On Wednesday, October 7, 1998, a Wyoming mountain biker found the body of Matt Shepard clinging to a fence. Matt Shepard was beaten and abused the day before by Laramie citizens Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson; Matt Shepard was gay. As a University of Wyoming student, Matt's death drew national news attention, and it put the town of Larmie, Wyoming "on the map". Beth Loffreda's book, Losing Matt Shepard, explores the life and politics in the victim's home town and state, while it views this tragic death from a variety of perspectives.
Loffreda's book is divded into six chapters, and the first chapter covers the media's influence on how outsider's view Matt's death and the city of Laramie. Unfortunately, there were times when the rest of our nation viewed Laramie as a racist town in the middle of nowhere. Of course, there were individuals who were homophobic and presented their opinions very strongly. However, masses amount of the Laramie and surrounding communities gathered together for various memorial services while he was still in the hospital, on his death bed. This tragedy could have happened in any town in any state, and it just happened to strike Laramie as the first major gay-murder.
Losing Matt Shepard sparked an interest with me because the idea of gay respect has always been strong with me. Regardless of the legalization of gay marriage, gay respect is an issue that just requires a change in the mindsets of others. It made me sick when I read about the homophobic protesters who were present at his memorials. Loffreda even noted that one picketer at Matt's funeral was carrying a sign that read, "Get Back in Your Damn Closet". Not only is it cruel to say that to a gay person, but it is extremely offensive, innapropriate, and overall rude to present that at a fuernal. I am not saying that everybody should be in support of the concept of homosexuality because everybody is different. However, I do hope that one day, everybody will respect each other's opinions about homosexuality.
Branching out of Losing Matt Shepard, the idea of gay respect is an issue all around me; especially in the school environment. Although I feel that compared to other schools my high school is exceptional in terms of bullying, I know that it is far from perfect. Whenever I hear somebody use the word "faggot", at all, I feel sick in my stomach. Usually, but unfortunately not always, I will step in and tell the user that that word is just not cool. However, what annoys me even more is when teachers do not act upon the students' disrespect. In some of my current and past classes, teachers of all sorts have heard students use derrogatory words such as "faggot" and not done anything. To me, that teacher is absolutely not fulfilling his or her duties as a mentor.
Moving back to Loffreda's book, the first part of it does exemplify the good that did come out of Matt's tragic death. For one thing, it brough light upon the issue of gay abuse and harassment. Plus, I respect the fact that many Laramie citizens emphasized that this tragedy could have happened anywhere. Matt's death gave many Americans a bit more perspective about the reality of our own nation. Matt Shepard is a symbol for the tragedy and horror that exists within our nation, but he is also a symbol for hope to come in the future.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
That's Offensive!
All over the country, Black Friday is a very busy day for many Americans. In support of the well-recognized shopping day, two friends and I decided to shop in Chicago in pursuit of excellent deals. I bought a new pair of Converse shoes, but besides that, we did not get much else, (for the most part). As we were walking toward Michigan Avenue, a very well-known shopping street in the city, we saw something that stopped us in our tracks. A woman and a man were standing next to a table-like-structure that displayed pictures of President Obama with an Adolf Hitler mustache. Immediately, as Jews, my friends and I were highly offended and we informed the people at the table that their picture was extremely offensive.
Noticing quickly that they were not going to take down their posters, my friends and I made a quick stop at the Staples store down the street. We purchased two white poster boards and a black marker. Then we wrote "That is Offensive" on the poster boards with arrows pointing toward the Obama posters. For the next three hours, we all stood right next to the opposing table as we shouted, "That's Offensive". As a subtle joke, we even handed out blank sheets of notebook paper that had a list of the similarities between Obama and Hitler.
Many pedestrians took pictures of us, cheered us on, and thanked us for sticking up for what we felt was right. We even got three more teenagers to go to staples to buy their own poster boards. It was a warming feeling to stick up for my morals instantly, and to spontaneously take a stand on something that we thought was clearly offensive. Even though the "offensive" images and table were never taken down, I am proud that we were able to make their message even less effective. The feeling of instant and spontaneous protest is a comforting feeling, and even though it can sometimes be annoying, I am grateful for the free speech that we have in America. If it weren't for free speech, we wouldn't all be pushed to stick up for what we believe to be just, and the world would not be the same today.
Noticing quickly that they were not going to take down their posters, my friends and I made a quick stop at the Staples store down the street. We purchased two white poster boards and a black marker. Then we wrote "That is Offensive" on the poster boards with arrows pointing toward the Obama posters. For the next three hours, we all stood right next to the opposing table as we shouted, "That's Offensive". As a subtle joke, we even handed out blank sheets of notebook paper that had a list of the similarities between Obama and Hitler.
Many pedestrians took pictures of us, cheered us on, and thanked us for sticking up for what we felt was right. We even got three more teenagers to go to staples to buy their own poster boards. It was a warming feeling to stick up for my morals instantly, and to spontaneously take a stand on something that we thought was clearly offensive. Even though the "offensive" images and table were never taken down, I am proud that we were able to make their message even less effective. The feeling of instant and spontaneous protest is a comforting feeling, and even though it can sometimes be annoying, I am grateful for the free speech that we have in America. If it weren't for free speech, we wouldn't all be pushed to stick up for what we believe to be just, and the world would not be the same today.
Abortion?
For most of my life, I have never had a clear opinion about the abortion debate.There are an immense amoutn of ethical, political, and religious factors that play into the debate, and it can seem to be too much to handle. Furthermore, I feel less of a pressure to form an opinion because I am a male. After reviewing the website for NARAL-Prochoice America , the leading organization of the Pro-Choice movement, I concluded that the abortion debate, in a sense, is a vicious war. Both sides attack each other furiously, while attempting to defend their own honor. I was surprised to see that the abortion section of the NARAL website started off by attacking the "Pro-Life" movement. Plus, in my exploration of the NARAL website, the basic structure of the text was to first explain what their opponent's attacks were, and then defend themselves through a plan of action or a rebuttal. On the "Bans on Abortion After 12 Weeks" page, the author first wrote about the Federal Abortion Ban of 2003 which, according to NARAL, "is a criminal ban on a safe abortion method". Then, the text goes into explaining the errors of the Federal Abortion Ban of 2003, and then explaining that politicians should not have a part in abortions at all. They believe that it is the women's rights to or not to have an abortion, rather than the rights of the government. Furthermore, NARAL argued that "person hood" should not be defined legally because it may lead to the ban of abortion, birth control, and stem-cell research. Overall, the vibe that I got from the NARAL website was that they want nothing to do with politics or government decisions. It seems that the Pro-Choice movement is very much "doing their own thing", and it seems that they are trying to "save" women and their rights by giving them the option of abortion. The website made the government seem to be an evil factor that is limiting rights and chocking society's freedom.
On the other side of the issue, the National Right to Life, (the leading Pro-Life movement campaign), website seems to be very welcoming. It is not as aggressive as the NARAL website, which is very relieving. The Pro-Life website seemed to be very clean and fair sine it presented all of the facts very openly and easily. As one who does not yet have a clear opinion about abortion, I would probably side more with the Pro-Life movement because the National Right to Life website did not "scare me off" as much as the NARAL website. Furthermore, the National Right to Life website made it seem as if they obviously held the correct opinion, because the scientific facts of person hood and development supported their viewpoints. Overall, the Pro-Life website seems to be very effective because it is very easy to access scientific facts, and it did not shove the Pro-Life opinion in my face.
No matter what the law says, I feel that abortion is still influenced by ethics and religion. Furthermore, as a minor, I feel that parents and adults should also have a say in an abortion decision. Of course, no teenager wants to tell their parents that they got somebody pregnant, or that they are pregnant. However, abortion is a very serious issue that must be made aware by the parents of both parties. Abortion is not just another "stupid thing that we do as teenagers" such as getting drunk one night. It is a very demanding issue both mentally and physically. Therefore, as children I believe that parents are responsible to give consent for abortion, because it is a very demanding and potentially traumatic decision.
I also believe firmly that the father should be notified of the mother's decision to have an abortion. Although it is the woman who is holding the baby, the father's DNA is still in her baby. Even though it is the woman who has the final decision, the father should absolutely still get a voice. I do not know if he should be required to give consent for the abortion. On one hand, it is his baby too and he should be allowed to bring that baby to life. On the other hand, he is not the mother that will have to care for the child for nine months, and for potentially the next several years of her life. However, I do feel that the father should provide his strong input on whether or not to get an abortion.
Moving onto the political argument of abortion, it seems that Illinois's abortion laws are very fair. According to NARAL's website, the state of Illinois provides abortions to women of low income, both parent and spousal consent are required, and Illinois's constitution provides greater protection of women's rights to choose than the U.S. Constitution itself. However, the Illinois state also limits health care options on abortion, and overall Illinois government is very mixed in the topic of abortion. Overall, I am in favor of Illinois's abortion laws because it is fair and involves more parties than just the mother and her whom.
On the other side of the issue, the National Right to Life, (the leading Pro-Life movement campaign), website seems to be very welcoming. It is not as aggressive as the NARAL website, which is very relieving. The Pro-Life website seemed to be very clean and fair sine it presented all of the facts very openly and easily. As one who does not yet have a clear opinion about abortion, I would probably side more with the Pro-Life movement because the National Right to Life website did not "scare me off" as much as the NARAL website. Furthermore, the National Right to Life website made it seem as if they obviously held the correct opinion, because the scientific facts of person hood and development supported their viewpoints. Overall, the Pro-Life website seems to be very effective because it is very easy to access scientific facts, and it did not shove the Pro-Life opinion in my face.
No matter what the law says, I feel that abortion is still influenced by ethics and religion. Furthermore, as a minor, I feel that parents and adults should also have a say in an abortion decision. Of course, no teenager wants to tell their parents that they got somebody pregnant, or that they are pregnant. However, abortion is a very serious issue that must be made aware by the parents of both parties. Abortion is not just another "stupid thing that we do as teenagers" such as getting drunk one night. It is a very demanding issue both mentally and physically. Therefore, as children I believe that parents are responsible to give consent for abortion, because it is a very demanding and potentially traumatic decision.
I also believe firmly that the father should be notified of the mother's decision to have an abortion. Although it is the woman who is holding the baby, the father's DNA is still in her baby. Even though it is the woman who has the final decision, the father should absolutely still get a voice. I do not know if he should be required to give consent for the abortion. On one hand, it is his baby too and he should be allowed to bring that baby to life. On the other hand, he is not the mother that will have to care for the child for nine months, and for potentially the next several years of her life. However, I do feel that the father should provide his strong input on whether or not to get an abortion.
Moving onto the political argument of abortion, it seems that Illinois's abortion laws are very fair. According to NARAL's website, the state of Illinois provides abortions to women of low income, both parent and spousal consent are required, and Illinois's constitution provides greater protection of women's rights to choose than the U.S. Constitution itself. However, the Illinois state also limits health care options on abortion, and overall Illinois government is very mixed in the topic of abortion. Overall, I am in favor of Illinois's abortion laws because it is fair and involves more parties than just the mother and her whom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)