The Safety Of Others

In class we started an interesting discussion on the topic of freedom of speech. The examples that we cited which had limitations on speech were ones that threatened the safety of others. One example was of a person screaming that there was a fire in the movie theater when there actually wasn't. The line between harming the safety of others and not with speech is sometimes hard to distinguish. What if you harm somebody emotionally, without putting their physical self in danger? That situation was played out by the Westboro Baptist Church and the Supreme Court. The Westboro Baptist Church is known for protesting the funerals of soldiers and gay people, since they believe that God hates America and "God Hates Fags"


One father of a soldier had had enough with the Church.When Westboro decided to protest his son's funeral with these signs, Albert Snyder sued them for causing emotional trauma to him and his family. The supreme court decided that the Westboro Baptist Church had the right to protest the funerals, with only one judge opposing the ruling. They declared that even though the language was offensive, it is protected by the first amendment as long as it doesn't put anybody in danger. (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html)

I think that the judges were right in this decision. The signs were the opinion of the Westboro Baptist Church, and they were nonviolently protesting. However, there are certain exceptions to the idea that you can say anything that doesn't put anyone in danger. For instance, high school students can cause huge emotional trauma with some of the things they say. There are many instances of kids who commit suicide because of verbal abuse from fellow classmates. In these cases, the abusers should obviously be punished, since they caused violence with their words. What if the abusee didn't hurt themselves? What if they just lived emotionally damaged lives with newly developed social issues because of their ridicule? What do you think? Should the abusers be able to be sued for emotional damages?

We found a geocache!

On our class's field trip on Wednesday, we traveled to the Osaka Gardens in South Chicago. While some people in the class were looking for a mysterious plaque explaining the origins of the garden, a couple of students had a different mission: to find a geocache. For those who don't know, Geocaching is a modern-day treasure hunting game. You go to a website, find coordinates for a geocache, travel to the coordinates, and begin your hunt.

Other than the play, finding that geocache was the highlight of the field trip for me. The best part of geocaching is that it is %100 user generated content. Geocaching merely started as a website. After that, people from all over the world participated in building and finding geocaches. A dad in Kansas could become a Geocache connosseiur. An accountant at a villiage bank in Northern California could make the most devious geocache known to man. I think that geocaching embodies the American spirit of individualism and opportunity. Every time you find a geocache, there's a log inside the cache where you write the date and your name. As long as that geocache exists, your name will be there, signifying that you accomplished the feat of finding the geocache. Creating a geocache is like an artistic statement; you receive no money for it, yet put it out into the world just so others can see it. It is an embodiment of free speech to place geocaches in the wild. There is also a sense of connection in geocaching. You follow the clues of a cryptic poem by a complete stranger, yet when you go to find the cache, you feel a strange sense of connection to the person who put it there. Then you go online and post a review of the cache, seeing others who also found it and feeling like a part of a community. I hope to see geocaching become an american tradition in the coming years, where families organize outings around a geocache on a nature trail. As a final note, here are some creative caches. Can you think of any good spots?

Me Against The World

In class we've now learned about two different cases of extreme individualism: Chris McCandless and Grizzly Man. Both despised American societal values and cast themselves into the wilderness. But could American values be the driving force that shaped these people into ultra-individualists? I think that the way America promotes individualism and freedom causes people to naturally hate the system. In America, it's encouraged to become a unique person and live life the way you want. At school I always learned to express my opinions, even if they weren't what everyone else believed. It may be a paradox that the way the two people we studied led their lives was in accordance with they way America believes its citizens should behave. Of course, individualism in America is usually not expressed to the extent that McCandless and Tommy expressed it. Most people still have friends who are like themselves, religions that dictate what they do, and some people live in sheltered communities with near identical homes as far as the  eye can see. While these instances of conformity were caused by American culture, I believe that the Constitution, with the line entitling every person to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", resonates with extreme individualists.

Is Deportation Unamerican?

                   Earlier today, I read an article in the New York Times titled, "Divided by Immigration Policy". It was about the new policies the Obama put into place that allowed for illegal immigrants who came here as children to not be deported. The article discussed that while some people qualify for the program, other people don't, and sometimes those two situations find themselves within one family. The article chronicles to situations: a family where a brother qualified for the program but his sister didn't, and two friends where one was eligible and the other wasn't. This relationships are being deteriorated by the harsh immigration laws in the US. Should this be the way our country operates?
                  The poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free", which directly relates to America's policy on immigration. But is this still the case? The siblings in the article fled from Honduras because street gangs had taken over their town. Clearly they need to escape violent conditions, but due to the immigration laws the sister lives her life in fear of being deported. "Before I had a lot of dreams, but now I don't know." She said. "Before I would like to become a teacher...now that I know, it's really hard. Those were just my dreams." While the issue of undocumented workers taking jobs is something that needs to be addresses, it shouldn't be done so in a way where the illegal immigrants feel a horrible backlash from it.
                 My temporary solution would be to create some sort of charity that teaches immigrants basic aspects of American life and the English language. This would allow for the immigrants to learn skills and get jobs while they figure out what they need to do to receive citizenship. Other than that, I have no clear idea that doesn't involve using government money or resources. But what do you think? Should rules be stretched for illegal immigrants to live here, or do they take away too many resources from legal citizens? If the former, how would you change the rules?

The Last Free Place in America

I'm sure many members of our class wondered what life would be like living in a bus in the woods after reading Into The Wild. What food would you eat? Would you miss home? Would you find your inner self in the woods? The artifacts that McCandless left behind give us an idea of how he answered these questions. Throughout the book, McCandless tosses aside arbitrary systems such as government and the job force and moves to a patch of land in Alaska void of human life. Many people in America also struggle with the balance of freedom and control, as well as work and relaxation. McCandless visists a place called Slab City in into the wild, and I wanted to learn more about it. Libertarians believe that America should have as little intervention from government as possible, where as more conservatives and democrats believe that Government should control some facets of life. At Slab City, however, the mere notion of a governing body is completely destroyed. The inhabitants of Slab City refer to their home as "The Last Free Place in America". There are no schools, hospitals, or actual buildings. For a nice five minute summary of the city, the video from Subculture Club creates a pretty picture. At 3:00, two people even mention the inspiration for traveling there was the movie adaptation of Into The Wild!

 Most residents live in small trailers or rickety homemade structures, as shown in Vice's documentation of the society:

 I will choose to focus on this documentation of the city since it is longer and gives some better profiles of the citizens.

The most interesting part of this video is seeing how these people interact with each other. Slab City is like McCandless' vision taken to epic proportions. The people in this city moved there to escape the social stigmas in American society. Taking a line from the introductory video, its "A place where people can simply exist". This, however, doesn't seem to be the case in Vice's take on the city. At 5:00 they profile a man who owns two incredibly poisonous snakes  and discusses how to survive in slab city. He describes that in a desperate situation he would "eat that sunnabitch [his snake]" and "eat that man's butt... because a man's butt has more meat to it". I though this man was definitely deranged when watching him talk, but he did bring up a point. In lawless societies like this, what happens when food or water suddenly runs out? Who will be murdered in the struggle for survival? America may have restrictions on some aspects of life, but one thing that our government makes sure of is having a stable food and water supply. 

Later in the video, some members of Slab City go down to the hot springs, not unlike those in the first part of Into The Wild, to drink some sodas. A nicer view of the society is shown here, just some friends having a good time. The party ends soon, though, when one of the people being profiled leaves and drives to get some crystal meth from town. There is no law enforcement to stop the production of meth, no hospital to cure the side effects of meth, no rehab clinic to cure the addiction of meth. It's pitfalls like these that make me doubt the validity of a city like Slab City. But what do you think? Would you be able to live in Slab City? Could this societal model be implemented at a larger scale? Lemme know in da comments!
Safe of dangerous, enlightening or frightening, there is only one thing certain of Slab City: the people there sure know how to party hard.

Slab City Resident Showing his moves