Day 1 Post

note: my w key has been sticking, so sometimes I have to hit it really hard to get it to work.  I don't always notice when it doesn't work, so please ignore any missing w's

Yesterday in class, we had a paper to fill out about things like the Monroe Doctrine.  We decided whether each thing was an example of the US being a good neighbor, an imperial power, or possibly even both.

Today in class, e had a debate about the Bush Doctrine.  We were split into groups consisting of someone representing the pro side, someone representing the con side, and one or two judges.  After we finished the debate in our groups, the judges formed their own group and discussed hat they heard in the debates.  The judges then came to a conclusion based on hich side was more convincing.
I was a judge.  In the end, I chose the pro side as the more convincing side.  In the debate I was a part of, the con side really only had two arguments, and both were extremely weak.  One was that it damages international relations and upsets other countries.  This is a legitimate concern, but if there is a serious threat against the country we can't afford to worry too much about upsetting other countries, especially those which are not involved.  The other argument was that it gets us into wars.  This is not a good argument because if another country is making violent threats against us, we're headed for ar hether we like it or not.  The pro side had much better points.  The points made focused on the safety of our country and of others more so than the feelings of other countries.  What I liked about the things that the pro side said was that they weren't saying extreme things like "If a country threatens the US in any way we should bomb them immediately," or "All countries should be democracies like wonderful America!"  Instead, it was much more moderate and reasonable.  The said that with the Bush Doctrine we wouldn't respond that harshly to threats unless there was definite proof that the other country would annihilate us if we did not make a move.  Instead, milder approaches would be taken to discourage the other country from taking action against us.  As for the government thing, the pro in my group said that it would only happen if the safety, happiness, and general well-being of the people of that country was being extremely negatively impacted by the current government of that country.  I liked these arguments because not only were they reasonable, but they were what I like to think the Bush Doctrine was meant to be: not a way to justify going around and bombing people and overthrowing every government that isn't like ours, but to protect the safety of our country and to help people who want and need our help.
In the end, I chose the pro side.  I am surprised that more of the judges, especially the judge who was in my group for the original debate, did not choose the pro side as well.  There did not seem to be many good arguments for the con side. I suppose that is a matter of opinion though.

game

My game is done.  At first, scratch was frustrating.  Then I liked it.  Then it got frustrating again once i started running out of time.  I think I fixed all of the issues with the game (such as the deer), but it's possible that I missed one or two.  I'm going to go through it again tomorrow when I can hopefully think straight just in case.

Link to game: http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/jmacey72/3310948