in an apocalyptic disaster, humans can be the root cause of it all and terrifyingly, morally ambiguous, it is also the humans that can be the one hope we have for our future.

Ian Crowley 9/25/2014

I really enjoyed reading Megan Mayhew Bergman's article "My Imaginary Bunker." It is refreshing to see how conscious Bergman is about her carbon footprint. It appears that she really does her best to preserve the environment. For example, she drives a hybrid car, is trying to convert her farm to solar energy, drinks out of salsa jars, and has her own garden. I think that Bergman is a model citizen, and each individual should aim to mirror her actions in order to help the environment. When I read about these little things that Megan Bergman does to diminish the size of her carbon footprint I cannot help but feel a little selfish. Things like recycling and turning of the faucet when you brush your teeth are so simple, however I find that I rarely do them.

Response to "My Imaginary Bunker"

In reading this selection, after a few short paragraphs I found myself wondering how I could take anything from this meaningless text. When I was finished reading, I sat back in awe, then wondering how such a simple argument could be so compelling. In my experience, this woman could be labeled as a crackpot (particularly when she admits to diving after recyclables in the trash or smacking people for leaving a faucet running), but she somehow evades this title and captures my emotions. I believe the most effective aspect to her argument is the fact that she effectively targets sustainable practices which many people already do (recycling, reducing carbon emission, etc.) and says it is not enough. In particular, I find the second to last paragraph particularly effective.

My Imaginary Bunker

My Imaginary Bunker by Megan Mayhew Bergman speaks to the majority of people who are letting the unknown happen.  Even though it is known that each day our carbon footprints add to the destruction of the earth, it is unknown of what the end result and the effects that follow will be.  The points she made about environmental anxiety and letting climate change happen hit home.  I have had moments like Bergman described, when I enter the downward spiral of anxiety.  I worry about what will happen to our environment in the future and how it will affect our daily lives.  I worry that there is no plausible solution.  I worry for the animal kingdom and future generations.  It, too, makes me feel guilty, but as mentioned in class it is hard to make a change when the events of daily life pull me back into the realm of ignorance.  The struggle of looking out for the world, yet looking out for oneself is still and will always continue to be one.

Contagion: The End of the World and the Beginning of Our Fears

Contagion is our first view into what a true disaster could be in an Apocalypse. So far we have read about economic, ecologic, and societal disasters, but nothing compares to the magnitude of what happens in this movie. Contagion is what keeps the conspiracy theorists going. It has all the details of the possible end of the world in it. It encompasses death and plague, two of the horsemen of the apocalypse. However, the thing that makes Contagion, so enticing and hard to look away from is the mere possibility of something like it actually happening. Finding out that the whole chain of events was caused by a chef shaking hands with a woman inspires fear into all. This causes one of the revelations that Zizek speaks of. We learn to fear for our lives at all costs. We understand that these things, while unlikely, have the possibility of happening. They make up what the end of the world could be, and it keeps us humans on our toes all the time. This idea keeps us up at night, scared of what's to come. In the back of our minds, we are all scared for what could happen in an event like this, and thanks to Contagion, we know the deadly and destructive result.

My Imaginary Bunker

I thought this was a bit extreme... I understand that it's her personal views and maybe she can't help feeling so down about the environment, but I just can't comprehend being so depressed about it all the time. She's obviously trying very hard to do her part, but she's never satisfied with the things she does do to help, and it's frustrating for me as a reader for her to not see that she is making a difference. I do believe that it's very important to be concerned about the environment, but there's a thin line between being responsible for the earth and feeling melancholy on a daily basis because you didn't write the book that solves global warming.

My Imaginary Bunker

I found it very interesting that the author, Megan Mayhew Bergman, in “My Imaginary Bunker” was someone who regularly tried her best to help the environment, but thought her own “righteousness” felt “useless”. If a vegetarian who would recycle, drive a hybrid, and do other energy-saving techniques thought her own efforts were inadequate, what does that say about the ordinary person who doesn’t? Does that person also feel the “environment apocalypse” as strongly as Bergman? I know I didn’t before reading the article. I only began recycling a couple of years ago when my neighborhood received huge green trash bins where a truck would come every two weeks to collect. However, I never thought that climate change would ever amount to a huge problem even though I knew it existed and affected our lives.  And I guess, like Bergman said, if I thought it was really crucial, then  “someone would approach the President, tug on his sleeve, and whisper in his ear:  It’s time. Roll out the Teslas and solar panels.”  The problem is that when tragedy or something catastrophic happens, people usually would wait for or rely on change from others, thinking that there is already someone out there who will save us. It’s a really strong message to help people reevaluate their current living.

My Imaginary Bunker Response

"I don’t know where to start, or where to stop. I want a mandate, guidelines, someone to force my hand. I want rules, shared sacrifice."

The above statement in particular made me think because I can relate to the difficulty of being self-motivated to do things that are better for the environment. The problem is that the government would never put guidelines to make people more energy efficient and people would have a bad attitude to a list of new laws to help the environment anyways. Picket signs with "Global warming is a conspiracy" and news headlines reading "Climate laws: Necessity or Insanity" would be rampant. That may not be the best way out, but their could be laws to increase the culture of environmental consciousness. Whether that means making every street and building have a recycle bin or teaching children at a young age about the effects of our wastefulness on the world, it may just do the trick.

Contagion

    The movie Contagion deals with many interesting aspects of a worldwide crisis. I thought the most interesting thing to see in the movie were the reactions that people all over the world had to this outbreak of disease. Although the ordinary citizens were scared and frustrated with the situation and with having to deal with roadblocks, riots, and their loved ones dying, the doctors that were working on the vaccine were so efficient. It has always amazed me what the human person is capable of in a crisis. In this example, a vaccine was invented and sent out to the masses in only 133 days after the disease broke. It makes me hopeful that in real life, if a crisis such as this were to occur, there would be a solid group of people who could look past their fear and the destruction to make a change. A crisis is really the best impetus for change, and as the author of “My Imaginary Bunker” was so concerned with global warming, I believe more and more people will begin to see global warming as a crisis that needs to be seriously addressed. If people see it as a crisis, they will be willing to spend exponentially more energy and time on fixing the problem.

My Imaginary Bunker

This was probably my favorite reading we have done so far this year. While it was not challenging in any way, shape, or form, it was incredibly poignant, well written, and entertaining. Additionally, I found myself nodding in agreement many times while reading this article.
Meghan Matthew Bergman is essentially a paranoid environmental cynic. She is unable to escape the horrifying reality that is climate change and the environment. I found that I shared many of her disenchantments with the current state of the earth.
Like Bergman, I often wonder "what can I do to save this doomed planet?" I know that I should be doing something, but I find I don't truly take legitimate and meaningful action.
Coming from an environmentally conscious place like Denver, Colorado, I have grown up with Bike-to-Work days, recycling, and locally sourced, organic produce. These things are all part of my reality. Yet when I read something like "My Imaginary Bunker" I realize that pretty much everything I have done to "help" the planet is for nought. The problem is, an 18 year old boy can not make a monumental change alone. And when I marvel at the beauty of the planet as Zizek and Allan Gurganus, I find myself forgetting that the polar bears and penguins are nearly extinct.
This is the harsh reality our generation is faced with. I realize that as I am writing this blog post, I am doing absolutely nothing to save the planet...
Oh well, I guess I will just go recycle this water bottle I have next to me.

9/23/14 Kaia Hayes

The concept of shock treatment highlighted by Naomi Klein in Shock Doctrine was one that I haven't previously had a lot of exposure to. I am familiar with several of the examples given in the book, however I had only ever studied them as isolated cases; it was interesting and definitely a little disturbing to view them as small parts of a much broader movement to advance neoconservatism and globalism for the benefit of capitalism. Klein's use of the torture as a metaphor for the way economists such as Friedman believe a disaster or earth-shaking event can and should be profited from is very apt, and conveys the feeling of vulnerability and helplessness that is surely felt by the people affected. While I can appreciate the redeeming qualities of capitalism, there is a very clear line that, when crossed, begins to hurt more than it helps. It's disconcerting to think that not only are there people who devise plans to benefit from the psychological discord of others, they believe it is a perfectly viable and opportunistic method.

Shock Doctrine Response

    After reading the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, I realized some really valid points that she brought up. In this book, the topic of "shock" is introduced and discussed throughout the text. She mentions that the government uses tragedies as a way to do things that they wanted to do. While reading this I was quite bothered about how some people looked at these disasters. Saying that "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did" is very insensitive to say. It is taking the end of many lives and the destruction of homes and turning it into a positive thing. I understand that it is positive to look at the glass "half full" but I think that making their lives better should be the main priority, but not trying to profit off of a civilizations downfall.

Shock Doctrine

I really enjoyed Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” She presented the idea that when countries are “shocked” by natural disasters, wars, terrorism, etc., that they would be shocked again; but instead by corporations who would try to gain economic or political gains from whichever catastrophe. The example of Iraq was really eye-opening where she described the US was trying to “build a model country,” but they were really torturing them and erasing them and trying to profit from them. Also, I thought the example at the end of the text  was very important where a psychologist, Ewen Cameron, tried to erase the minds of his patients who had like anxiety so he can fix them up from a new blank state; and the CIA was using the information for their own benefit. However, both situations didn’t work to help the people. The people in both situations were being tortured to the beniefit of big corporations.

Shock Doctrine

The readings that pertained to the Shock Doctrine were all very eye opening and some even appalling.  In Free-Marketeering by Stephen Holmes one point was made that resonated with the other readings assigned in this class. This similarity that arises is income disparity and how these disasters(in this case capitalism) only makes the rich stronger and the poor worse off . Holmes went on to say that the poor become so marginalized that they are "no longer even worth exploiting." One appalling point that was made in the piece  was how individuals, companies, and even nations can sometimes benefit off of disasters. I was sickened to hear of how the Iraq War was "the single most profitable event" for Oil Services Company Halliburton. What's even more sickening was that the company's former CEO was Dick Cheney who at that point in time was the Vice President of America. If people don't know America was at war with Iraq when Cheney was in office. This shocked me and even though I never saw the 9-11 attacks and the Iraq War response as examples of events that follow the shock doctrine," I can now because of these readings.

Response to the Shock Doctrine

    I thought that this reading was in a word: shocking. It was sad to see how people take advantage of victims of disasters for their own benefit. Specifically in the example of 9/11 because that is an event that effected my environment a lot. I did see how politicians used this to their advantage, but it wasn't until recently that I thought about the larger financial goals behind many of their actions. Our society has become largely ruled by major corporations that often don't deal with the consequences of their actions. The second part of the reading was also extremely upsetting and shocking and makes me think that their needs to be more regulations on torture and makes me think about how Guantanamo Bay fell off the radar of the media.

Response to "My Imaginary Bunker" Alex Kendig 9/25/14

Megan Mayhew Bergman completely sums up the thoughts of every environmentally-conscious (and slightly paranoid) person out there, including myself: climate change is ALREADY happening. Now it's just a matter of how far we will let the effects go. Will we divest from fossil fuels soon enough to make an impact on our carbon emissions? Will the United Nations implement some type of sustainable change in their upcoming meeting? There are many questions that accompany the idea of a heating planet but we can't complain because we've have had this coming for a very long time.

Bergman's support of Bill McKibben hits home with me since I attended his brainchild, the People's Climate March, on Sunday, September 21st. I, along with 310,999 other people marched through the streets of New York City to promote international climate awareness. This issue is very important to me not only as an environmentalist, but as a human being on planet earth whose kids will be affected by the ravages of climate change in the future. Extreme weather, severe droughts, intense storms, sea-level rise, shifting of climate envelopes and the northern migration of equatorial diseases are just some of the reasons why I worry for my future kids. I want them to experience the most beautiful world we can possibly provide them with, and thus far, I don't think we are doing a very good job of providing a good gift. There needs to be increased environmental education starting in elementary school so children are familiar with the idea of recycling and saving energy/water by the time they reach adulthood. We have no room for excuses of environmental reform "hurting" the economy because future damages could cost trillions of dollars if we do nothing to counteract our emissions now. We need everyone to realize the importance of making environmentally-conscious decisions, and teach them to WANT to recycle and save energy/water. I, along with Bergman, am hopeful for the future after having been to the climate march, but I am worried about how long it will take for the message to reach the average person. I am interested to see what the United Nations' decide on, and I hope with everything in me that they make an environmentally-responsible decision.

Shock Doctrine

In light of relating this to the apocalypse theme of our class, I'd like to point out that Shock Doctrine connects closely to many of the other documents we've read. Zizek and Diaz both said that after a disaster, it is finally realized by humans that we have to do something to fix the problems the caused the disaster instead of just sitting around (it's also mentioned that after a short period of time, this feeling of dedication to helping the cause fades away and we recede to our imaginary bubble of safety where we think 9/11 won't and can't happen again). Klein says a similar thing- that when people are shocked by a disaster, capitalists swoop in and attempt to reform/remake the economy, school system, etc, just as when disaster strikes, people join a cause to help rebuild a community. Klein, of course, is not saying that the swooping in of capitalists is a good thing- quite the opposite in fact- but it is a similar idea; people use disasters as an opportunity to make some sort of change.

Ian Crowley 9/22/2014

In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein discusses how capitalists take advantage of natural disasters, using them to implement radical or previously unpopular market types. According to Naomi these capitalists thrive when countries and individuals are in shock from disastrous events. They wait until the proper moment when a nation is weak and vulnerable to promote their radical ideas, knowing that countries are looking for a quick fix. In my opinion the predatory nature of these capitalist is a bit disturbing. I think it is cruel that they would take advantage of people's suffering in order to introduce their radical forms of capitalism. I think it is important that Naomi Klein is working to spread awareness about what she calls "disaster capitalism." I agree with Klein when she explains that if citizens are aware of the capitalists' manipulative actions after disasters, then we resist them.

Shock Doctrine

I found this reading to be incredibly poignant and interesting. Having never heard of the Shock Doctrine or Disaster Capitalism, it was very cool to learn about this and the ideas of Mira Klein.

The part I found most interesting in the first part of Shock Doctrine was her comparison of the economy to torture and the ideas of Ewen Cameron. It was very interesting how Klein asserts that Cameron's essentially lay the groundwork for what the CIA did to prisoners of war and war criminals.  I completely agree with Klein's conclusion of torture: the economy is like the victim--left completely confused and blank. The victim, or economy, is ready for new information. And the free market is imposed on the tortured economy as a way of fixing it. This kind of blew my mind. In that way disaster capitalism is almost an exact parallel of Cameron's torture tactics.
Overall this was an incredibly stimulating read and I am interested in reading the entire book.

The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein brings up a point in her work, The Shock Doctrine, that seems to resonate with many of the other readings that we have done. This statement seems to resonate with the message that apocalypses relate to the widening of the gap between the very rich and the very poor. Klein not only mentions this scenario in happening because of natural disasters like other authors and theorists have, but directly places the blame on the financial situations that create the rift and make it worse: the private sector. The point that Klein makes states that the privatization of property, businesses, services, etc. that happens after natural disasters adds insult to injury for the people most affected by the disaster. The poor suffer the most and then are expected to work with this "clean slate" that Klein mentions. Klein's points about Chicago school revolutions are quite terrifying; to believe that any human being wants these horrible events to happen just so they can push their own agenda upon the public is just plain demented and awful, and quite honestly one of the most selfish things I have ever heard about. These companies that are making money off of the destruction of cities in Iraq are pushing these already poor and underdeveloped countries further into poverty and debt by the privatization of their "clean slate" being open for bids.

Response to Shock Doctrine

I personally am a fan of Milton Friedman's, so reading the opening remarks of Klein's book was difficult to do from an unbiased standpoint; I perhaps have misconstrued her arguments as the result of my discontent with her views, but my response should lose no effect as a consequence.

To address a major point of the introduction, I don't believe that Friedman was the inventor of "shock therapy" in the sense of economics and politics, rather, I propose that he was simply the first man to pinpoint it as a successful method of profit. There are many instances throughout history (slave trade, the Chicago Fire) in which a select few were able to profit off of the afflicted- obviously slave traders in the 1800s and pillagers in the Chicago Fire of 1871. Of course, there is a marked boom in these profitable disasters (as one might call them) following Friedman's definition. Now comes the question of whether or not it was a mistake to assign meaning to the phenomena. Of course there is Klein's answer which states that following in Friedman's wake were the many reforms of economic and political entities which lead to the development of techniques to capitalize on disasters; in short, yes. But the other answer considers root cause analysis:

1. Determine what happened.
2. Determine why it happened.
3. Figure out what to do to reduce the likelihood that it will happen again.  

In this respect, the definition becomes necessary to solve the ever-present problem of those who find gain at the loss of others. So then two final, yet-to-be-answered questions arise: how many disasters will occur until the problem is rectified and will it be worth it to have brought the definition (Friedman's regarding profit from disaster) to the public?

Capitalism: Two Sides to the Story

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine truly puts a new viewpoint on how important and effective capitalism is in this world. From our history and Economics classes, we are taught that our economic system benefits all and is used to set up better futures for our country. However, after reading Shock Doctrine, it is apparent that what we have been taught is not always true. To me, it is appalling seeing Americans, people who are viewed as the people that help those who are in need, focus on putting money in their pockets rather than helping people in need. By misleading survivors that things will get better in the future and not focusing on the now, capitalists contradict their mission in allowing for any person to benefit. Humans who are left in rubble with nothing to their name have little to no opportunities to get up again and reach the top without the help of others. And with those others who are supposed to help actually putting the money in their pockets, the whole system is flawed. It proves that there actually are two sides to every story, no matter how normal and non-flawed the system actually seems.

9/22/2014 - Response to Shock Doctrine

After reading a segment of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine I felt like everything I had been told by my teachers, the media, and adults was false to some degree. In the United States there is a sense of nationalism and patriotism that allowed Bush's administration to "walk into" Iraq with fairly little resistance, however, up until recently the media construed it in such a way that it was beneficial for us to send troops into Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction. However, that was completely untrue and we went into Iraq in order to destroy Baathist influence in that area and to impose ourselves in a strategically important area of the world that also has access to oil. In addition to that as Naomi Klein put, 9/11 was also an opportunity for us to implement free-market principles on another country and gain access to markets that were previously sealed off to us. I found the concept of a "shock" especially interesting because of the idea that they serve as a distraction for the public and media in order for countries to apply their unfavorable economic policies on other nations without much criticism. Naomi Klein's discussion regarding Torture as a Metaphor was also particularly interesting because of the way that she was able to relate how the CIA and other interrogators torture individuals on a larger scale. For example, the first step is to numb/starve the sense of any input and the second step is to bombard the body with overwhelming stimulation. Once these two have been completed the human would be much weaker and ready to admit to any crimes and hand over any important information. This was related to what the U.S. did by educating several Chilean individuals at the University of Chicago in order for them to team up with Pinochet and instill policies in Chile that were favorable for potential U.S. investors.

Shock Doctrine

After reading the introduction and Part I of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, I was shocked by her theory and the accompanying evidence.  I noted that Part I was really crucial for me in further understanding Klein's theory due to the horrifying personal experiences mentioned about the shock victims.  It was refreshing to read evidence that was researched from afar but also from a first hand experience such as Klein's interview with Gail Kastner.  It was horrific to hear of what Kastner and other victims went through under the eye of doctor Ewen Cameron.  Kastner's personal experience with erasing and remaking was eerily similar to the events following catastrophes like the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka.  Whether it was an event that followed a publicized catastrophe or an event that affected the life of a college student, the idea of erasing and reshaping is a theory so dark that it's hard to imagine that it exists.

I find it ironic that a mission which appears sound in its morals could cause so much damage.  Before I read the excerpt and explored Klein's findings further, implementing charter schools at face value does not seem like a harmful project.  Improving schools and educating children is typically not a mission that is condemned; until now.  Hurricane Katrina, despite hitting in 2005, and its effects are nowhere near rectified.  While we sometimes forget about Hurricane Katrina's lasting and detrimental impacts on New Orleans, Klein shed an eye opening light on the violent ripples it has caused.  I was disturbed to read the selfishness of the corporate world and its careless choices that it made regarding this poor community.  This corporate world, albeit small, is extremely powerful.  It worries me that such a non-representative, closed minded organization of people can make such drastic choices that affect so many lives.

Shock Doctrine

            Naomi Klein’s thesis in The Shock Doctrine was a new idea to me, but it was a logical one. Although many disputed her work and criticized her lack of sources and twisting of the facts, I think she made a great argument and proved it with multiple examples from reliable sources. Her thoughts on “disaster capitalism” reminded me of how, in times of war and strife, citizens are willing to give up their freedoms for safety. In the history of the United States, the central government has increased its power primarily by taking more power and citing war as the reason they need this power. This happened with Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War in justification for the Emancipation Proclamation. While this brought about a positive end, the disaster capitalism practices that take advantage of the country during a crisis do not. It is wrong to try to use the shock that people are in as a way to radically change the system. Often times, people want things to be restored, not tear down what little is left. The shock treatment, as Klein states, is authoritarian, and should not be implemented in places where there is a crisis that makes the conditions favorable for drastic change (like Louisiana). People in a crisis should be heard and given what they need, not what the government thinks they need.