Research on Laramie: Related Document, web source

Research on Laramie: Related subjects

http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/tne/pieces/jorge-steven-lopez-and-matthew-shepard-two-crimes-one-motive-0

 
          Matthew Shepard's story took America's hearts by storm. The brutal murder of an innocent young man due to his sexual orientation was and is unjust. In my research, I found an article *link listed above* about a young man of Puerto Rican decent experiencing the same horrible fate as Shepard. His name was Jorge Steven Lopez. His murderer cut his head off, and partially burned him to death because he was gay. This was in Caguas, Puerto Rico on November 13, 2009.  Mentioned in the article is the “Gay Panic Defense” stating that it “is a legal defense that seeks to establish that the murderer had a lapse of insanity tied to a state of violence that led to perpetrate the attack.” Meaning that the victim’s murderer can have some sort of hazy defense for why they committed the act. In conclusion, the article shows awareness of Hate Crimes and why it is wrong.

    

Presidential Debate 2012

Obama/Romney Debate 2012

Both candidates had very interesting things to say about the topics presented at this year’s debate. After thoroughly listening to each candidate’s proposal solutions to each topic discussed, I have come up with the following things that I agree with a particular candidate and disagree with the other candidate based on my understanding of their responses and my political views.

I do not agree with Romney not wanting to reduce taxes from the higher paid people. I also do not agree with Romney taking away programs such as PBS. He also wants to make a 30% cut in Medicaid which is not fair to many of those who cannot afford to pay for medical expenses.
I agree with Obama wanting to deduct taxes from middle class families and keeping tuition loans. I agree with hiring math and science teachers to ensure better education in these areas that many people struggle with

Laramie Project Blog-Briana Regalado

Laramie Project Blog –Briana Regalado

  The Laramie Project is a play that reports the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard, an innocent homosexual living in Laramie, Wyoming. He was brutally murdered by two fellow classmates that were against homosexuality. The play is consisted of various interviews with the townspeople in Laramie and their views on the incident. Many of them have very diverse views on the subject based on cultural influences or being open minded. I shall discuss two people with completely different views on Shepard’s death.

  Matt Galloway was a bartender in Laramie. He received Shepard at the bar at ten. He completely disagrees with the incident. What happened was very wrong and dastardly. The two perpetrators say that Shepard was trying to hit on them. Galloway defends Shepard by saying “Why would he approach them? Why them? He wasn’t approaching anybody else in the bar…He came on to them? I don’t believe it” (Kaufman, 31). Galloway is a perfect example of an innate persona because he is a very open minded person. He respects people’s differences. He is not one to judge. These are the qualities of an honestly moral person.

  Unlike the Baptist Minister, who had very strict biblical views on homosexuality. He obviously disagrees with that lifestyle. The act committed was indeed wrong. The minister believes that Shepard should have thought about his way of life while he was slowly dying on the fence. He states, “I hope that Matthew Shepard as he was tied to that fence, that he had time to reflect on a moment…he had a chance to reflect on his lifestyle” (Kaufman, 69). The minister is strongly expressing his very strict biblical views on the matter. He did mention that he was not afraid to speak from the heart and state what he really feels about the subject. The minister is an example of someone who lives and bases their opinions on what they have been raised on, in this case its religion.

  Both the minister and Matt Galloway have completely different views on Matthew Shepard’s death. Galloway is on Shepard’s side. Matthew was an innocent, easygoing young man. He did not deserve to die. He was collective and the two perpetrators started the damage, not him. The minister strictly believes in his religion. His views are obvious.

         

  The attitudes expressed by the individuals stated above are innate. Galloway is the innate and the Baptist Minister is the culturally produced. Galloway is an example of a good ethical human being. He is open and does not judge people on the way they choose to live their life. The minister is strictly based on his religion. Since youth, one is taught their family views on life including religion. Therefore, the Baptist Minister bases his opinions on the lifestyle he has lived.

English Cluster FALL 2012 ESSAY #2

 

Briana Regalado  Letter

 Dear residents of Animal Farm, Thou shalt rejoice over the revolution thou have fought to uphold! Although it gives me great joy to hear about this marvelous plan, unfortunately it was ruined by a few of our “fellow compadres”. First and foremost, the origins of the revolution began with Old Major’s wise tellings of the old days and how man has slowly destroyed our land. With his guidance and solemn strength, we animals were able to rise against our master, Farmer Jones, and bring him down below our level. The aftermath of the revolution was dimwittedly ruined by many of our comrades. I shall discuss the two leaders who majorly ruined the revolution, commencing with Napoleon. 

 Napoleon is a powerful character. He is very demeaning, manipulative, and disturbingly corrupted. Napoleon’s part in the downfall of the revolution was never shedding a single drop of sweat to cooperate in any contribution to the revolution. Instead, he accomplished deeds for his own sake. He was also very cruel, such as when he confiscated Jessie and Bluebell’s pups. “He took them up into a loft which could only be reached by a ladder from the harness-room, and kept them in such seclusion than the rest of the farm soon forgot their existence” (Orwell, 35). This selfish act was done for his benefit to destroy the farm and the animals. He was lazy, bullied the other animals and educated himself rather than aid the others in understanding the commandments of the new farm. His manipulation and constant lying to the animals made him a corrupt leader. Unfortunately, many animals believed in his word, for example, when Boxer states, “Napoleon is always right” (Orwell, 61). These poor animals confided in you, and you let them down miserably. It is shameful that Napoleon tricked all of you. Nonetheless, Napoleon’s lack of belief in the revolution all the while was more than enough to wreck a marvelous opportunity to reach the goals of the revolution. Of course he is not the only character who destroyed the revolution. 

Squealer is the other sort that aided the fall of the revolution. He is of the manipulative type. Squealer definitely lived up to his name. He used his smarts to get the other uneducated animals confused, really confused. Squealer always turned the words of the other pigs around for his better judgment, as well as using his knowledge and vocabulary to manipulate the lesser educated animals. For instance when Napoleon sent him to explain odd circumstances that occurred in the farm, when really Napoleon and Squealer were making misfits. “You do not imagine I hope that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege” (Orwell, 35). Squealer made up ridiculous excuses to cover up any crude acts being done by Napoleon or himself in order to save themselves. This was very cruel and it is one of the reasons why the animals were misled by the pigs. In turn, they confused you all and were not available to help any comrade understand the revolution and its benefits. Squealer did not aid anyone. His role was diminishing and confusing the other animals by falsifying certain facts about the revolution such as changing the words of the commandments or changing Napoleon’s words so the animals will be on his side. Speech holds a vast amount of power. Squealer always took advantage of his manipulative words, which made him not trustworthy. 

 In other words, both Napoleon and Squealer were two of the major downfalls of the revolution. What do I think they should change to produce a more positive outcome? I suggest that the pigs work with each other and with the other animals on the farm to bring about a better revolution. Trust is lacking among the animals. The recipe for a successful revolution requires trust. Instead of only educating yourselves, switching the other’s words, and confusing the less intelligent animals, you all should work together. Teamwork is the key to any successful project whether it be building a corporate building or starting a revolution. Take this into consideration and your revolution would come out very successful! 

 Luck be with you, Briana Regalado

    George Orwell, 1945, Animal Farm