Walking Dead - comic

Having seen the TV show, it was interesting to observe the little differences. The biggest difference I noticed was the fact that Carl kills Shane. This scene exemplifies the difficult things that people are forced to do in apocalyptic situations. In a normal world a seven year old shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. But in end times things are different. On one hand if Carl hadn't started carrying a gun, his mother might have died during the attack on their camp, and furthermore his father might have been killed by Shane. Nonetheless, the mental strain it must put on someone so young is unimaginable. Even the strain of killing a zombie as a seven year old is hard to imagine, but killing a real person at that age is really an indicator of the difficult circumstances of the comic. I would be interested to find out if the comic continues to portray the effects of the environment on Carl specifically, in a different way than the TV Show.

Flame Alphabet - Second selection

"Through medicine I brought myself back to the language and those tones of Claire went, what's the word for it? They were gone. I do not hear them anymore. For that I blame the craven desire to speak, to write, to be heard." (277)

To me, this is a perfect description of the values and respective pitfalls of communication. In some ways it seems that humans would be able to get along much better if they were unable to communicate. It is far easier to feel compassion towards someone who cannot berate you. It is difficult to judge when the specifics of that judgement cannot be expressed, and similarly it is difficult to feel judged for the same reason. It seems that when there is no speech, there is no deliberation over the trials of the world. Though there is much that must be sacrificed when communication is no longer possible, it seems at least to me, that humanity is preserved and even made more prominent.

Flame Alphabet

    "If it's your fault, do something about it, Claire. Otherwise shut up and never say that again. Never open your mouth about this again."
    This stopped the crying. I watched my wife draw in her forces, sealing herself off from not just what I said, but from me as well, from the evening, from the days that had passed. A project of wall building, face hardening, secret fortifying of everything that mattered to her. All done without moving, an inner construction project Claire seemed to command until she was, in all the ways that matter, gone. Sitting on the steps Claire receded, drifting farther and farther away from me until she looked up at me with the stare reserved for a stranger, all intimacy erased. (Page 93/94)

--

From the beginning of the book, we see Claire and Sam's strained relationship interspersed with moments of happiness leading up to the day they leave their daughter. This is the culmination of both happy and sad moments from the chronological beginning of the book in which both of them explode. Claire has just denounced their religion, leaving Sam to practice alone (which according to him is not her choice to make). To me this passage is most powerful in the way that it displays non-verbal communication. This is a common trend throughout the book. Since the entire concept of the book is faced on the toxicity of language, it seems only fitting that the author utilizes nonverbal communication. It is done with beauty and efficiency as well. Here we see how nonverbal communication can hurt just as much as verbal. Maybe Sam is not physically hurt by Claire's inner fortifying in the same way he is hurt by Esther's speech, but the emotional damage can almost be felt even by the reader. The use of nonverbal communication, as well as analysis of this form of communication is fascinating to me. It is without a doubt one of my favorite aspects of this book so far.

Bounty

I saw some very similar themes in Bounty as those we saw last week in Black Hole. It is interesting to see how people can be demonized for such simple deformities. It also draws a parallel to the modern issue of homosexuality: People fear what they are unfamiliar with. It is such a difficult issue to approach. How do we cause people to understand the things they fear without infringing on their right to be afraid? To paraphrase a Galileo, "You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him to find it within himself." Throughout Bounty, I was unsure of how it was all going to wrap up. When he finally makes it to his sister and things seem to be going well for him, I got scared that it was going to end that way, with no powerful moral message. But I was satisfied overall with how it ended. I think it was a noble choice to leave the comfort of his life with his sister and her lover in order to fight for the rights of all Flawed.

Black Hole

I really enjoyed the before and after pictures at the beginning of each chapter with the short paragraph about that person's experience in getting the mutation. It provided a very interesting and personal perspective on the whole thing. In a way, the realization that you have the mutation is in itself a sort of personal apocalypse (in relation to the definition of apocalypse as a "revelation"). It is very interesting to see how different characters react to getting the mutation. It is also interesting to consider that these reactions are likely based largely off of how drastic the mutation is. For example, the character with the mouth in his neck is fairly nonchalant about the whole thing, while Chris, whose skin peels off, seems to be exponentially more affected by her mutation. The varying dynamics create a lot of intrigue. I really enjoyed reading this.

Summary of Sources

1. Some Thoughts on "Post-9/11" by P. Adam Caroll

This article discusses the difficulties in a religious community in relation to coordinating help in the wake of a disaster. The author argues that the "attacks on Muslims in the media" as well as the divisions among many muslims within the community relating to social issues, create a difficult environment for Muslims to function as a unit in post-9/11 society.

2. THE TSUNAMI TRAGEDY; Divine Fury or Human Folly? by Chandra Muzaffar

The author argues that "...our inability to nurture a religiously-inspired understanding of science, a knowledge that is holistic and integrated, is one of the indirect causes of the tsunami tragedy." The main point of the article is that the areas most affected by the Tsunami (namely Sumatra and Sri Lanka had a history of earthquakes and should have had a tsunami warning system in place, but as a result of the lacking integration of science and religion, it was deemed unnecessary. Furthermore, considering that most of the people affected by the tsunami were either children or poor, the author argues against religious significance in the disaster, asking "...what abominable vices did these children commit?"

3. A Chronic Technical Disaster and the Irrelevance of Religious Meaning: The Case of Centralia, Pennsylvania by J. Stephen Kroll-Smith and Stephen Robert Couch

The authors detail an underground coal mine fire and examine the lack of a response from the religious community in the area. They argue that due to the highly technical nature of the disaster, and coupled with the fact that it was undeniably caused and subsequently abated by humans, a general acceptance of a "technical, not moral or religious, definition of the problem."

Ragnarok

"In the thin child's mind, there must have been a time when the sun and the moon, created by the gods, moved at their own sweet will, meandering maybe, pausing maybe, extending a lovely day, or a lovely summer, maybe, or a dark dreamless night." (58)

What I have enjoyed most about this book is simply the beauty of the prose. The word choice and imagery is a treat to read. This quote exemplifies that opinion. The imagery created here of a time where the seasons and the days occurred in an almost leisurely fashion really speaks to me. This quote is also very important because it points out a stark contrast between the modern setting of the book, and a potentially more idyllic time. The thin child imagines a time when the sun and moon moved with leisure sometimes stretching out a day that they wanted to experience more of. In the modern age, it is almost as if the war and the fear that comes with it are the personification of those mythological wolves within the story. The moon and the sun symbolize human freedom and free will that to some extent is lost in war and violence. The troubles we experience in the world serve to chase us out of free will and leisure, pushing us towards a more serious and troubled existence. It is for this reason that the thin child escapes to her mythological world. She maintains a sense of wonder and imagination even in the face of adversity.

Quran

After reading the selections from the Quran, I am mainly trying to translate the reading into concepts that I can more fully understand. The english used was somewhat confusing to me, but some general concepts stuck out to me: Some of the concepts that stuck out were the punishment that seems to be considered commonplace for people who do not worship Allah, and the insistence that Allah created everything and is all knowing. It would be interesting to me to find out whether or not Muslims believe that nonbelievers should be punished in a human way, or if it is expected that Allah will punish the nonbelievers. It seems to me that this would be very much up to interpretation, which could in itself be the cause of the existence of certain muslim sects that take it upon themselves to punish those that they view as transgressors. There was a quote that stuck out to me: "And if they call you a liar, say: My work is for me and your work for you; you are clear of what I do and I am clear of what you do." To me, the implication of this is that a person who is on a religious path is on that path for better or for worse, and someone who is not on that path is "clear" of it. Though this may not be the intention of the quote, it says to me that as long as one's religious practice does not infringe on other people's personal freedoms, then it is acceptable. Along the same line, in the case of a non religious person (or even an atheist), the same applies: Non-belief is acceptable to the extent that it does not infringe on other people's personal freedoms.

Revelation

It was very interesting for me to read the actual text of revelation. I have really never read the bible in any form on my own. I have heard passages from the bible when going to church with distant relatives or certain friends, as well as some of the writings from the old testament in synagogue when I was younger, but I have never really gone out of my way to study them on my own.

The analysis of Revelations was also very helpful in understanding the meaning of the text. I am glad that I read the analysis before reading the actual text. One thing that stuck out to me in the analysis was the discussion of the violent nature of the subject matter. Reading through the actual text, I would have to agree that it is indeed incredibly violent, however it read to me almost in a similar way that a very action packed and violent novel might read. I was very intrigued and enthralled by the action and it was overall very easy to read.

There is one quote which I found to be very interesting. I think it has a lot of significance and a lot of relevance. In my opinion, religious people everywhere (but especially certain fanatical religious people of the modern age) could learn something from this quote:

"Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

Babel

Having little previous experience with the story of Babel, I found myself somewhat confused reading these texts. The basic understanding I have gained from these texts is this: The story states that people once spoke the same language and decided to come together and build a city. They also decided to build a tower within that city that would reach up to the heavens just in case God decided to destroy the earth like he had previously done. God noticed that people were taking these preparations even though he had stated that he would not destroy the world again. Since people were making these preparations and achieving these lofty goals, God thought that nothing they attempted would be impossible for them to achieve. So he scattered them across the earth and gave them different languages so they could not understand each other.

Will someone please correct me if this interpretation is in any way incorrect? Also, I am still confused about the motivations of this story. Why would people feel a need to build this tower in the first place, and also, why would god be so offended by this that he chooses to punish everyone by taking away their common language?

The Epic of Gilgamesh

After hearing about the similarities between the story of Gilgamesh and stories in the bible (such as the story of Noah and the flood), it was interesting to read the actual biblical texts and to more fully understand the story of Gilgamesh. It is important to consider the two viewpoints on the similarities contained in these two stories: Some religious people view these similarities as proof of biblical stories, while other more skeptical people consider these similarities a complete disavowal of such religious affirmations. I personally do not have an opinion on this matter as it seems to me that a true answer in this situation would be very difficult to discern. However, I would be interested to know what other people in the class thought of these similarities and their implications. To me one of the most interested parts of this reading was learning that Gilgamesh was a person who was documented to have existed in history. I would very much like to read the comic adaptation of the story.

Religulous

Bill Maher's Religulous to me was very similar to The Unbelievers, albeit much more difficult to sit through. In The Unbelievers, there was at least a semblance of scientific fact and rational argument used to refute opposing arguments. While The Unbelievers was certainly laced with contempt for religion and religious people, at least its arguments were based in science. Religulous focuses almost entirely on what would be considered "common sense" (which in truth is not so common), and furthermore, Bill Maher is simply an asshole. He ridicules, laughs at, makes fun of, and even verbally abuses people simply for the things they believe. These people are not doing anything to hurt anyone else (except for maybe the guy who's profession is to turn gay people straight again). They seem to be perfectly decent people, yet Maher seems entitled to belittle them simply because they believe something different. The "relig" portion should be removed from Religulous and the title simply replaced with the word originally implied. Maher's documentary was indeed Ridiculous. 

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.

"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.

Shock Doctrine

Thus far in our readings, we have almost entirely focused on the inherent positives and negatives of catastrophe. The selections from Klein's book bring a fresh new perspective into discussion: The tendency of humans in power to capitalize on a terrible natural event. Klein brings up the philosophy of Milton Friedman, and systematically lays out how the United States, in recent history, has sat in waiting for natural disasters to occur in order to take advantage of the shock that such things cause. One of the most interesting points that Klein makes, is the distinction between "pre-9/11" and "post-9/11." This is something I witnessed throughout my childhood after 9/11 without thinking much of it: People had an attitude that their entire lives had changed because of this one event. "Everything is different now" some might say. Up until 9/11, the United States had not experienced this great level of shock on our home front. The results of this first brush with something so powerful resulted in a sensationalist war based on the selfish interests of those in power, and in the disorienting shock of what had just occurred, we went along with it. But all of this has already been stated in the article and elsewhere. My focal point is this: Klein touches on a very important point in her New York Times interview, "I believe that when we understand those tactics we become more shock resistant." (New York Times) If the general populous can develop an understanding of the tactics used to establish privatized capitalist control in the midst of a disaster, we can become more objective and thus more able to look out for our best interests, even in the midst of extreme shock. "When I rebuild the city I feel like I'm rebuilding myself." (Klein, 8) By becoming more shock resistance, we can combat the urge to follow those with their own self serving interests in mind, and rather than create a new beach community or dismantle the public school system, we can instead begin to rebuild what we had and what we lost.

Graeber - Debt: The First 5,000 Years

"One has to pay one's debts." What a strangely complex concept. It is not so simply as it seems. The questions about justice raised by this simple phrase are far reaching. When we are forced to consider situations like the one in Madagascar, for example, the question becomes much more complicated. Should countries with no feasible way to repay their debts (debts which they don't deserve in the first place), should they have to? Some people may believe that it is as simple as that: One has gotten into a situation where they have accrued debts, so thus "one has to pay one's debts." However, this crosses over into the territory of morality and justice, similar to points raised in Sandel's article. It is not simply black and white. On one hand, it is difficult for government to develop a moral position on an issue because when it comes down to it, government should be as objective as possible when it comes to deciding what is right for people. On the other hand, most people know in their gut when something is morally wrong and many of them are outraged to see nothing done about such things. With situations like Haiti and Madagascar, it is fair to say that the average person would probably agree that those countries don't deserve the hand they've been dealt. But what can truly be done? That is a question that I'm not sure I have the answer to. In fact, due to the subjective nature of the issue, I'm not sure that anyone does.

09/15/2014 - Casey Batterbee

I found Zizek's point of view that there are inherent benefits to the inevitability of global warming to be fascinating. It is of course crucial to note (as Zizek does in Living in the End Times) that even though there may be inherent benefits that come from global warming, that we should still do our best to prevent it. This brings up the further point that global warming may have already progressed far enough that the world has already somewhat adapted to it. This causes quite a predicament: Surely we cannot continue on the same path we are going down, but at the same time, it may already be too late. The best we can do is settle somewhere in the middle, reducing our harm to the environment as much as we can, thereby slowing the progression towards the inevitable.

Another point that Zizek touches on, is whether or not humanity is a force of nature. He argues that originally we were not a force of nature in that our impact on the environment around us was not strong enough to influence the world in any significant way. However, with the development of technology and our carelessness with using that technology efficiently and to the benefit of the world, Zizek argues that we have indeed become a force of nature. I agree with this point, but on a level that Zizek himself would likely not agree with: I find great importance in the act of seeking out our natural roots as humans, and returning to nature to some degree, whereas Zizek envisions a future where technology progresses far enough that we are able to exist no matter the conditions we cause around us.

Blog Post - Junot Diaz - Apocalypse: What Disasters May Reveal

Diaz makes a very crucial point with this essay, one which I had not considered myself. The damage of a "natural disaster" extends far beyond the point at which such disasters fall out of the forefront of public news. Haiti, viewed here as a symbol for the imminent future of society, creates a powerful image of devastation on all fronts (economic, social, structural, etc), one that we may see extended to the rest of the world sooner than we imagine. At the completion of my high school career, I returned home from boarding school to find a nearly post-apocalyptic scene in my bedroom: The walls were lined with nearly 14 years of junk, the closets were overflowing, and the space entirely cramped. Over the next 2-3 weeks, I went through a long and difficult, albeit incredibly cathartic process of cleaning out the entirety of the room. Over that period, I went through every item or scrap in the space and got rid of everything I didn't want. In essence, I was cleaning out my life. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done, and in it, I see a parallel to the current state of affairs: The powers that be are nothing more than a big teenager who doesn't want to clean his room. With a disaster like Haiti or Japan, it's almost as if the big teenager has just broken a lamp in the room, and instead of throwing out the pieces and starting new, he instead decides to polish the shards scattered across the floor, leaving them sitting there, perfectly situated to step on later.