Here are the two web addresses I reference at the end of my vlog:http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=114628408932948123
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2908955&page=2
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10.html
Enjoy!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2908955&page=2
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b10.html
Christina’s documentary evaluation of Waco: the Rules of Engagement was well explained. The main idea revolved around the conflict of David Koresh and his fellow Branch Davidian followers verses the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Koresh was viewed as the Messiah of the Davidian religion. He preached many teachings including the acceptance of the practice and use of guns. The Davidians then got into the gun market. Word was spreading around that the Davidians had gotten into stocking illegal guns. The ATF, who at the time craved good press, raided the area in Texas where the Davidians were living. During this raid, members of the ATF as well as a few Davidians were killed. The ATF then became worried. They needed the Davidians to plead guilty of firing the first shot at a trial. They thought by forcing tear gas onto the Davidians, they would go to trial. The tear gas was highly flammable and the resulting flames killed David Koresh and many others. A trial then resulted. The trial ended saying that the Davidians fired first against the ATF. The documentary goes into detail proving the innocence of the Davidians. Infrared cameras actually caught ATF agents shooting at buildings. Christina goes on to explain how the documentary related to our class. It touched on the importance of freedom of religion as well as freedom of the press. I really enjoyed how she connected the documentary to freedom of the press. Without this civil liberty the documentary could not have been made since it portrayed the government as the “bad guy”. Overall, I think Christina did a fabulous job. Her pacing and volume made it able for me to understand and follow along. It would have been a little bit easier, however, if she was not simply reading. I found myself sometimes getting lost in her words as she was reading. Still, I was able to understand what she was saying, and she was most definitely prepared. She knew her topic very well and made it easy for me, someone who knows nothing about this incident, to understand and follow along. She was very informed and confident when explaining the plot and connecting it to our government class. She even suggested a couple sites about the topic in case I did not understand. These did, in fact, help me to further understand the topic. I found it very interesting how the documentary talked about the ATF using children as bait. They forced tear gas onto children so Davidian parents felt pressured to plead guilty in trial. The film sounded a little interesting. I do not know if I will take the time to watch it, though. Christina talked about the strengths and weaknesses in great detail. The strengths included the detailed facts it gave to prove the Davidians innocent. Its weaknesses included the fact that they failed to tell the side of the ATF. This is understandable, though, because the documentary was made to prove the innocence of the Davidians. I learned how unfair the government can be at times. This is actually unsettling. I think Christina did a very good job, and I am glad I was able to evaluate her vlog.
ReplyDelete1.The main theme of the film was explained more clearly as the vlog went on but in the beginning she dove right into the facts and it was a little confusing. As she continued to explain the case and who the Davidians were the theme and what the documentary was about became inherently clear. I understood the main theme to be that the Davidians were a cult led by David Koresh who believed that he was the messiah. David and his followers were stockpiling guns and the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Agency) got a warrant to search their homes for guns that were believed to be a danger to the public by the bureau. Shots were fired at the siege but no one knows who fired the first shot. The ATF then injected tear gas into the place of residence in an attempt to lure David and his followers out of the building so they could all be tried in a court of law. Because the tear gas was so flammable the building caught on fire killing David and women and children. The ATF said that the Davidians lit the compound on fire on purpose for suicide reasons. This siege lasted for 52 days until the fire. Christina then goes on to say that a trial was held to find out the facts of what happened. She never said what the outcome of the trial was but that the documentary portrayed the Davidians as victims and innocent in this matter.
ReplyDelete2. Christina had consistent pacing that was easy to understand and follow as she spoke. The volume was satisfactory in that she was not too loud or quiet. She seemed prepared but she also seemed like she was reading off of her computer as she was speaking. So she was prepared in the fact that she seemed like she had a script. She also took the time to look up articles on the subject and post them under her vlog.
3. She definitely seemed informed and confident but she misspoke occasionally but it was not detrimental to review and she recovered every time she fumbled. As previously stated she seemed informed but she also seemed like she was reading off of something.
4. Christina makes an argument that according to the documentary the Davidians were innocent victims to a greedy bureau looking for media and more funding. However, she does say that the documentary is heavily biased toward the Davidians. She maintains they’re innocence in not firing the first shot and not being a danger to the community with their guns. Another argument she makes is that the Davidians believed that because they held beliefs that were not normal in society they were being persecuted because of it.
5. The film did sound interesting but sad as Christina points out. The weaknesses she describes are the heavy bias toward the Davidians and the confusing chronology of the documentary. Christina said that the film was interesting and engaging but sad and she did not really point out any strengths other than that she seemed to enjoy the film.
6. I gleaned that still today there is controversy about who fired the first shot and I inferred that from what Christina said it was never uncovered during the trial. I also picked up that the ATF never wanted to kill any of the Davidians because they wanted them to stand trial but as Christina said the siege lasted for 50 some days and it did not look like they were coming out. In the beginning of her review she has a little slide that announces the name of the film and she also adds articles to help remedy one of the flaws she found with the documentary which I thought was helpful and noteworthy to her dedication to the project.