Blindness

Blindness certainly serves as a powerful and effective theme and plot device. Our senses have a strong impact on our behavior and who we are as individuals. Due to the importance and need we as humans have for sight, its lack has the strongest effect. For the most part humans depend on and take sight for granted. Being without it would cause a huge adjustment to occur.
Just looking at culture and language, we can see how important sight is to our society. “A picture is worth a thousand words”. We depend on sight to interpret the world around us and to give meaning to what our other senses tell us. For example, sight allows us to look at body language to determine what a person is thinking or feeling. Body language says a lot about a person and without sight a person is only getting half the story.
One characteristic that people claim differentiates humans from animals, is the ability to create and appreciate art. Art allows a person to capture a moment, a person, even a feeling, for future generations. Images have a big impact on humanity; a powerful image can cause change or inspire action. Even the sight of sunshine or blue skies has a strong influence on how people. In a world of complete darkness, it is a lot harder to be hopeful of the future.
Blindness seems to symbolize a number of fears that humanity has. The fear that we do not know what is going on around us or that we can’t control what happens to us. Horror movies often showcase humanities fear of the dark and the unknown. Without sight, we do not know what monsters there are and that fear shows a lot about the importance we place on knowing the world around us.

Religion as a Great Idea

Though there are many different religions and many differences between religions, there are certain common factors that make religion a great idea. Great ideas are something that have a widespread impact and change society in someway. While great ideas are not always positive or good for humanity, they are powerful. Religion has created some negatives, found in prejudice and holy wars, but it is still a great idea.
Religion can be extremely influential and powerful in society. Throughout history people have done things in the name of religion or for their religion that they would not have normally done. Cultures and laws have been based around religious views during different time periods. In some cases the religion is such a significant part of the community it either influences or is a part of the government.
In order to hold power over the years, different monarchs from Egypt to England have claimed that their authority comes from god. During the middle ages in England, the church was so powerful that they could demand taxes and influence governmental decisions. Even today, religion is a strong part of the opinions people have on controversial issues, and there are still oligarchies in the Middle East.
Religion has such a strong influence, because for many people they need something to believe in, either to give their actions meaning or to hope for improvement. As a great idea, religions have a strong impact, because they unite large groups of people through common beliefs and views. The influence of religion can be seen in society through politics, art, and even pop culture. Religion has always been a unifying and dividing force, and will continue to be a strong influence on the world.

Modern Science

Someone mentioned in class that modern science is a much more global enterprise, and this is partially true. Scientists have come together on different projects in order to complete the same goal, for example the international space station. However, there will always be competition among scientists of other nations, due to the nature of the field and the applications of certain research. A number of research projects can end up benefiting the country in some way, often times with the military.
Science is a highly competitive field with people competing for grants and prizes, as well as acclaim. We talked about string theory in class, and there are a number of different scientists with different theories trying to find this “theory of everything”. String theory is the next big phenomenon, and everyone is clamoring to get in on the action. However, without proof, string theory is still a philosophical view.
Modern science is often about finding the next big invention or medicine, or finding an answer to some major life question. Rarely is science about observing the world around us and trying to understand why and how things work. Because of the need for resources and money in order to perform research, scientists must focus on something that has the potential to be profitable.
The theory of everything has gathered a lot of attention, and many scientists are making a name for themselves through there research. However, is such a quest necessary or beneficial in the end? String theory is almost like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, trying to find an answer to life, the universe, and everything. Does such an answer really tell us more about the universe than we already know and does it have an impact on how we live our lives?

Natural Selection

Throughout the science unit, we have discussed in class humans’ role and interaction with nature. However, some things we did not touch on include our rule in natural selection. Depending on your views, it can be argued that humans interfere and unbalance natural selection of other species.
Humans unbalance natural selection, by changing the behavior and environment of other species. Deforestation and human expansion has limited the area and resource animals have available to them in order to survive. Pollution has also had a strong impact on other species, damaging drinking water and poisoning some animals.
Behavior is changed by humans through domestication among other things. House cats and dogs are not likely to improve through natural selection, when they are dependent on humans to survive. Humans impact sexual selection, by breeding in order to promote traits they desire, and not ones that will necessarily be beneficial to the species.
Overall, humans are the only species to have such a widespread impact on other species. Some may argue that humans are only acting as a part of natural selection. However, much of the impact humanity has had has been negative. Hopefully, in the future humanity will be able to positively effect the environment and other species.

Bioethics

In class, we talked about the fact that religion and science have often and still do come into conflict. However, that may be stating things too simplistically. Throughout history, the church has tried to suppress scientific theories that disagree or challenge the church’s authority and power. However, in today’s world it is not religion that interacts with science, but more ethics.
Bioethics is the idea that certain research projects, theories, and inventions must be judged on an ethical basis. During our class discussion, people spoke out against religious interference, saying that scientist should have the freedom to research what they want to. Unfortunately, that is a dangerous statement to make. Throughout history, there have been political, religious, and societal views that have impacted humanity’s perception of everything including science.
Science has occasionally been used negatively in order to promote political views or actions. Ethics and review boards are necessary in order to ensure that scientists are not doing research that does or would harm others. Without rules or control, there is nothing to prevent another Dr. Mengele from occurring.
Review boards are important because they allow regulations to be put in place for research to be ethical. Unfortunately, there are different views on what exactly ethical implies. Bioethics is a complicated topic, because in today’s world there are many controversial issues, such as stem cell research, which cause people to question the nature of ethics.

The power of a princess

I know that pretty much everyong is done posting, but this video was on the front page of Yahoo today, and I thought it was very relevant. So, what do you guys think, are princesses bad for little girls?

Epidemic Blindness

Can you read this? Or is it rather that you choose not to really see it? Many people around the world are facing what I like to call the "blindness epidemic". This phrase kind of mirrors the saying it is hard to ignore the elephant in the room except for some reason people are having no problem ignoring it. In the U.S.A. people are so busy with their daily lives that they fail to really stop and notice what is going on around them. It seems that when there is a big problem, they can easily ignore it as long as it does not specifically affect their lives. One example is how the government is able to manipulate the view of the public when all the public really has to do to know the truth about what is happening is to just do their own research and gather information for themselves. I feel there is sooo much that people choose not to see and to be uniformed is to be blind. How long will the people walk around with their eyes covered and how long until this blissful ignorance becomes the tears of a dying nation?
So will you choose to see or continue to walk in blindness.

Beautiful women and Bratz

Jessica already detailed most of the main ideas in Beauvior’s essay so I would like to focus more on some of the contemporary connections we made in class as well as some of my own. First of all, I want to talk about the Bratz website we visited. I think it is safe to say that if these products come to the minds of several people in the class (including me) when talking about this subject then there is some importance to them. The first thing I noticed with this site is the screen that appeared while it was loading. A tagline in the center of the screen read, “Please wait… It takes time to look this good!” I think that this website should take its own advice and should be telling these little girls to take some time (about five to ten years or better yet never) to be wearing the clothes and makeup they put on these dolls. I explored the site a little and found that the “lives” of these characters revolve around fashion and looking good. The reason girls are growing up thinking that their value is dependent on how they look is because that is what we are teaching them at a young age. One example is my three year old niece who already loves to wear makeup. She sometimes even carries around lip gloss with her. Can we start any younger? I realize that since these ideas are planted in us it is easy to encourage this behavior without even thinking about it. For example, with my niece, my first instinct when she comes up to me with blush on is to say, “Well, don’t you look pretty?” but I try my best to correct myself by saying something more like, “That’s very pretty, but you don’t need makeup to be pretty, you are beautiful just the way you are.” I know it may seem silly, but I think that it is even the little things like that that can influence the future self esteem and self image of the child.
Another issue was brought up by the pole dancing toy. Children want to act like adults. One of the first games kids learn to play is “house.” Many kids can be found dressing up in their parents’ clothes. One thing that I found that feeds into this is teenage (or even preteen) drama shows (the commercial I saw was for The Naked Brothers Band on Nickelodeon). Ok, I’m sorry but I don’t think that 6th graders should have that much drama in their lives. Who cares if Billy likes Sarah who likes Jim who just broke up with Amber?
Bringing it back to the essay, I believe that although women have gained more respect over the years there is still a plague of casual, careless disrespect in our society. I ran into one such example on my way to class the other day. I passed two people who were talking and although I did not hear the entire conversation what I did hear slightly sickened me. A guy was talking about his girlfriend and proceeded to call her a b**** and claim that she should just sit at home on her a** all day and just trust that he isn’t cheating on her instead of bothering him all the time. First of all, I am a firm believer that every woman on this planet is beautiful in her own way (whether others accept it or not) and that names such as that are repulsively disrespectful to that beauty. I especially had a hard time grasping that he would talk about his girlfriend of all people like that. The person he was talking to simply chuckled and they continued with their conversation. I believe that it is these sorts of situations that slowly but surely pick at the identity of women and make them think that they must fit into some mold that society had carved for them. I think that Beauvior elegantly and effectively portrays these ideas in her essay about the falsehoods and truths of womankind.

____ is blind...

When someone in class brought up the phrase justice is blind, it made me start thinking about how many different sayings that we have that have to do with blindness. Blindness is a huge part of our lives, even though it may have nothing to do with actually seeing anything. Sometimes we are "blind" to what others are feeling. The word blind is just used to imply so many other things than actually literally being blind. It has to do with not noticing or being insensitive to others feelings and other types of things.
How many sayings do we have that include blindness. First, there is Justice is blind. I do not totally understand what this phrase is supposed to mean, but I'm gonna try to explain it as much as I understand it. I believe that it somewhat ties back into the revenge that we were talking about. The justice comes back to those no matter what happens. It's basically like karma. What goes around, comes back around.

Another phrase that comes to mind is "love is blind." This one is pretty easy to understand. When one is in love, there are a lot of other things that you just don't notice as much. I'm not going to get all mushy and such and explain how love makes you feel, but it does make it very hard not to be blind, in the way that i described before.

There are other phrases that have to do with blindness, but I can't think of them... what other ones are there?

Blindness symbolism

Blindness, written by Jose Saramago, has made me think about the abundance of symbolism available with the term “blindness.” It seems to me that this “blind” society reflects Saramago’s personal views about society. Blindness is a powerful, yet upsetting, allegory of what might happen if society loses sight of what is truly meaningful. It is made very clear by the end of the novel that the main goal of the characters, especially the doctor’s wife, is to bring out the awareness that there are many forms of blindness and multiple ways of being blind. This idea is further confirmed in the quote at the end of the novel which I brought up in class, “Do you want me to tell you what I think, Say it, I think we didn’t get blind, I think we are blind, Blind who are able to see, Blind that, seeing, can’t see.”
Blindness represents denial; a way of showcasing how people tell themselves “white” lies to get them through the day. Blindness is also helplessness. This is portrayed through the symbolism of the now useless expertise of the ophthalmologist. Everyone is the same; everyone has been reduced down to the point where basic instincts win over civilization. This intrigues me so much because this is the only idea (blindness) that can be so versatile/ambiguous in its symbolism and meaning. What else does blindness represent towards the end of the novel? I would also like to hear some feedback about the obvious, yet vague religious symbolism.

Blindness=Fear

Jose Saramago’s novel, Blindness, gives readers a lot to think about and examine in society. The characters loose their sight and must adapt to their new world and new reality. This offers a lot a lot to a reader in terms of how a society is formed from the ground up, and how morally developed humans are. But another interesting aspect of Saramago’s work is that the characters all go blind for a reason, and this reason directly relates to the theme of the novel.
The blindness spreads to the entire population, so the reader knows that everyone is guilty of the crime that inflicts it. Saramago makes it relatively clear when his characters are discussing when they went blind. “Fear can cause blindness, said the girl with dark glasses, Never a truer word, that could not be truer, we were already blind the moment we turned blind, fear struck us blind, fear will keep us blind” (129). Saramago gives this to his readers, but it is their job to discover what this fear is of. The fear that he speaks of is a fear of each other. A fear that man has of his fellow man. Humans are social beings and define themselves through others, so when humans fear each other they build an entire society based on fear. We can see this in the novel in the characters of the first blind man and the thief. Even before the thief went blind, he was still acting in fear of others and doing things only to benefit himself, as if he was already in the mindset that many were in while at the asylum. When the first blind man finds out, he wishes blindness on his enemy, which depicts the justice through revenge attitude that develops in the blind society. This shows the fear and distrust of man towards fellow man, and in this respect blindness is not a condemnation, but a remedy. When one is blind he is forced to trust his fellow man because he cannot survive on his own. If humans cannot learn to live with and trust each other under these circumstances then they will perish. Blindness is a cure to the fear of society. In a way it opens the eyes of the people to what they have become and what they must change. It is only when the characters truly become able to trust and care for each other when they begin to see again. The author portrays this when the man with the eye patch tells his companions to go on without him because he is too much of a burden, but they do not. Even after all they have been through they stick together and they learn the lesson that Saramago is hoping his readers will also learn.

Revenge: an animalistic action

Why do humans continually seek revenge? Is it of our human nature, or does it revert back to our animalistic habits? In class some said that it gives closure to the situation at hand, while someone counter argued that it gives a sense of closure but it does not heal the heart. The one seeking revenge normally does not feel healed, and it does not satisfy the rage felt from the situation, and often times it makes it worse. Some times one feels revenge is a way of justification for the situation, or to those who were impacted by it but what exactly is justification? To this day people are constantly seeking revenge. For example, the legal act of prosecutions. It is a daily occurrence in this country, which parallels to seeking revenge against another. Some say that it is a justified way of revenge but does it really give anyone closure of any situation. It has been seen in movies, a rapist is killed by the victim’s parents via the death penalty. Who are we to truly seek revenge? Does the justification of this legal action bring guilt to the victims’ loved ones? Is it possible to feel that an action is justified when it results in death? I feel that naturally we would say yes, of course it is it is a justified act to call death to someone; or to even imprison them for a number of years. They get what they deserve, an eye for an eye. But who are we to judge what that person deserves? Now possibly, it would be for the better of humanity that the prosecuted would be dead, but at that point I feel that imprisonment would be the best solution. This feeling to better humanity by the imprisonment of another leads us to the quote from blindness “responsibility is the natural consequence to clear vision.” Does our clear vision lead us to animalistic actions?

Revenge

“You killed him to avenge us, only a woman could avenge the women, said the girl with the dark glasses, and revenge, being just, is something human, if the victim has no rights over the wrong-doer then there can be no justice, Nor humanity.”

This quote kind of relates back to the question that Kyle asked, is it okay to kill. The doctor’s wife killed the leader of the rouges as revenge for the pain they caused the women in the asylum. The quote states that revenge is just, naturally human, and without it humanity does not exist. I agree with doctor’s wife decision to kill the leader of the rouges because he inflicted horrible pain on the women for his own gain. He was starving the people in the asylum and their continued survival depended on his death. In this situation is seems just, but I do not think that it is in many other situations. Going back to revenge, I do not think that simply killing someone, or hurting him or her in some fashion, for the actions they have committed makes humanity. I think that is causes us to be less human; we should be able to rise above the brutality of others. When someone kills a killer, they are not condoning the murder; they are in fact supporting murder. This brings the one who kills the killer down to the originals killer’s level of morals. One should strive to be the bigger person and condone murder in the first place.

One thing that I want to clarify is that I think people should have to live with the consequences of their actions but revenge should not be those consequences. The leader of the rouges starved people and raped many women and the consequences of his actions should have reflected so. His death seemed appropriate because there was no other way to punish him. In our society, a murderer is put on trial and they know what the consequences of their actions could be. Going back to my other point, when courts sentence criminals to death, they are supporting murder and the wishes of many criminals (many wish to die after they have committed a violent crime to escape taking consequences of their actions). Allowing them to live but in jail forces them to live with what they did everyday and, to me, that seems worse than death.

The Doctor's Wife's Tears

“It is possible that we have come to the end of our blindness, it is possible that we will all recover our eyesight, hearing those words, the doctor’s wife began to cry, she should have been happy yet she was crying, what strange reactions people have, of course she was happy, my God…”

I think that the doctor’s wife’s reaction to the return of sight to the first blind man was interesting. There are several reasons she could be crying. She could be crying out of relief that this heavy burden was finally lifted from her. She could be crying out of happiness that everyone will return to seeing and the world can begin healing and fixing the damages that occurred while they could not see. She could also being crying because of the horrors that they will soon be subjected to, which only she had been able to fully experience up to this point. It could be a combination of all of these factors. But what first came to mind for me was that maybe she is crying because in the return of everyone’s sight, she was losing her importance, their dependence on her, and the value which they placed on her opinion.

In terms of the feminist unit, it is interesting to see how her role in life changed when suddenly she was the only one who had something that everyone desperately needed. Even when only her husband knew she was not blind, she prided herself in the little deeds she could do to make life easier for others. And once the hospital was burned down, she became the leader of the group, with the others dependent on her for everything. While it was quite a burden, she took it on willingly. Compared to her previous lot in life, the wife of a man who’s opinion everyone very greatly respected, she was always in the shadows. She is defined through the entire book as the doctor’s wife, that being her defining characteristic. It is interesting that she is not referred to as the only person left who could see or the caretaker. She is not even defined by her matronly characteristics, though she becomes like a mother to her group.

I am curious as to what you think might be the cause of the doctor’s wife’s tears when sight began to return to the world of blind people.

Blindness

I wanted to comment on the quote at the end of the book that we briefly talked about at the end of class today. It was said on the last page during a conversation between the doctor and the doctor's wife. She says "I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see." I thought that this was a very powerful quote because to me, it still seems to be true in our society. I know that there are a lot of people in our society that are blind to what is going on around them. There are people living in poverty and terrible conditions all around us and those that are more fortunate than others still refuse to acknowledge it or do something about it.
The major part of the quote is when she says that they are blind people who can see but do not see. The fact that there are many different things going on in our world that many of us are not aware of is a good example of this. I have learned some things in my women’s studies class about the conditions for women in other cultures that I could not believe. They are still practicing dowry burnings, female circumcisions, and women are not allowed to drive cars either because their place is in the home. I had heard of some of these things before but never knew much about them or how terrible they were. I feel that many people in our society live sheltered lives. In America, the majority of us have it much better than we could ever hope for in other countries. I think it is important for us to be aware that in some cases we are blind people that can see but are choosing not to. It is important for us to recognize what could happen if we continue to be blind to our world and what we should be doing to fix it.

Thoughts on the end of humanity

During class today, I read the back cover of Blindness and wanted to comment on the end of the summary. It says “Blindness is a powerful portrayal of man’s worst appetites and weaknesses—and man’s ultimately exhilarating spirit.” I think now, after reading all of Saramago’s ideas throughout the book, that this quote is wrong and Saramago was talking more about the frailty or destruction of the human spirit.
A novel that uplifted the human spirit, I think, would have ended either in desolation where humanity still existed or with the triumph of humanity overcoming the illness of blindness. The novel didn’t end like this though, it ended with near chaos and little hope and the situation was ended by something other than the power of humanity and everyone could see again. We have seen many examples in the book of how responsibility and morality are out the window and the future seemed bleak as well. The doctor’s wife says once, “Perhaps humanity will manage to live without eyes, but then it will cease to be humanity”. If no one ever regained his sight and the children of the blind were also blind, I think that most people would die very soon and that eventually some sort of structure would develop but I don’t believe it would ever be the same as society today, there would be different morals and feelings and ideas about the future and this is what I think Saramago is getting at.

To Kill?

This is more of a question really than anything else. But I'm wondering others' thoughts on this. Right after the wife kills the guy(s), she leaves and is sitting there with tears in her eyes. She then thinks about what she did and the book says,
"...she knew that if it were necessary, she would kill again, and when is it necessary to kill, she asked herself...
So my question/comment here is when is it ok to kill? In the courts there's the whole insanity plea but that's almost always a bunch of bullcrap just to get out of real prison. But the doctor's wife feels terrible and is physically drained after having killed a man that was raping her. Does everyone feel like that after they have killed someone? even if it was in self-defense? I would like to think that she would feel righteous after having killed and hurt these men. I think that i would. But i'm asking, when is it ok to kill?

Blindness thoughts on Humanity

This last section of Blindness was filled with a bunch of collisions between the two groups of the mini-society of the asylum. First there was the killing of the rogue leader by the doctor’s wife and then there was the burning of the rogues, and the whole building, by one of the inmates. I think that these instances are a very interesting twist in the book and in Saramago’s exploration of human behavior. Before these chapters, all of the action had been initiated by the rogues and all of the destructive actions were taken by the rogues. This time, the roles have switched and the rogues have become defensive and scared while the inmates attack them and the rogues end up dying by the actions of the inmates
I tend to think that Saramago is making a new statement about humanity in this part. He made it clear earlier, through the creation of rogues, that there will always be those in a society who wish to live in unity and those who wish to gain control. The next part is that anyone, not just the rogues, can make use of some advantage to gain control. The doctor’s wife uses her scissors to throw the rogues into chaos and the other woman uses her lighter to eliminate the rogues, even though these woman would have been horrified at their own actions had it been another scenario.
This aspect of humanity can be seen later when the inmates enter into the rest of society. The world has begun to work as a strange cooperative unit, with people wandering into any building or house and taking whatever they need. This setting has also gotten a sort of rogue group now, the inmates who have the advantage of a woman who can still see. The doctor’s wife finds a basement full of food and keeps it a secret from the whole world; this is a secret that could eventually cost lives. The doctor’s wife essentially has control of that basement and will possibly take over other useful resources. It seems that humans are very apt to exploit advantages.

The Myth of Equality of Opportunity in America

There is a myth in the United States that anyone can get ahead if they work hard enough. It is implied that anyone who fails to succeed is lazy or otherwise inferior. This is often untrue however, as the discrepancy between the achieved successes of individuals is more commonly linked to inequality of opportunity. This is an important point addressed by both Virginia Woolfe and John Galbraith.

In Woolfe’s piece, “Shakespeare’s Sister,” she addresses the problems of Judith Shakespeare, the imaginary sister of William. Judith, like William, possesses a penchant for writing and a passion for the theater. Like William, she is driven and talented. Unlike William, she does not receive the benefits of education. Unlike William, she is trapped in a society that laughs at her attempts to get ahead. After she runs away from her house to avoid being forced into an unwanted marriage, she tries to get involved in the theater the same way her brother had. Instead of being allowed to work, she ends up with an unwanted pregnancy that drove her to suicide. Woolfe tells this story in order to respond to a bishop’s comment that no woman could have written the plays of Shakespeare. The bishop presumably meant by this remark that women were of an inferior intellect to men and that the writings, being of a high intellectual quality, were much more advanced than the limited mental facilities a woman possessed. . Woolfe agrees with his assertion that no woman in the time period could have written Shakespeare’s plays in that women did not have the opportunities necessary to match the achievements of men. The social structure of the time prevented that kind of advancement.

Galbraith wrote about the different kinds of poverty, insular and individual poverty. Individual poverty can be linked to some deficiency in an individual, such as a mental disorder or alcoholism. Insular poverty affects an entire region, or island of people. It remains over many generations and is difficult if not impossible to escape from. This is because people who live in these impoverished areas are not presented with the same opportunities as people born in higher classes. This inequality of opportunity is reflected in most aspects of people’s lives. Schools, being largely funded by property taxes, are necessarily poor in poor neighborhoods. The schools are often crowded and dangerous, not an environment conducive to learning. People with more money can afford to send their children to a private school or a public school in a good district. Jobs are often scarce in low income areas; the jobs that do exist are often below the living wage. Drugs and crime are commonly prevalent in low income areas as a way to fight off despair and, in some cases, as a viable way to get ahead and make money. Class mobility, contrary to the American myth, is difficult to obtain. The opportunities given to the poor of America are not usually enough for them to “pull themselves up.”

With both women and the poor, it has been assumed over the years that the reason for their lack of success is some flaw in their composition or lack of effort on their part. The same can be said of minorities and other victims of discrimination. The truth of the matter is that many groups do not succeed because they do not have the same opportunities available to them. Women were held back by the idea that the only way they could achieve greatness was to stay in their house and generally escape notice. Those in poverty are held back by the conditions in which they live. Over the years many groups have been held back by the idea that everyone who does not rise to greatness is held back only by their own inferiority.

Blindness

The novel, Blindness, depicts the adventures of people who are struck with sudden blindness. The government insists that the blind be put into isolation “for the good of the people.” The blind have a hard time adjusting to life in an old mental asylum. Their food is delivered by the military guarding the asylum and does not arrive regularly. A group of the blind came together, and begin to demand valuables from others in exchange for food. When there are, no more valuables the hoodlums demand women in exchange for food. The women comply and suffer from repeated sexual abuse. One of the women kills the hoodlum’s leader and the blind plan an attack on the remaining hoodlums. After a failed attack, one of the women lights the beds blocking the hoodlums’ ward on fire. The blind try to escape and they found the military had left the outside of the building. They were left abandoned, so they leave the building and a group of the blind begin to wonder the city. They find that the whole country has gone blind and is in chaos. People are looting stores and houses and electricity is non-existent.

After reading the section about people looting stores and houses, I thought about the state of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, people in New Orleans were looting stores and essentially began acting with no morals or ethics. People were killing others for no reason. They were acting like animals and had no shame for their actions. Society had essentially broken down and people’s actions reflected that. The doctor’s wife had found that society in their city had also broken down. People were going from store to store looking for anything they could use. People also were not willing to share or help others. The doctor’s wife found a supply of food and she decided to keeps its location to herself so if she needed more food she would know where to go. There was no running water or electricity, in New Orleans and the blind city. The doctor’s wife pointed out that people were so used to having modern conveniences that they did not know how to function without them. This is completely true today. Many people do not know how to do simple tasks because they were replaced with modern conveniences.

One question that I had from reading about society breaking and seeing it happen in New Orleans, is why when a disaster happens do people lose all their morals and begin to act like animals? I think that when things get so bad, people do not care what they do or how those actions make them seem. They only care about surviving and taking care of their family. When the hoodlums demanded the women in exchange for food, this was an action that they would not normally commit. They became desperate and did things they would not normally do. This makes one think what would you do in this type of situation. If a disaster struck your city, like Hurricane Katrina, would you loot stores to survive or would you stand by your moral principles? If you knew there would be no consequences for your actions, would you commit crimes? Would you be selfish or help others? Personally, I would rather be alive than dead with my morals.

Sobe, Jon Stewart, Blindness, and The War on Terror

I was sitting in my dorm last night (4/18/07) drinking a delicious Sobe: Energy and watching a little show known as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The guest that he had on was a former Iraqi Prime Minister (who's name I do not remember at this time). The final question that was asked by Jon Stewart was as he had put, "personal". The question was, to paraphrase, now grieving from the Virginia Tech shooting, how do the Iraqi people deal with these kinds of tragedies everyday on an escalated scale? Stewart's guest replied that there was no time for grieving, due to the frequency of the attacks. The former prime minister even stated how five of the appointed staff members he had selected were killed as a result of the hostility. This question was one that I, for one, had not even thought about...at all...at any time...not even once. We rightfully grieve for the Virginia Tech students, but Iraq has had to deal with this even before the invasion. Talk about blindness, at least on my part. Is this was Jose is partly getting at: The fact that we as a people, whom are a part of a global race, are so blind to the events and experiences around them, even when being able to see? Is Jose's message part "blind to current events" and "blind to shortcomings (referencing to Ross' post on the 18th)"?
To conclude this post, I had sat in my chair, listening ever so closely to the conversation (I'm sure the audience was also by the lack of sound coming from them). Raising my Sobe in respect to those who have lost their lives recently, I now am continuing my evolving understanding of our current events, or these conflicts of "Great Ideas". What do you all have to say?