June Non-Fiction Blog Post

            This week I read “Tornado Devastates Oklahoma Town” by Kelli Plasket, on the recent tornado in Oklahoma. The overall main idea was that the tornado caused a lot of damage to Moore, Oklahoma (the town it was located in) and it’s people. President Obama said the tornado was a ‘major disaster’ and that the city, Moore, “needs to get everything it needs right away”. The tornado was a category 4, the ‘second-most powerful type of twister’, and the winds got up to 200 miles per hour. Moore contains 41,000 people, of which about 24 were killed, and at least 120 people were injured. These details tell me that it was recognized nation-wide, that it was a dangerous twister, and that there were serious repercussions.

            The author wants readers to think that it was a devastating tornado that drastically affected Moore’s community. They also want us to feel sympathetic towards the people of Moore, and bad for the friends and families of casualties. The author describes the aftermath of the tornado, when injured people were transferred to stable hospitals, or when rescuers saved children from schools and returned them to their parents, in order to make us think and feel these things. The author also includes a first hand account of the tornado from Betty Snider, that it was “the loudest roar I’ve ever heard in my life.” These details help us realize what it was actually like being in the tornado, and what it was like after the tornado, and how things didn’t just go back to normal.

            After reading this article, I’ll take away the fact that experiencing a drastic natural disaster is life changing, and that things don’t just go back to normal once it’s over, it lingers and leaves a mark. I now think that towns that have experienced any kind of natural disaster let alone a tornado, should get as much help as they need right away. We should never assume a town is back to normal until it’s certain, and all obstacles have been overcome and taken care of. I’d still like to know how children are responding to this. Do they have a better understanding of it since they were in the tornado than adults who weren’t?

http://www.timeforkids.com/news/tornado-devastates-oklahoma-town/93961

May Non-Fiction Blog Post

This week I  read “Private eyes: Parents using hidden cameras to monitor nannies, baby sitters” by Ryan Haggerty, a reporter at the Chicago Tribune. It was mainly about how some parents install video cameras to see whether their babysitters are mistreating their children or not when they aren’t home. It also touched upon whether it was ethical or not, but remained very unbiased. The article quotes “Harold J. Krent, the dean of the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law” to say that hidden cameras may not be ethical, even though they’re legal. This shows the side of the article that is against the cameras.  This quote from the article, ‘“Frankly, people do things in front of cameras," Myers said. "Despite the fact that there are cameras, they either forget about them or they don't think you're watching them."’ shows how the article is unbiased, because it doesn’t say that it’s good to install cameras and to see what really bad things are happening, but it also doesn’t say it’s a bad thing either. Another quote from the article ‘"I think it's a sign of respect," Krent said. "You wouldn't want a nanny to work there if they felt uncomfortable that they were being videotaped."’ shows the side of the article that is pro-cameras. Since there are both pros and cons to the cameras in the article, and an unbiased opinion at the same time, it all evens out to make an unbiased article. The details help readers choose what “side” they’re on, if any, and show the reasons behind why some people install cameras, whether they’re hidden or in plain sight.

            The author wants readers to think that installing cameras to “spy” on babysitters is quite controversial, since there are two very valid opinions presented in the article. Since it’s very unbiased, they want readers to feel conflicted between whether to install and camera or not if they have children, and maybe even feel concerned that their babysitter is harming their child without their knowing it. The author achieves this by providing opinions from both sides of the issue, and including incidents where babysitters have been caught hurting children on camera. “On Thursday, a Chicago nanny was charged with aggravated battery after she allegedly was caught by a hidden camera choking and shaking a 15-month-old girl.

Also Thursday, a woman in Ohio was convicted, based on video captured by a hidden camera, of smothering the children she was baby-sitting to stop them from crying. Earlier this month, a Long Island nanny was charged after video allegedly showed her drugging an infant to keep the girl quiet.”

            After reading this article, I will take away both the pros and cons of installing a camera to “spy” on a babysitter, and even some loopholes to installing cameras, like putting them in plain sight, and telling a babysitter or nannie that they will be recorded as a sign of respect, as the article mentions, to show them they should feel comfortable with being recorded if they want to work for you. My thinking has definitely been changed, before reading this article I used to think it was unethical to record babysitters, but it was useful if you could catch them  harming your child. Now, I think installing secret cameras is unethical, but installing a camera in plain sight and telling the babysitter before they come to work is not. You can still see what they’re doing at work when you’re gone, but there’s more trust between the boss and the babysitter because they’ll know that the boss trusts the babysitter enough to tell them they’ll be recorded. So if I was to hire a babysitter, I would install a camera in plain sight, and let them know they will be recorded as a safety precaution. I’d still like to know whether there’s been an incident where a secret camera’s been installed and a babysitter harms a child, the parents find out and install a camera in plain sight, tell the babysitter, and then they stop harming the child. I’d also like to know why babysitters harm the children, and whether they harm every child they babysit. 

April Non-Fiction Blog Post

April Non-Fiction Blog Post

            This week, I read “’Bully’ Film Is Aiming To Open Some Eyes” by Andrew Atwal. The article is mostly about how “Bully”, a documentary on bullying and the experiences of five kids, who dealt with bullying, is being shown at a Library near the hometown of one of the children. It also talks about how the library hopes to educate the community about bullying, and help people who may be struggling with bullying find a solution. In the article, Kathy Jacobs, the head of the library, is quoted saying, “Our job as a library is to help educate the community,” “The subject of bullying might not be something everyone will be interested in. Some might have questions about the subject but won’t want to come in to a public viewing, so hearing about the movie might make them check it out on their own.” Atwal also wrote that Jacobs believes the movie can spark conversation between kids and their parents, who may not know the things that go on in their child’s school. The article says that Jacobs not only wants victims of bullying to tell someone about the situation, but she also wants bullies to see the harsh repercussions that are demonstrated during the movie. These three details show me how determined the library staff is to educate their community about bullying. They also show me that the movie encourages others to stop bullying, as the title states.

            The author wants readers to think they should go to the screening. (Since this seems like a local news website, the author is mostly referring to people living in the community.) He makes seeing the movie seem very positive, that it’s a good thing to do. He helps do this by including quotes from someone who’s very intent on people coming to see the movie. He only includes quotes from this person, so I wonder if maybe not so many people want to see the movie, or think the screening is a good idea. The author wants us to feel “inspired” to go see the movie, and hopefully make a difference in bullying after seeing it. ““I have all kinds of goals for the screening,” Jacobs said. “The movie is appropriate for those in upper elementary grades on through adults. I think everyone that comes to watch the film can take something away from it.”” This quote from the article shows that the majority of readers probably should attend because it’s age appropriate and you can even take something away from it. This would make me feel inspired to go, but also a bit forced at the same time. I think neither the author, nor Jacobs, is being sensitive to the reader’s feelings, past experiences, etc. I feel that the way this was worded seemed a bit forced, and made me feel obliged to go.

            From this article, I will take away the fact that a community is taking a big step forward in the fight to end bullying, by educating themselves. I will also take away the fact that something as simple as watching a movie can have such a big effect on you and make you feel like you should do something positive to help end a big issue, such as bullying. My thinking has been shaped, because while I think it’s a great movie and the community is doing a great thing by encouraging people to see the movie, the approach the author used to try to get people to come to the screening seemed very authoritarian to me. Since I saw the movie, I’d like to know how others reacted to it. It was a really powerful movie and I’d like to see whether it inspired a lot of people to do something, and whether they actually did. The movie was not shown in all public movie theaters, it was only shown in select theaters, and libraries in this case. I saw the movie on Demand, but I remember hearing controversy on the movie’s rating. It can be violent, and there is cursing in it, but the point of the movie is to have as many people see it to get educated, and rating it PG-13 or R would completely take meaning away from it, limiting the audience. I’d like to know more about the final rating and the controversy about it.

            http://www.yankton.net/community/article_86dc2cac-0075-5ac0-b301-6a729bfd4ee2.html

March Nonfiction Blog Post

            The overall main idea of “Puerto Rico hopes military can put dent in crime” by Arthur Brice, is that Puerto Rico has so much crime that they need to bring in the military to hopefully stop the crime. The article discussed why the military was being brought in, what the military is going to do, and what some locals thought about the crime. There were 807 homicides, which is a 10.5 percent increase since 2007. There are also very strong ties between the crimes and drug trafficking. Crimes have been committed for so long because the public doesn’t have much faith in the police department because of corruption with the department. These details discuss things that are happening in Puerto Rico that encourage crimes, and why military action needs to be brought in.

            The author wants readers to think that Puerto Rico is a very dangerous place where crime occurs very frequently. They also want readers to feel pity for innocent citizens in Puerto Rico who are in danger from all the relentless crime going around. The author uses quotes from people who live in Puerto Rico to make readers see what life is really like for people who live there. For example, ‘"It might help," said Tony Santiago, owner of Rent the Bike in Old San Juan. He questioned whether some of the Guard members are up to the task. "What do they do for a living," he asked. "Maybe they don't have the knowledge to handle the situation like a policeman would." No one seems to question that there's a problem and that something needs to be done about it.’

            From this article, I will take away the fact that crime is already alarmingly high in Puerto Rico, but that it seems to increase every year. I also learned that Puerto Rico’s location has a lot to do with the crime going on. My thinking has been shaped, because I feel bad for the innocent citizens of Puerto Rico who are in danger, but I also feel bad for the people committing the crimes because sometimes, the amount of crime is related to the location of Puerto Rico. My thinking has been changed, because now that I know that many crimes are related to drug trafficking, I think they can be avoided, and that people can know better. I’d like to if there’s more crime in cities than in the countryside, because they interviewed someone who lived in the countryside who said they weren’t really affected by it, yet they’re forming a neighborhood watch. Those things seem contradictory, and I’d like to find out more about that.